Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220: Context and Function 1784911518, 9781784911515

Citation preview

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220 Context and Function Elizabeth Brophy

Archaeopress Egyptology 10

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220 Context and Function Elizabeth Brophy

Archaeopress Egyptology 10

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978 1 78491 151 5 ISBN 978 1 78491 152 2 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and E Brophy 2015 Cover image: East Sphinx and the Column of Diocletian at the Serapeum in Alexandria Photo: E Brophy

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproducedor transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Acknowledgements Many thanks to my supervisors Prof. Bert Smith and Prof John Baines, both of whom have guided and advised me throughout this research. Thanks also to Dr. Elizabeth Frood, Dr Peter Stewart, Dr Maria Stamatopoulou, and Dr Peter Thonemann, all of whom read sections of this book and advised me during my transfer and confirmation. And Dr Robert Simpson who helped me gain insight and knowledge into the wider subject of Egyptology. Final thanks to the many people who supported me throughout this study and read multiple drafts, especially John and Geraldine Brophy, Laura Wood, Christina Jose, Zena Kamash, and many others.

Contents Acknowledgements�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������E Chapter 1: Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Previous Scholarship������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1 Approach������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 2 Chapter 2: Textual Sources����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 A. Literary sources��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 A.2. Discussion of Literary sources�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 A.3. Literary Sources: Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 B. Priestly Decrees��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 B.2. Discussion of priestly decrees������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 C. Commissioning statues�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 D. Textual Sources: Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 Chapter 3: Cult Statues�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 A. Cult Statues of the Ptolemies in Egyptian temples�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 A.1. Egyptian cult statues��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 A.2. Cults of the Ptolemies������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 A.3. Arsinoe II and other single cults��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 A.4. Inside the temple��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 A.5. Leaving the temple����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 A.6. Cult statues in Egyptian temples: Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 30 B. Greek cult statues of the Ptolemies�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 B.1. Greek cult statues ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 B.2. Greek cults of the Ptolemies��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30 B.3. Thmuis������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 31 B.4. Hermopolis Magna����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 B.5. Serapeum triad������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 33 B.6. Greek cult statues: Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 34 C. Imperial cult statues������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 C.1. Imperial cult and cult statues�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 C.2. Imperial cult in Egypt������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 C.3. Karnak������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 C.4. Other Imperial statues used in cult in Egypt��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 C.5. Caesarea���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 C.6. In Egyptian temples���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 C.7. Imperial cult statues: Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39 Chapter 4: Categories and Contexts������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 A. Categories of royal statue���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 B. Egyptian temples����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41 C. Metropoleis�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 D. Other contexts���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 E. Categories and context��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 F. Categories and Contexts: Conclusion���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 Chapter 5: Environment of Royal statues and Egyptian Statues with Greek Features������������������������������������������������ 50 A. Environment of the Metropoleis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 B.1. Environment in the Temples: Medinet Madi and Tebtunis����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51 B.2. Location and Environment in the Egyptian Temples�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 52 B.3. Egyptian statues with Greek features�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 B.4. Egyptian statues with Greek inscriptions�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 54 C. Audience and Ethnicity�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55 D. Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55 Chapter 6: Functions of Royal Statues���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56 A. Statue functions in the Metropoleis������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56

i

B.1. Statue functions in Egyptian temples�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56 B.2. Roman statues and Egyptian temples ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 57 C. Statue Function: Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 58 Chapter 7: Alexandria���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 A.1. Royal statues of Ptolemaic Alexandria����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 A.2. The Serapeum������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 A.3. Underwater Ptolemaic statues: The Pharos and Royal Harbour��������������������������������������������������������������������� 62 A.4. The Hadra Dyad���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 64 A.5. Other material and contexts���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 B.1. Imperial statues in Roman Alexandria������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 65 B.2. Central area����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 B.3. Antirhodos Island�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 66 B.4. Numismatic evidence for Imperial statues������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 66 C. Pre-Ptolemaic sculpture in Alexandria�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 66 D. Alexandria: Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68 Chapter 8: Outside Egypt����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 A. Meroe����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 B. Statues in Italy��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 C. Other locations��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 70 D. Outside Egypt: Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 Chapter 9 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 72 Abbreviations���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 74 Bibliography������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 75 Catalogue�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������84

ii

List of Maps and Figures Map 1. Egypt (All sites labelled with black dots provide evidence of royal sculpture) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� vi Map 2: Find spots of the Priestly Decrees throughout Egypt ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������8 Figure 1. The Mendes Decree�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������10 Figure 2. a and b; The Raphia Decree�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12 Figure 3 Rosetta Stone���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Figure 4. Philae Decrees on Birthhouse��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 Figure 5. The Pithom Stele���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������17 Figure 6. Procession of priests carrying shrines, on the staircase to the roof at Dendera���������������������������������������������������������������������18 Figure 7. Plan of Temple of Horus at Edfu����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������19 Figure 8. Falcon Headed Deity����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������24 Figure 9. Offerings to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II by Ptolemy III; Gate of Euergetes, Karnak��������������������������������������������������������������������25 Figure 10. Ptolemy VIII and his wives receive royal status, interior wall relief, Kom Ombo�������������������������������������������������������������������25 Figure 11. Stele showing Tanite triad with Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, from Tanis��������������������������������������������������������������������������������26 Figure 12.a Statue of an Aphrodite from Athribis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 Figure 12.b Head of a female (goddess) from Athribis���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 Figure 13. Temple of Augustus at Philae������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Figure 14. Temple of Serapis, Luxor��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Figure 15. Ram-headed sphinxes lining the dromos of Karnak��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������41 Figure 16. Layout of Temple of Amun at Tanis ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 Figure 17. Sphinxes and colossi defining the dromos and entrance of the Temple of Luxor������������������������������������������������������������������43 Figure 18. House structures of Karanis���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������48 Figure 19. Zeus wearing Atef Crown ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������51 Figure 20. a and b Standing Male from Tebtunis������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������52 Figure 21. Standing statue feet in situ, from Tebtunis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 Map 3. Layout of Alexandria�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������59 Figure 22. Plan of the Serapeum, Ptolemaic period ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������61 Figure 23. Ancient and Modern Coastline of Alexandria with relevant areas labelled���������������������������������������������������������������������������63 Figure 24. Two coins of Commemorative Arches from c. AD 81-138 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������67 Table 1: The distribution of the different categories of royal statue throughout the regions of Egypt.�������������������������������������������������73

iii

Map 1. Egypt (All sites labelled with black dots provide evidence of royal sculpture) (Image: Author)

iv

Chapter 1

Introduction The primary aim of this book is to approach Ptolemaic and Imperial royal sculpture in Egypt from a contextual point of view. To treat the available sculptural material from an archaeological perspective, and to use this to consider their distribution, style, placement, and functions, so as to bring a new dimension to the wider understandings of these statues. To this end, the aim of this study is to focus on the sculptural material that is identifiably ‘royal’, dates between 300 BC and AD 220 (between the rules of Ptolemy I and Caracalla), and has an archaeological context; a secure find spot or recoverable provenance within Egypt. The sculptures themselves include full statues, fragmentary heads, and inscribed bases, and can be recognised as ‘large scale’ material, identified as statue heads no smaller than 15 cm. Due to this limit, smaller faience and terracotta heads or figurines will not be discussed, nor will the ‘small Alexander heads’ from Alexandria.1 Sphinxes with human heads identified as being from the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods are included as they traditionally represent the king. Because of these restrictions the sculptural material available is limited, as many examples do not have a secure context or find spot. This criterion provides a group of 157 statuary items that are presented in 103 catalogue entries. There are exceptions to every rule, and in this discussion there are two objects that do not fit the criteria but have been included for specific reasons. The first is a Ptolemaic head (41) from the site of Karanis in the Fayoum region which, though smaller than the identified size, has been included due to its unusual and well-documented find spot. The second is the head of Augustus (96) in the British Museum from the site of Meroe in the Sudan. This head is not from Egypt, but has been included because its original location was most likely in Upper Egypt, and it too has a well-documented and discussed provenance. In analysing this material, I focus on a number of questions and themes. The principal questions I consider are: where were the statues placed? How did the statues fit into their contexts? What was the relationship between statue category and context? What, if any, changes can be identified over time, particularly between Ptolemaic and Imperial rule? And what does this show regarding the function and purpose of these statues in Egypt? Alongside these questions I also consider the commissioning of the statues and the role of audience. Previous Scholarship Previous research has taken a primarily stylistic approach to royal statues, focusing on identities and attributes, 1

Kyrieleis 1975; Laube 2012.

1

and placing them within a socio-political and artistic context. They have also divided the material by cultural style, analysing Greek and Egyptian material separately, creating two distinct spheres of scholarship. The major area of discussion has been the extent to which influence between the two stylistic traditions can be identified. Bernard Bothmer’s catalogue Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period 700-100 BC (1969) was one of the first to bring together a collection of Ptolemaic sculpture, including royal material. Bothmer argued that Greek influence could be identified in Egyptian sculpture. In his study of Ptolemaic portraits, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer (1975), Helmut Kyrieleis analysed Ptolemaic Greek-style material, producing a comprehensive catalogue of statues, heads, and figurines. His emphasis was on portrait analysis, and continued the idea that there was a ‘mixed’ style in the material, combining Greek and Egyptian forms. Robert Bianchi argued against this concept in Cleopatra’s Egypt (1988), claiming that what had been identified as Greek influence actually had its roots in more ‘realistic’ Dynastic sculpture, meaning material from the prePtolemaic or ‘pharaonic’ eras of Egypt. In the same year, Bert Smith produced his Hellenistic Royal Portraits dedicating a significant proportion to the discussion of Ptolemaic Greek and hard stone Egyptian sculpture. In his analysis, Smith writes that the idea of a ‘mixed’ statuary group is misleading, as there is only evidence for the use of Greek features on Egyptian statues, confined to the head. Jack Josephson’s work, Egyptian Royal Sculpture of the Late Period, 400-246 BC (1997) returned to Bothmer’s earlier view (that Greek influence can be identified in Egyptian sculpture) and through focusing on fourth and third century BC sculpture provides a clearer picture of the relationship between 30th Dynasty and early Ptolemaic material. At the Fifth International Congress of Italian Egyptian Studies entitled Faraoni come dei, Tolemei come Faraoni (2005) edited by Anna Maria Donadoni Roveri, a range of Ptolemaic and early Imperial sculpture and associated themes were discussed alongside general questions concerning Ptolemaic Egypt More recently, two works have focused specifically on Egyptian statues and the question of Greek interaction. Sally-Ann Ashton’s monograph, Ptolemaic Royal Statues from Egypt: The Interaction between Greek and Egyptian Traditions (2002) focused on the mixture of different styles and why this evolved. Paul Stanwick in Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs (2002), has provided the most up-to-date and comprehensive catalogue of Egyptian- style Ptolemaic royal statues. He also considered the role of placement and context in relation to

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

statue function, on both a geographic and general level. He noted several trends in the sculpture relating to differences in style, material, and quality throughout Egypt.

Tebtunis in the Fayoum. In Chapter Six, I analyse the relationship between context and function, identifying how style and placement is an instrinsic part of how the royal statue is expected to function. I also discuss some of the more unusual elements of the evidence, such as Roman classical structures and sculpture located next to Egyptian ones.

Imperial statues from Egypt have received less attention in scholarship. The earliest work, Paul Graindor’s Bustes et statues-portraits d’Égypte Romaine (1937), provides a small catalogue of Roman era sculpture, including a group of Imperial portraits. The only major work focusing solely on Imperial statues in Egypt is Zsolt Kiss’ Etudes sur le portrait imperial romain en Egypte (1984) in which he provides a comprehensive catalogue of Roman royal sculpture, though several identifications are questionable. Imperial imagery is found in other catalogues, such as Günter Grimm’s Kunst der Ptolemaer-und Romerzeit im Agyptischen Museum Kairo (1975).

Chapter Seven focuses on Alexandria, and recent work by Jean-Yves Empereur, Franck Goddio, and Judith McKenzie has produced a clearer picture of its environment. I have purposely chosen to focus on Alexandria last due to its position as both a central yet liminal city in Egypt. I have also chosen to analyse the city separately because of its material; it provides a high proportion of the evidence and a range of different statuary categories (seen in Table 1). In analysing the material from Alexandria, I not only identify context, placement, and environment within the city, but also attempt to identify whether this fits into the patterns observed in the rest of Egypt.

Approach In order to analyse the evidence and answer my research questions, I approach the available material from both a thematic and geographical framework. The chapters of the book are thematic, each focusing on a different area, whilst the catalogue presents the material in a geographical format, culminating in Alexandria, mirroring that citys place as ‘outside’ Egypt, and its location as a chapter in itself. The chapters themselves are also divided, with the first two providing background to the creation, style, and historical and cultural environment of Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt, and the following chapters focusing on the catalogue material, ending with Alexandria and the outside world. I provide a brief outline of each chapter below.

I end by discussing the material found outside Egypt. This material reinforces several of the arguments and patterns concerning placement and style, demonstrating a cohesive picture of context throughout this study.

In Chapter Two: the Textual Sources I analyse the principal textual evidence (narratives, inscriptions, and letters) that provide descriptions of various royal statues and their contexts. These sources act as a gateway into understanding placement and function, providing insight into the amount of material that existed in Egypt, where it was located, and how and why it was created. Chapter Three focuses on the Cult Statues, for which there is little sculptural evidence. Ruler cult and Imperial cult were popular forms of worship during this period, with three different traditions (Egyptian, Greek, Roman) present in Egypt. Statues related to them can be identified in texts and archaeological material. In looking at this material, the aim is to build up a picture of these various cults, and the statues position within them. Chapter Four begins the focus on the material in the catalogue. Entitled Categories and Contexts, my aim here is to establish the different categories of statue and the principal locations for statue placement. Chapter Five is focused on the discussion of the surroundings or environment of the royal statues, and in identifying the relationship of this environment to the statues themselves. I also use this chapter as an opportunity to discuss the Egyptian Statues with Greek features, focusing on the collection that exist at the sites of Medinet Madi and

2

Chapter 2

Textual Sources From Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt come a range of inscriptions, ostraca, and papyri documents, alongside a number of external narrative descriptions, that build up a picture of the country; its population, religions, and tax system. Many of these sources also provide brief references to royal statues; to creation, style, and context. The aim of this chapter is to identify and discuss the most relevant of these sources. In order to achieve this, I divide the material into two sections. The first focuses on a selection of literary sources that provide evidence for a range of different statue styles, contexts, and individuals. The second section concerns a collection of royal and religious inscriptions known as the priestly decrees. For each section I describe the evidence provided by each source, before discussing the material together in more detail. A. Literary sources The first section concerns a collection of otherwise unrelated documents here connected by the detailed information they provide regarding royal sculpture and its context. These sources are composed of inscriptions, letters, and books, and date from the third century BC to the fourth century AD. These include three focused on Ptolemaic sculpture - Libanius, Athenaeus and Senoucheri - and two concerned with Imperial statues - the Letter of the Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians and a group of tax receipts from Elephantine. I also note the nature of other useful literary sources and how they contribute to this topic. A.1.1.Pseudo-Nicolaus [Libanius] Progymnasmata The first source is present in the Progymnasmata of the Greek rhetorician Libanius of Antioch (AD 314-393).2 The section under consideration here has been attributed to Pseudo-Nicolaus, the author of a late Antique or Byzantine collection of progymnasmata.3 The passage in question describes the Temple of Tyche in Alexandria and the statues that stood within it. The passage describes the temple as an enclosure in the middle of the city, adjacent or adjoined to the Museion. It states that the temple was circular and ‘divided into semi-circles’ with jutting columns which functioned ‘as receptacles for statues [of the gods]...not all but twelve in number’.4 The passage goes on to state that one of the 2 Text: Libanius Descriptiones, 25 - Foerster 1927, 529-531; Fraser 1972, n.417; Gibson 2007, 452-454. Text and translation: Gibson 2008, 486491. Discussion; Fraser 1972, n.417; Stewart 1993, 244; McKenzie 2007, 244; Gibson 2007, 431-454. 3 Gibson 2007, 433. 4 Gibson 2008, 489, L 3-5.

3

‘column capital holds the Founder...and he stands there, himself bearing a token of Soter.’5 This has been interpreted by a number of scholars, including Judith McKenzie, to refer to a statue of Ptolemy I.6 It should be noted that other scholars, such as Craig Gibson, interpret this line as referring to a statue of Alexander the Great.7 Other statues in the temple included a complex group of Ge crowning Alexander the Great, and being crowned by Tyche, while surrounded by statues of Victory.8 The passage ends by describing two more statues, ‘one man philosophises on a chair at one end, while another stands naked at the other.’9 This passage describes a highly complex and decorated structure, more likely attributable to the fourth century AD building than the Hellenistic one, due to the date of the source and the nature of the building design.10 This structure most likely succeeded an earlier temple, and the sculpture described here can be attributed to the earlier structure given its emphasis on Alexander the Great. Though there is some discussion as to whether the text does refer to a statue of Ptolemy I, the presence of such a statue is possible given the king’s focus on the surrounding structures and his own associations with both Tyche and Alexander. This text appears to place an image of Ptolemy I in one of the major monuments of Alexandria, closely associated with the Museion, and in relation to a number of other divine and royal images. A.1.2.Callixeinus of Rhodes’ On Alexandria in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists One of the most substantial and detailed literary sources comes from Athenaeus of Naucratis (AD c.200).11 His work, the Deipnosophists, focuses on three fictional banquets in which a range of topics are discussed by the learned guests. It provides a substantial collection of excerpts from other sources, citing 1250 authors.12 Among these are two passages from Callixeinus of Rhodes’ work On Alexandria from the third century BC that refer to the presence of royal sculpture. The first passage describes the Great Procession and the second the Riverboat of Ptolemy IV.13

Gibson, 2008, 489, L 5. McKenzie 2007, 244. 7 Gibson 2008, 489, n.89. 8 Gibson 2008, 491, L 6-7. 9 Gibson 2008, 491, L7. 10 Fraser 1972, n.417; Gibson 2007, 433. 11 Text: Trans Olson 2006, Athenaeus Deinosophists Book 5; All translations in text taken from here. Alternative translations given in footnotes. For Procession see: Rice 1983. 12 OCD3 202. 13 Procession: 197c-203b; Riverboat: 204d-206d. 5 6

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

The first passage concerns the Great Procession of Alexandria, which took place some time between c.280275 BC.14 This text is the earliest and fullest account of a Greek religious procession from the classical world and its description provides an insight into the display and resources that went into similar events.15 The Great Procession is actually composed of a number of separate processions dedicated to different gods which included exotic animals, vast quantities of food and wine, and enormous amounts of gold and silver – one section describes how ‘Four large gold tripods followed in the procession; also a gold storage chest for gold vessels, which was set with precious stones... Also two cup-stands and two gilded vessels made of glass; two gold stands four cubits high’’.16

wood, gilt, and ivory, with dining rooms, bedrooms, and a peristyle court.21 A recreation can be seen in Günter Grimm’s Alexandria: Die erste Königsstadt der hellenistischen Welt and in Michael Pfrommer’s Alexandria: Im Schatten der Pyramiden.22 In one of the rooms, dedicated to Dionysus, an exedra had been constructed, decorated with gold and jewels, and ‘portrait-statues of the royal family fashioned from translucent marble were set inside it’.23 This family group at least included Ptolemy IV, his sister-wife Arsinoe III, and their son, and may have included one or all of the three previous royal couples. Such royal family groupings are known from the Hellenistic period, with examples including those of the Philippeion at Olympia and the ancestors of Antigonas Gonatas on Delos.24 There are also examples from Egypt, such as a group excavated by Campbell Cowan Edgar at Tell Timai composed of a number of gods, a portrait of Alexander, and Ptolemaic royal portraits identified as Ptolemy III, Berenike II, Ptolemy IV, Arsinoe III, and Arsinoe II (28).25

Amongst all this display there were numerous representations of the gods, as well as statues of the royal family. One section describes the presence of a divine group in the Dionysiac procession including ‘statues of Alexander and Ptolemy wearing ivy garlands made of gold’ forming a group alongside Arete, Priapus, and Corinth.17 The exact make-up of this group is difficult to identify due to a lacuna in the text.18 In a later section, focusing on victors of the contests and a crowning ceremony, the text notes that ‘Ptolemy I and Berenike were honoured with three portrait-statues carried on gold carts, as well as with precincts at Dodona’ and ‘Ptolemy Philadelphus, their son, was honoured with two gold portrait-statues carried on gold carts and set on columns’.19 As with the previous episode, the text in this passage is difficult to understand, and Ellen Rice suggests it might not have been part of the procession but a description of another event.20

There are a number of practical issues attached to the placement of a statue group in the Riverboat of Ptolemy IV, particularly when following the reconstruction of Pfrommer and Grimm. There are the issues of balance and weight, with a group of ‘translucent marble’ statues being placed along one side of the first floor of the boat, making it liable to tip or sink. This is further stressed in the reconstruction by Grimm in which the statue group is composed not only of the first four Ptolemaic couples, but also with statues of Alexander the Great, Herakles, Zeus, and Dionysos, making a total of 12 statues.26 There is no evidence to suggest these gods were present, though they are associated with the Ptolemies. Most likely, any statues on the boat would have been under life-size, and while the heads and extremeties would have been of marble, the bodies themselves would have been constructed of a lighter material, probably wood. A comparable statue group from Egypt is that from Tell Timai (28), where the statues would have only reached approximately 50 cm in height, and the surviving material included the marble heads and arms of the statues.

The description of the Great Procession provides evidence for approximately nine golden Ptolemaic royal sculptures; the statue of Ptolemy in procession, three statues for Ptolemy I and Berenike I, and the two statues for Ptolemy II. These statues were created for a specific purpose and occupied a specific context as seen in the text. The text is only an extract by Athenaeus from a longer work of Callixeinus, both of whom chose what to describe. Therefore, this text provides only a small insight into the scale of the procession and the images of the Ptolemies present there.

The Riverboat passage does not go into detail describing the statues. The focus of the passage is on the Riverboat itself, and provides a detailed insight into the contexts of some of these royal images.

The Riverboat of Ptolemy IV is described as a highly decorated, ornate structure, a two-storey ship made of Rice 1983, 185. Rice 1983, 1-2. 16 199f-200a; Rice 1983, 14-15’Next in the procession were four large three-legged tables of gold, and a golden jewel-encrusted chest...two cup stands, two gilded glass vessels, two golden stands for vessels’; Olson 2006, 464-465. 17 201d-201e; Rice 1983, 20-21 ‘statues of Alexander and Ptolemy wreathed in ivy crowns’. Discussion of statues used: Rice 1983, 102-110; Olson 2006, 470-471. 18 Rice 1983, 102. 19 203a-b; Rice 1983, 24-25 ‘Ptolemy I and Berenike were honoured with three statues in golden chariots with precincts at Dodona’ and that ‘their son Ptolemy Philadelphus was honoured with two golden statues on golden chariots and with others on columns’; Olson 2006, 476- 477. 20 Rice 1983, 126. 14

A.1.3. Senoucheri’s inscription at Koptos

15

The next source is very different from the previous two; it is a basalt hieroglyphic inscription from the third 204e-206d; Olson 2006, 482-491; McKenzie 2007, 62-64. Grimm 1998, 60-63; Pfrommer 1999, 93-95. 23 205f; Olson 2006, 488-489. 24 Smith 1988, 21-22. 25 Edgar 1909, 1-13; Lembke 2002, 113-146. Other examples in the catalogue include 68 and 78 (both also concern Ptolemy IV, Arsinoe III, and Ptolemy V). 26 Grimm 1998, 61, fig 70. 21 22

4

Textual Sources

century BC set up at the temple of Min at Koptos by the official Senoucheri (or Senenshepsu) during the reign of Ptolemy II.27 In it, Senoucheri describes his positions within Ptolemaic Egypt and the duties he performed at the sanctuary, including the erection of statues. The inscription most likely comes from a statue of Senoucheri set up in the sanctuary.28

Antonia II, his wife Messalina, and his children, Octavia, Antonia III, and Britannicus.34 This group is also seen on a number of tetradrachms produced in Alexandria between AD 41-43.35 The next image referred to is one or two golden statues of Claudius to be carried through the city on his monthly name days. This is accompanied by the announcement that a statue of the Augustan Peace will be erected in Rome, creating a direct link to the city. The use of these golden images in a procession is reminiscent of the Ptolemaic statues present in the Great Procession (described above). These statues are followed by permission to ‘erect the equestrian statues given by Vitrasius Pollio my procurator.’

In the inscription, Senoucheri describes how he constructed a wall around the temple, built a pylon tower on the north of the dromos, and made ‘a shrine of basalt for Horus’.29 He states that he set up ‘statues of the King…and images of the Queen’.30 The king can be identified from the text as Ptolemy II, though the identity of the queen is more problematic. She is only called Arsinoe and is not given the title of sister, leading to the question of whether it is Ptolemy’s first wife (Arsinoe I) or his later deified sister queen (Arsinoe II).31 Both Flinders Petrie and Alan Lloyd suggest that the text refers to Arsinoe I, who was confined to the area around Koptos after the end of her marriage, and that Senoucheri was her keeper.32

The final honour that Claudius accepts is the ‘erection of statues in four-horse chariots which you wish to set up to me at the entrances of the country, I consent to let one be placed at the town called Taposiris in Libya, another at Pharus in Alexandria, and a third at Pelusium in Egypt’.36 This provides a distinctive image type and a number of contexts for the statues around Egypt. This letter suggests that placing sculpture at the entrances of a country is an appropriate thing to do.

The inscription of Senoucheri refers to a group of royal statues, most likely Egyptian-style, and shows they were set up at an Egyptian sanctuary. The text provides a general description of some parts of the temple (those endowed by Senoucheri) and the festivals that took place. It also provides an insight into how and why certain royal statues came to be created and set up, in this case by a royal official. There is no description of the statues, except the statement that there was more than one pair.

The Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians provides a number of Imperial images to consider, including a family group, equestrian images, golden statues, and chariot statues. Little information is provided concerning the actual context of these images, since they are simply labelled as being placed in Alexandria, but their description points to a variety of Imperial imagery in the city.

A.1.4. Letter from Claudius to the Alexandrians

A.1.5. Tax ostraca

In AD 41 an embassy was sent by the Alexandrians to Rome to the newly installed Emperor Claudius to bestow honours upon him and to request his intervention in problems arising in the city.33 Upon the death of Caligula, the tense relationship between the Greek and Jewish population in Alexandria had erupted into riots and massacres. The Alexandrians were hoping to persuade Claudius to side with them against the Jews. The letter that survives is Claudius’ response to this embassy, dated 10th November. Copies were set up around Alexandria. In his letter, Claudius responds point by point to the honours being offered, including four different statue types to be erected in Alexandria and Egypt.

From Thebes and Elephantine come a small collection of ostraca that are receipts for a special tax (μερισμός) for the provision or renovation of Imperial images andrias (ἀνδριάς), meaning portrait statue, and protomē (προτομή), usually referring to a bust.37 The ostraca date from between the reigns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, though Fishwick suggests this is an accident of evidence and the tax could have been in place much earlier.38 The majority of the receipts are concerned with information regarding the tax and statues, and provide little concerning the images themselves. There is one example that refers to an andrias of Trajan being placed in an Imperial temple, a Caesareum, suggesting they were cult, or cultic, images.39 A temple apparently dedicated to Trajan has been identified in Elephantine in papyrus documents and in the archaeological record.40

The first statue honour Claudius accepts is ‘the erection by you in several places statues of myself and my family’. No other detail is provided. Charles Rose suggests this points to a Claudian family group being erected somewhere in Alexandria, and that it consisted of Claudius, his mother Trans: Petrie 1896, 19-21; Discussion: Lloyd 2002. Petrie 1896, 19. 29 Petrie 1896, 20, L17-21. 30 Petrie 1896, 20, C 1 L 1. 31 Petrie 1896, 21; identified as Arsinoe I; Quaegebeur 1998, No.83. 32 Petrie 1896, 21; Lloyd 2002, 125-127. 33 Text, Trans and Discussion: Rose 1997, No.128, 186-188; Trans: Lewis and Reinhold 1999, no.76.

Rose 1997, 188. Miln 1971, 3; Trillmich 1978, 156-160; Rose 1997, 188. 36 Lewis and Reinhold 1999, no.76. 37 Wilcken 1899, 152-155, no.94, 100, 105, 151, 249, 254; Wallace 1939, 159-162; Fishwick 1989. 38 Fishwick 1989, 335-336. 39 Wallace 1939, 159; Fishwick 1989, 336. 40 Ubertini 2005, 75; Pfeiffer 2010, 244.

27

34

28

35

5

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

The ostraca demonstrate the presence of Imperial images in precious metals in the south of Egypt occupying religious sanctuaries. They also show there was a centralised system for providing and maintaining these images.

is observed with the sculpture at the Tycheum, in the Great Procession, at the temple of Min at Kotpos, and in the tax receipt of Elephantine.45 This focus on placing imagery within religious spaces is reflective of both Greek and Egyptian traditions, in which temples, and other religious areas, play host to a variety of non-divine representations and votives.

A.1.6. Other sources When considering context there are a number of other literary sources that should be taken into account, though they provide only fleeting references to particular statues. Examples include passages from Philo’s letters where he states that the Caesareum in Alexandria had a ‘girdle of pictures and statues’ and a fragment from the accounts of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Arsinoe which mentions ‘the piece of iron removed…from the machine constructed to facilitate the erection of the divine colossal statue of our lord the emperor Severus Antoninus [Caracalla]’ pointing to the presence of such a statue at the site.41 Neither of these sources provide direct evidence for specific statues or specific contexts, but they do afford a general view of the range of imagery that existed, and supply descriptions of the type of contexts such sculpture occupied (in both cases temples).

The actual religious context of each text is very different, and reflects different areas of religious display within Ptolemaic Egypt: the Greek sanctuary, the Egyptian temple, and the moving procession. The sculptures of each of these contexts were specifically designed to fit into that space. In both the description of the procession and the deeds of Senoucheri, it is clear the images were created for these events and areas.46 The statues are directly linked to the contexts they are set up in, and this is reflected in their style (Egyptian-style, Greek-style) and their specific placement. This is best illustrated with the statues and busts referred to in the tax receipts, that were meant to be placed in Imperial temples and whose identifications in the text and their descriptions (being gold and silver) demonstrates they were made to fit into such a context.47

This is also seen in other literary material, the texts and inscriptions that form the main corpus of the ancient sources. These do not describe statues, but do provide detailed information concerning context on a larger scale. One of the best examples is Strabo’s Geography 17.1, which contains a detailed, if imperfect, description of Alexandria and other key areas in Egypt at the turn of the first century.42 Other sources include temple texts, such as the construction text of Edfu, located on the temple’s exterior wall, which describes the different rooms and their functions.43 There are also census papyri fragments from the Fayoum, the study of which provides an insight into the make-up of the population of Egypt.44

These areas are more than religious spaces, they are also public spaces. The procession was designed to be seen by the population of Alexandria and any visitors to the city. The reference to the statues set up by Senoucheri suggests they would have been visible within the temple (as his own statue would have been).48 Not all religious spaces were accessible to the general public, the Egyptian temple, for example, had varying levels of accessibility, with only the forecourt open to the masses.49 The majority of those religious spaces referred to in the texts discussed here are areas for worship where individuals could interact with the deity. They were places where these statues were meant to be seen by large groups and interacted with.

A.2. Discussion of Literary sources

Placing these statues in these spaces also meant there was interaction within a specific spatial framework, one that already had a function, as the place of the deity. The placement of royal statues here demonstrated the relationship between the ruler and the deity in question. This is seen with the placement of Ptolemy I’s statues in the Procession and Tycheum which associate him with Alexander the Great and a number of gods, emphasising his position as Alexander’s legitimate heir and his divine lineage.50 The same principle was at work in the placement of Ptolemy II’s statues at the temple of Min at Koptos, though here it was also linking the king and queen to past pharaohs.51 Positioning the statue in such contexts

The literary sources identified here provide a varying (and sometimes limited) amount of information regarding royal statues; little is given concerning their style, substance, or attributes. The focus of theses sources is not on the statues themselves, but on the structures they occupied, the material that surrounded them, and their purpose. From the texts there can be identified three principal types of context; the religious, the royal, and the urban, as well as a small group of singular contextual examples. I now discuss each of these areas in more detail, using them to highlight the major trends identifiable in the textual evidence. A.2.1. Religious context

45 Tycheum: Libanius Descriptiones, 25 - Foerster 1927, 529-531; Fraser 1972, n.417; Temple of Min: Petrie 1896, 20, C 1 L 1; Tax reciept: Wallace 1939, 159; Fishwick 1989, 336. 46 Petrie 1896, 19-21. 47 Fishwick 1989. 48 Petrie 1896, 20, L 1. 49 Robins 2005, 8-9; Goebs 2007, 276-8. 50 Stewart 1993, 244. 51 Petrie 1896, 19-21; Koptos’ past: Galliano and Gabolde 2000.

The principal context identified in the literary sources is religious, locating the statues within a religious space. This Philo Embassy to Gaius, 151; Select Papyri II no.404. Strabo Geography, 17.1. 43 Kurth 2004. 44 Bagnall and Frier 1994; Clarysse and Thompson 2006. 41 42

6

Textual Sources

was even a way of hinting at the ruler’s own divinity by associating them directly with the religious space

the wife of Ptolemy II and the mother of Ptolemy III, but instead Ptolemy II’s second wife (and sister) Arsinoe II is shown, and is even given the title ‘mother’ relating to Ptolemy III.55 The familial sculpture of the Ptolemies found on the Riverboat, in the Tycheum, and in Thmuis (28) aim at reinforcing a particular memory and concept regarding the Ptolemaic dynasty, that they are strong, united, and unbroken.

One of the notable aspects of this context is the emphasis placed on group imagery. None of the Ptolemaic statues stand alone in these texts. Rather, they form one element of large groups, usually involving divine or familial figures. From a contextual point of view, this shows the statues did not stand in isolation, but were part of more complex imagery. It also shows that the function of these statues was partially linked to associating the Ptolemaic individual or group with the others represented. The familial group presents a united royal couple to the world, and focuses on showing the strength of the dynasty. These elements are also observable in non-religious contexts, such as on the Riverboat of Ptolemy IV and in the Letter of Claudius.52

A.2.3. Urban context The urban context is the final element to consider. By urban, I am referring to those statues that can only be identified as being set up in a city but have no other contextual information. This is best illustrated in the Letter of Claudius where most of the statues are meant to stand in Alexandria, though there are no directions as to where they should be placed within the city.56 Presumably this was left to the Alexandrians to decide.

A.2.2. Royal context The second context observed in the literary sources is the royal context. By this I mean the private contexts of the Ptolemies and the royal court, specifically the Riverboat of Ptolemy IV.53 Unlike the previous area, this is not a context provided for public consumption, but for a select group of family and members of the court.

For this context, information is derived from other literary sources. The Letter of Claudius provides no information, but the description of Strabo offers an outline of the city including a gymnasium, ‘magnificent public precincts and palaces’, and claims that ‘the city is full of dedications and sanctuaries.’57 This provides the urban context for these statues, offering an idea of the world of images, monuments, and structures that the statues of Claudius and his family were joining.

From the description of the boat given above it is clear this context was exceptionally ostentatious and fully displayed the power and wealth of the Ptolemies. The familial group of royal statues are part of this display, fitting in alongside the tholos of Aphrodite and the Egyptian dining room as evidence of the wealth and power of the ruling dynasty. This type of demonstration of power, through objects and decoration, is also observable in the Great Procession.

To an extent, the description of the Great Procession can also be identified as an urban context as it is situated in Alexandria. The procession is focused on the city, allowing the population to witness and enjoy the spectacle. The procession even interacted with structures of the city, such as leaving a garland at the shrine of Berenike.58 The context of the Great Procession, and its royal statues, is Alexandria itself.

The description of this space, and others such as the Pavilion of Ptolemy II also described in Athenaeus by Callixeinus, leads to the consideration of other types of royal contexts, for which little evidence survives.54 The display of a royal dynastic group on the Riverboat to select visitors suggests that such imagery was also found in the royal palaces of Alexandria or Memphis, and the same luxurious surroundings were also present.

The amount of royal imagery that existed in Alexandria is unknown but as the principal city it no doubt contained a large amount. This was a public context, open to view on a daily basis, demonstrating the power and rule of the royal group. The statues of Claudius present in the city were requested by the Alexandrians themselves, showing an acceptance of, and wider interaction with, royal sculpture as a means of representing the relationship between the city and ruler. The material of Alexandria also points to the existence of similar sculpture in other urban centres of Egypt, such as at Hermopolis Magna (see Chapter 6).

The material present on the Riverboat, and in the Procession, are also representations of Ptolemaic group imagery. This type of familial representaion not only aims at displaying the dynasty, but can also be linked to ideas of created memory. In the representation of deceased family members the concept of memory, or memorium, is clear, the statues act as a reminder of past individuals. More than this though, such family groups aim at showing a memory of the past with a united family and strong dynasty. This concept can be seen when consideration is given to the absence of Arsinoe I in any family sculpture; she was

Hölbl 2001, 36. For examples of references to the Ptolemaic family group without Arsinoe I see the Canopus Decree or the scene of offerings made by Ptolemy III to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II on the Gate of Euergetes at Karnak (fig. 13). 56 Lewis and Reinhold 1999, no.76. 57 Strabo 17.1. 58 Athenaeus Book 5, 202d; Translations: Rice 1983, 22-23; Olson 2006, 474-475; Discussion of Procession: Hölbl 2001, 94; Weber 2010, 65. 55

Riverboat of Ptolemy IV: Olson 2006, 204d-206d; Letter of Claudius: Lewis and Reinhold 1999, no.76. 53 Olson 2006, 204d-206d. 54 Pavilion of Ptolemy II: Athenaeus Book 5 196-197c; Olson 2006, 446455. 52

7

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Map 2: Find spots of the Priestly Decrees throughout Egypt (Image: Author)

8

Textual Sources

surrounding the decrees concerns which script was the original: Greek, the official language of the administration (Letronne 1942) or Demotic, the primary language of the priests (Mahaffy 1895), or Hieroglyphs the sacred script of Egypt.62 The decrees themselves do not provide clear answers. Their form and nature are similar to Greek city decrees, especially voting honours for the monarchs, yet their content clearly shows Egyptian attitudes, for example, how they describe the roles of the king.63 Further, it is difficult to apply one concept to the entire group of decrees. Robert Simpson suggests that while the Canopus Decree is more Greek in its form and content, the others reflect Demotic input.64 Added to this is the question of who wrote the decrees - the Egyptian clergy or the Greek administration? Willy Clarysse argues that even if it were the priests, there is no reason they would not have been able to write in Greek.65 The only consensus is that all versions must have undergone multiple drafts in all scripts.

A.2.4. Other contexts I conclude by briefly discussing the statues that do not fit into these contextual areas, the only example being the chariot statues of Claudius located at the entrances of Egypt.59 This is a dynamic statue type, with a long history in Greek imagery, and setting it in such locations was symbolic of Claudius’ control of Egypt. It should be noted that no chariot statues have been identified in Egypt. A.3. Literary Sources: Conclusion From the literary sources can be identified a number of different statues and their contexts. The religious, royal, and urban contexts of the images all have precedents in both Greek and Egyptian imagery, and display statues specifically created for these contexts. The sources show that within these contexts, there was an emphasis on displaying the wealth, power, and associations of the ruling group, not only through the physical decoration of structures but also through the proclivity for group imagery, placing emphasis on familial and divine ties.

Between them, Werner Huss and Willy Clarysse have identified more than eleven different decrees dating from the reign of Ptolemy II to the reign of Ptolemy VI or the end of the second century BC.66 Of these, six are almost complete; the Mendes decree (270-246 BC), the Canopus decree (238 BC), the Raphia decree (217 BC), the Memphis decree (196 BC), the Second Philae decree (186 BC), and the First Philae decree (185/4 BC). Copies of these decrees have been found throughout Egypt pointing to wide dissemination of the text (Map 2).67 The remaining decrees are fragmentary and provide little information.

B. Priestly Decrees The second group of sources are the priestly decrees. They offer an invaluable starting point from which to study royal sculpture as they detail the creation of such statues by the king and the clergy, describing the material, purpose, ideology, and location of a variety of Egyptianstyle images.60 They also provide an insight into the relationship and interactions between king and clergy, as well as supplementing the wider understanding of cultic development and historical events.

B.1.1. Mendes decree The Mendes decree is one of the earliest known decrees, and comes from one copy made of quartzite, H. 148 cm W. 77 cm (fig. 1).68 It was published under a synod called to Mendes by Ptolemy II some time between 270-246 BC.69 The reason for the synod was the enthronement of the Sacred Ram, but it was also used as the moment for the deification of Arsinoe II. The decree provides an insight into the relationship of one temple institution with the king, and offers details about the deification of the deceased queen.70 The images of Arsinoe II created with this deification are the focus here.

The decrees themselves are records of the decisions made by a national synod of priests convened by the Ptolemaic kings. The synods, a development of the Ptolemaic period, were usually called because of an important event, such as a military victory. The decrees are concerned with a number of topics, such as religious reform, but primarily focus on describing the actions of the king and queen and the honours the priests have decided to confer on them. They generally follow the same basic structure; a prescript, providing a detailed dating formula and identifying the publishing body (the priests); a statement, including information concerning the activities of the king, describing his beneficence and military valour; a decision section describing the honours that are being given to the king (and queen) in recognition of his services; and details of publication which draws the decree to a close, establishing where the decree is to be set up and the scripts it is to be published in.61

The decree specifically refers to a statue of Arsinoe II being ordered by the king following her deification as a temple-sharing goddess. The decree states that a gilded image is to be set up in the shrines of all the temples of Egypt alongside the other gods.71 62 General discussion of arguments concerning language: Simpson 1996, 22-24; Clarysse 1999, 41-62. 63 Simpson 1996, 22. 64 Simpson 1996, 23. 65 Clarysse 1999, 54. 66 Huss 1991, Table 201-203; Clarysse 1999, Table 42-43. 67 Stanwick 2002, 7. 68 Text and Translation of the Mendes Decree: Meulenaere Mendes II, 174-177. 69 Huss 1991, 189-190. 70 L11-14. 71 L13-14.

The priestly decrees were tri-scriptal documents written in Hieroglyphs, Demotic, and Greek. The major debate Lewis and Reinhold 1999, no.76. Discussion of the decrees: Onasch 1976; Huss 1991; Simpson 1996, 1-24; Clarysse 1999. 61 Onasch 1976, 140; Simpson 1996, 22. 59 60

9

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 1. The Mendes Decree (Meulenaere 1965, pl 1; © Brooklyn Museum)

This is not the only image identified in the Mendes decree; there is also a relief preserved above the text (fig. 1). The relief shows Ptolemy II making offerings to the Ram of Mendes and other gods. Behind the king stands Arsinoe II and Ptolemy ‘the son’, and on the right behind the Ram of Mendes stands Harpokrates, the deceased Ram of Mendes, Hatmehit (the nome’s goddess), and the goddess Arsinoe II.72 This image is not described in the decree, but can be related to other reliefs such as that on the Pithom Decree (fig. 5).73 This was also issued under Ptolemy II, and shows three scenes where the king is making offerings to a line of gods; two of these scenes include Arsinoe II as a goddess and one shows Ptolemy II offering to a king, possibly

Ptolemy I.74 The publication section of the Mendes decree is no longer extant. The decree provides two different types of images and two different contexts. It establishes the cult statue of the new goddess, Arsinoe Philadelphus, states the statue is to be located in the shrine, and provides the stele relief. In this instance, the images of the queen are commanded by the king, not bestowed by the priests.75 This illustrates how the deification of Arsinoe II was an act of policy on the part of Ptolemy II.

Quaegebeur 1978, 249-250; Hölbl 2001, 84. The Pithom Stele; Naville 1903, 18-21; for other examples of reliefs see; for Ptolemaic: Quaegebeur 1978, 249-250; for Egyptian: Valbelle 1999, 85-90; for Persian: Briant 1999, 91-115.

72 73

74 75

10

Naville 1903, 18-19. L11.

Textual Sources

The Canopus decree provides details for two separate images of the princess in relation to her cult. The first image follows a brief description of the honours for her, and states there should be made

B.1.2. Canopus decree The Canopus decree was issued under Ptolemy III on the 7th March 238 BC by a synod convened in Canopus.76 It is preserved in six copies:

‘a sacred statue of her of gold inlaid with precious stones in each of the temples of the first and second class and set it up in the holy place…under the name Berenike, Mistress of Virgins.’82

1. Stele from Kom el-Hisn, discovered 1881 (Cairo Museum; CG22186, JE37548), limestone. H. 202 cm L. 95 cm W. 70 cm. All three scripts are preserved with Hieroglyphs at the top, Demotic in the middle, and Greek at the bottom. The relief above the text is also preserved.77 2. Stele from Tanis, discovered 1861 (Cairo Museum; CG22187, JE22261), limestone. H. 220 cm L. 79 cm W. 32 cm. All three scripts are preserved, but with Hieroglyphs and Greek on the front face, and Demotic on the left side. There is a winged sun disk at the top, but no relief.78 3. Stele from Cairo, discovered 1800 (Louvre C122), basalt. H. 195 cm L. 40 cm W. 30 cm. It is in poor condition as it was used as a threshold in a mosque. Only the right half now remains visible. Part of a relief and the three texts can be seen. 4. Stele from Karnak, discovered 1929 (set up in front of third pylon of Karnak Temple), red granite. H. 223 cm L. 159 cm W. 55 cm. The text is mostly illegible, having been defaced in antiquity. The Hieroglyphic text and 5 lines of Demotic are present, but work appears to have stopped. There is space for the rest of the text but no evidence of it. 5. Fragment from Elkab, discovered 1946 (Cairo Museum 17/3/46/1), sandstone. H. 21 cm L. 13 cm W. 16 cm. It appears to be the right hand edge of the stele. On one face are four lines of Hieroglyphs, and on the other side nine lines of Greek, both of which correspond to parts in the Kom el Hisn copy.79 6. Fragment from Tell Basta, discovered 1929 (Port Said Museum no.493), black granite, irregular shape, the remaining inscription is approximately 20 x 17 cm. This is a middle part of the stele preserving eight lines of Hieroglyphs which correspond to part of the Kom el-Hisn copy.

The decree then continues to describe the cultic rituals that should be performed to the statue, its role in festival processions, and the type of crown the statue should wear (which is specifically noted as being different from her mother’s, Berenike II).83 For the second image, the decree states ‘the daughters of the priests shall make another statue of Berenike Mistress of Virgins, to which they shall likewise perform a sacrifice and all the other customary celebrations for this festival’.84 The Canopus decree’s concluding publication section is clear that the decree is to be put up in the most conspicuous part of the temple.85 There is a surviving relief found on the Kom el-Hisn copy of the decree. On the left from the centre it shows Ptolemy III, Berenike II, Thoth, Seshat, Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, and Ptolemy I and Berenike I; all the Ptolemaic couples, depicted in Egyptian form, hold the divine attributes of the ankh and sceptre.86 The Ptolemies stand on the left facing seven gods of Egypt on the right. This image was not prescribed in the decree. The Canopus decree describes the material, iconography, context, and worship of one image, and the creation and context of another. The cult statue of the princess is, like that of Arsinoe II in the Mendes decree, to be located in the shrines of Egyptian temples. The image made by the daughters of the priests appears, from the description of its worship, to have had a more public role, though its exact context is not described. The stelae also have a different context in relation to the two statues, as they are to be located in a conspicuous part of the temple.

The synod had assembled at Canopus for a number of reasons, including the birthday and jubilee of the king, but was primarily concerned with reform; the increase of the priestly phylai to five and altering the calendar to stabilise the celebration of festivals.80 The decree states that while the synod was in session, the Princess Berenike died and so the priests agreed, with the approval of the king and queen, to make her a goddess.81

The Canopus decree also hints at another set of images. It specifically states the crown of the princess will be different from her mother’s, Berenike II (seen in the relief on the Kom el-Hisn stele). This suggests that there needed to be a differentiation between the two, and that a similar cult statue of her mother existed in the shrines. By this time Ptolemy III and Berenike II were acknowledged as the Theoi Euergetai in both Egyptian and Greek ruler worship, and would therefore have their own cult statues

76 Text: Demotic: Simpson 1996, 224-239 (Kom el Hisn stele and Tanis Stele); Greek (text and commentary); Bernand 1992, no.8-10, vol I 2235, vol II 30-36 Translations: unless stated otherwise, all quotes are taken from the translated version of the Greek (G) Austin 2006, no.271; the comparative Demotic lines are also noted in the footnotes (D) and refer to Simpson. 77 Bernand 1992, no.8, 22-27. 78 Bernand 1992, no.9, 28-34. 79 Bernand 1992, no.10, 34-35. 80 G L25-45; D L25-45. 81 G L45-55; D L45-54.

G L59-64; D L58-64. G L61-62; D L61-62. G L65; D L65. 85 G L74-75; D L74. 86 Quaegebeur 1978, 247 - notes that this is our first representation of the first Ptolemaic Queen, though it is in a later document; Hölbl 2001, 107. 82 83 84

11

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 2. a and b;The Raphia Decree; Mit Raphina Stele with detail of the relief; Ptolemy IV on horseback with spear and Arsinoe III behind. (Hölbl 2001, 163; © Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

in the temples. The decree provides an idea of the nature of shrines for the Ptolemies, and the imagery employed to distinguish between them.

Syrian War, the occasion for the synod, which the decree describes in detail.88 The decree is known from three fragmented copies, and though tri-scriptal, only the Demotic is preserved enough to be of use:

B.1.3. Raphia decree The Raphia decree was issued under Ptolemy IV on the 15th November 217 BC in Memphis.87 It takes its name from the victory of the battle of Raphia in the Fourth

1. Stele from Pithom, discovered 1923 (Tell elMaskhuta) (Cairo Museum; CG50048, JE47806), limestone. H. 63 cm L. 61.5 cm W. 16 cm. Only the upper portion is preserved. On the front is a relief scene of the king on horseback, beneath this is the

Text and Translation: Simpson 1996, 242-257 (Tell el-Maskhuta stela and Mit Raphina Stele) – all quotes are from Simpson’s translation; for translation of the few Greek fragments see Bernand 1992, no.12-14, vol I 37-41, vol II 37-44.

87

88

12

L9-26.

Textual Sources

Hieroglyphic text with three complete and eight incomplete lines. The rear face has the Demotic text, which is complete but for the first nine and last ten incomplete lines. The Greek was on the sides, but is unclear.89 2. Fragment from Kom el-Qala’a at Mit Rahina, purchased 1902 (Cairo Museum; CG31088, JE35635), basalt. H. 32 cm L. 43 cm W. 35 cm. This is the upper left corner of the stele. On the front is part of a relief and the beginning of the Hieroglyphic text, while on the back face is the end of the Demotic text and eight lines of Greek (fig. 2).90 3. Fragment from Tod, current location unknown, limestone. H. 47 cm L. 27 cm W. ?. This fragment is now lost and only known from a photograph. It is the left edge of the front face of a stele, and it appears to have had all the texts on the front. Only the last twenty lines of the Demotic and first six of the Greek survive.91

an Egyptian deity holding the prisoner in front. The king himself is on horseback and dressed in Macedonian style, wearing a cuirass. There is another version of the relief on the decree from Mit Rahina. It is damaged and simpler, but it too shows a queen behind Ptolemy IV seated on a rearing horse with a lance, this time clad in Egyptian attire (fig. 2).95 This image of the king recalls Greek equestrian statues.96 The publication section of the Raphia decree is lost. The Raphia decree presents two new groups of images, both of which relate to the victory at Raphia, the reason for the synod. First, the statue group, providing a detailed picture of the characteristics, style, location, and cultic attention give to these statues. This is the first instance where an image is described as being located in the most conspicuous part of the temple. In the second, the decree offers a first description of the accompanying relief, one that has a direct link to what is discussed in the text military victory. This image utilises Graeco-Macedonian features, such as equestrian imagery, as well as Egyptian style to create a new image to convey familiar and traditional messages.97

The Raphia decree is different from both the Mendes and Canopus decrees in the number of images it concerns, and why these images are being produced (not due to deification). It signals the beginning of a group of decrees that follow a similar formula, and describe the same category of statues.

The Raphia decree is not complete. There are several lines that are damaged or missing. From these areas can be identified two further references to images. Firstly, after the description of the relief there is mention of a procession in which ‘the shrine of the Father-Loving gods should be taken.’98 This is similar to later decrees, particularly the Memphis decree, where cult images are described in the same terms as being part of festival processions.99 This appears to be what is referred to here. It is possible that the decree also alludes to a second image. Towards the end of the decree there is a reference to the creation of something (there is a lacuna in the text at this point) to be made by the priests, scribes, and rest of the people which can receive offerings.100 In his translation, Simpson suggests that it is a statue that is being made and worshipped, a parallel with the images made for the Princess Berenike by the priest’s daughters in the Canopus Decree.101 If these are statues, then there are two more statues and contexts in this decree; the first being the private cult statue, comparable with those in the Mendes and Canopus decrees, and the second referring to a form of domestic ruler cult, though one which is being created by the state in association with the temples.

The Raphia decree describes two sets of images. For the first, the decree states ‘that a statue should be set up for King Ptolemy… which should be called Ptolemy who has vindicated his father, whose prowess is fine, and a statue of his sister Arsinoe, the Father-Loving Gods…they being made in the manner of Egyptian work, and a statue should be produced of the local god of the temple, and it should be placed upon the base on which the statue of the king stands…giving to him a scimitar of valour.’92 The decree states this triad is to be set up in the most public part of the temples. This statue group is to be attended by the priests three times a day, and receive the same service as other statues of the gods out in the open.93 The next image to be described is the relief above the text. It describes the king:

B.1.4. Memphis decree

‘wearing his panoply of war and crowned with a diadem…and smiting a kneeling figure with the lance which he holds in accordance with what happened to the king who prevailed in battle.’94

The Memphis decree was issued under Ptolemy V on the 27th March 196 BC in Memphis.102 It is preserved in four copies; Hölbl 2001, 162-165. Laubscher 1991, 226-227 – he suggests this equestrian image was fairly common-place. 97 For a fuller discussion of the relief see Thissen 1966, 71-73 and 80-84; Laubscher 1991, 226-227. 98 L37-39. 99 Memphis H L8; D L25; G L42. 100 L 41-42. 101 Raphia: L41-42 Canopus: G L65; D L65. 102 Text: Greek text and commentary: Bernand 1992, no.16-18, vol I 4457, vol II 46-56 (includes French translation), Demotic text: Simpson 95 96

The image is preserved on the stele from Pithom; the king is central with a woman (Arsinoe III?) behind and Bernand 1992, no.14, 37-43. Bernand 1992, no.13, 37. Bernand 1992, no.12, 37. 92 L32-34. 93 L35. 94 L35-37. 89 90 91

13

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 3 Rosetta Stone, British Museum (Digital Image, British Museum, AN00016456_004; © Trustees of the British Museum)

1. Stele from Rosetta, discovered 1799 (British Museum EA24), granodiorite. H. 118 cm L. 77 cm W. 30 cm. The top and bottom are lost, but the rest is in good condition. All three texts are on the front face, first Hieroglyphs, then Demotic, and then Greek (fig. 3).103

2. Stele from El-Nobaira, discovered 1884 (Cairo Museum: CG22188 JE37592), sandstone. H. 127 cm L. 51 cm W. ?. Only the Hieroglyphic version of the text is present below a relief of the king and gods. This stele is a version of the decree from 183 BC, fourteen years after the synod, and so has some changes and omissions. 3. Stele from Nub Taha, discovered 1923 (GraecoRoman Museum Alexandria, 21352), basalt. H. 120 cm L. 77 cm W. 22 cm. This is in poor condition having been used as an oil press. The front face now

1996, 258-271. Translations: Quirke and Andrews 1988, Hieroglyphics (H), Demotic (D) and Greek (G), 16-22; Another Greek translation Austin 2006, no.283. Another Demotic translation – Simpson 1996, 258-271 – all quotes are taken from the Greek translation of the Rosetta Stone by Quirke and Andrews, comparative lines of Demotic (D) and Hieroglyphs (H) are given in the footnotes. 103 Quirke and Andrews 1988, 16-22; Bernand 1992, no.16, 44-49.

14

Textual Sources

has no inscription, and the back is unfinished. The sides preserved the beginning of the Greek text.104 4. Fragments from Elephantine, discovered 1907-8 (Louvre AF10006), sandstone. H. 16.5 cm L. 17 cm W. 6 cm. The fragments consist of eleven lines of Demotic that correspond to the Rosetta stone. There are also two other fragments from Elephantine in the Louvre (AF10007; E12677 sizes: various) which appear to belong to the same stele.105

B.1.5. Second Philae decree The Second decree of Philae is actually the earlier of the two priestly decrees from the temple of Isis; the name is due to an error in dating during initial studies, but has since been maintained for clarity.113 The decree is only known from one source at Philae where it is inscribed on the western curtain wall of the Mammisi (birthhouse), overlooking the peristyle court of the temple (fig. 4; cat site. 26). The publication section states it is to be published in Hieroglyphics, Demotic, and Greek, though there is no evidence of Greek at the site.114 The decree, and its neighbour, are both badly damaged due to a relief of Ptolemy XII cutting through them.

The reason for the synod was the coronation of Ptolemy V, as well as the establishment of his cult.106 This decree is central to the debate concerning the change in balance of power between the monarchy and the clergy, and the socalled ‘Egyptianisation’ of the Ptolemies.107 It is similar in form to the Raphia decree.

The decree was issued under Ptolemy V on the 6th September 186 BC in Alexandria.115 It is primarily concerned with describing the victory over the rebellious south, after Upper Egypt seceded from the rest of Egypt with a separate line of pharaohs, and the restoration of Ptolemaic rule.116 To this end the decree is partly concerned with restoring royal authority and focuses on the introduction of royal cult.

The Memphis decree deals specifically with two images of Ptolemy V. The first is: ‘to set up an image of the ever-living king Ptolemy… in each temple in the most conspicuous place, which is to be called Ptolemy, defender of Egypt, next to which shall be set the principal god of the temple giving him a weapon conductive to victory which are to be sculpted after the Egyptian fashion.’108

The decree describes three types of image. The first is the same statue group as that in the Raphia and Memphis decrees; the decree states that there should be

This is almost exactly the same as the group in the Raphia decree, and was also to be attended by the priests three times a day.109 The second image, which is missing but suspected in the Raphia decree, is the creation of a cult statue ‘and a gold shrine in each of the temples, and to install it in the sanctuaries with the other shrines’ that should be taken out in processions.110 This is followed by a detailed description of the shrine and what its iconography represents.111

‘set up a statue of the king…Ptolemy…called Ptolemy Lord of Victory, and an image of his sister-wife… Cleopatra, the Gods Epiphanes, in the two-fold holiest places of every adytum…in the court of the multitude of the temple, in work of sculptors of Egypt. And be set up an image of the local god...’ 117 The god is to present the king with a sword. The second image is the relief on the stele, which corresponds closely to the relief associated with the Raphia decree, with the king ‘slaying an enemy while there is the local god giving to him a royal scimitar of victory.’118 This does not survive.

Towards the end of the Memphis decree there is reference to worship by private individuals: ‘and it will be permitted for other private individuals to celebrate the festival and to set up for themselves the aforementioned shrine and to keep it in their homes.’112 This section does not refer to a statue, but to a shrine, suggesting that some form of domestic ruler cult is taking place. Such a shrine could have contained a royal statue. This is similar in form to the damaged section at the end of the Raphia decree. In the Memphis decree, there are two separate images being presented, with two different contexts and purposes; the more visual statue group to be placed in the Egyptian temples and the cult statue to be placed within the shrine and only come out during festivals.

The third set of images concerns the cult statues of the king and queen. This set of statues is difficult to identify fully due to a lacuna in the text. The decree does state that when a [cult] statue of the king is to be brought out on processions, so should the [cult] statue of the queen. Further, the queen is to receive special honours in which her [cult] statue is to be carried out every year and a half.119 The decree does not state where these statues are to be located.

Bernand 1992, no.17, 50-53. 105 Bernand 1992, no.18, 54-57. 106 G L8; D L5. 107 Onasch 1978, 137-155; Johnson 1995, 145-155. 108 G L38-39; D L22-23; H L6. 109 G L40; D L23-24; H L7. 110 G L41-43; D L24-25: H L7-8. 111 G L43-46; D L25-28; H L9-10. 112 G L52-53; D L31-32; H L13-14.

113 Text and Translations: Müller 1920, Hieroglyphs (H) and Demotic (D) 57-88 – all quotes from here; given the damaged nature of the text the best rendered quote will be used, this will be footnoted and its comparative other given alongside it. 114 Simpson 1996, 5-6. 115 Huss 1991, 196; Simpson 1996, 5-6. 116 H L4c-5d; D L3h-4c. 117 H L13f-14e; D L11c-11h. 118 H L15b; D L12d. 119 H L16d-17c; D L13g-14c.

104

15

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 4. Philae Decrees on Birthhouse (© Author - digitally combined image)

The Second Philae decree presents what are now familiar groups of images. The victorious king group to be located in a public court, a victorious relief on the decree which is also to be located in the court, and the cult statues.

The final decree of the synodal group succinctly shows three of the major image categories that exist in the decrees and their contexts. B.1.7. Karnak decree

B.1.6. First Philae decree

Alongside the synodal priestly decrees there is one other decree that is included here as it too describes a set of royal statues and their location. The Karnak Decree was found in four fragments along the dromos of the Temple of Amun at Karnak.123 The decree, which is only preserved in Greek, was issued by the Theban clergy and follows a similar formula to the synodal decrees. Its preserved publication section describes it as tri-scriptal.124 The date of the decree is an area of debate, though its reference to a Cleopatra does narrow the possibilities; the main contenders are Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I or Ptolemy VII and Cleopatra II.125

The first decree of Philae was published a year after the second in c.185 BC in Memphis.120 It is known from two copies: 1. Inscription from Philae; inscribed on the Mammisi wall to the right (north) of the Second decree. It has preserved seventeen lines of Hieroglyphs, sixteen lines of Demotic, and no evidence of Greek (fig .4). 2. Fragment from Dendera, discovered 1950, sandstone. H. 32 cm L. 51 cm, W. 8 cm; the upper left text of a stele with thirteen lines of Hieroglyphs, and the bottom of a scene just visible.

In the two fragments labelled C and D of the stele, the decree deals with one set of images. It states that statues of the king and queen are to be created of black stone, five cubits high, and they are to be placed in the same location as the stele, in a conspicuous place on the dromos of Amun.126

The occasion of the decree was the enthronement of a new Apis Bull, but the decree is also a re-issue of the Memphis decree of 196 BC which now extends the honours granted to the king to the queen, Cleopatra I, and creates a new festival for her. The First Philae decree is only concerned with images of Cleopatra I, primarily in adding them to the already existent ones of her husband. The first image is a statue of the queen to be set up alongside the group of her husband and the local deity described in the Memphis decree.121 The second image it describes is a ‘venerable’ or cultic one which is to be brought out with the statue of the king and other gods during processions. This is followed by a detailed description of the gold shrine inlaid with precious stones to be created for the statues of the king and queen, which will reside in the holiest place with the other gods.122

The Karnak decree presents information concerning the specific location, material and style of these two statues. It is noteworthy that it comes from a local temple clergy, rather than a national synod, and so highlights the creation of royal sculpture on a local level.

Text and Translation: Müller,1920, Hieroglyphs (H) and Demotic (D), 31-56 - all quotes from here; given the damaged nature of the text the best rendered quote will be used, this will be footnoted first and its comparative other given alongside it. 121 1Philae H L9b-10a, D L9f-10d; Memphis H L6-7; D L22-24; G L3841. 122 H L11a-11d; D L11e-11g.

123 Text, Translation and Discussion: Wagner 1971, 1-38 – all references from here, and the line numbers correspond to those for the fragments C and D; Bingen 2002, 295-302 – re-orders the fragments. 124 Wagner 1971, 4; Fragments C and D L16-18. 125 Wagner 1971, 21 – Ptolemy V; Bingen 2002, 300-302 – Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II. 126 Wagner 1971, 20; Fragments C and D L20-21.

B.2. Discussion of priestly decrees In analysing the priestly decrees it is possible to identify five different types of image: the cult statue, the statue group, the Karnak couple, the reliefs on the stelae, and the

120

16

Textual Sources

Figure 5. The Pithom Stele: left scene Ptolemy II (on left) offering to a king (probably Ptolemy I; middle scene Ptolemy II offering to the gods Tum, Hathor, and Arsinoe; right scene faces the opposite direction, Ptolemy II (far right) offering Ma’at to the gods Tum, Osiris, Harmachis, Hathor, and Arsinoe. (Naville 1903, pl 8; © Egyptian Exploration Society)

images (or shrines) to be created by others. All the images come with a specified context and a prescription as to how they should be treated. I now discuss these types in more depth, focusing on the language and terminology used so as to gain a clearer understanding of the imagery and their context.

in the decrees, given their various meanings, demonstrates that these statues are specifically cult statues. This is further attested by the descriptions that state they are to be made of gold and precious stones. In the Canopus decree princess Berenike’s statue is described as being of ‘gold inlaid with precious stones’ and in the First Philae decree it is stated that the ‘the statues of the gods of Egypt’ are of gold and precious stones.131 The traditional cult statues of Egypt were made of such precious materials.132

B.2.1. Cult statues The ‘cult statue’ type can be identified in almost every decree. This is unsurprising given they are often concerned with the establishment of royal cult in the Egyptian temples. That these images can be thought of as cult statues, meaning specifically the holy images of a deity or principal images for the focus of a cult, is seen through the language used. In the Canopus decree the statue of princess Berenike is referred to as agalma, meaning a sacred statue for the gods, while in the Memphis decree the statue of Ptolemy V is called xoanon, a term that specifically refers to an archaic sacred image.127 Neither of these terms specifically mean cult statue, but can be used to refer to such images. For both decrees, the Demotic sḫm nṯr and Hieroglyphic sḫm ḫw are used.128 The term sḫm, used in both texts, originally meant ‘might’ but by the Ptolemaic period had come to refer a statue of a deity.129 The use of the term nṯr meaning god, and ḫw meaning oneness/uniqueness, further emphasises the divine nature of the statue, and combined with sḫm was used to refer to cult statues.130 The use of all these different terms together

The context of these statues is clearly expressed in the decrees; they are to be located in their own shrine within the sanctuary (except in Canopus, where the statue of Princess Berenike is only to be set up in the sanctuary). These shrines are described as being made of gold and precious stones, the Memphis decree calls the shrine a ‘naos of gold’ and declares that it is to have specific iconography so that it is recognisable.133 The shrines were fairly small and portable and were taken out during processions.134 The type of procession meant is illustrated in the staircase reliefs from Dendera (fig. 6) which show a line of priests carrying small shrines to the roof of the temple. In identifying the location of the shrines, focus is on the word sanctuary, and the meanings of the different terms used in the decrees. In the Canopus decree, the location of the statue is described as καθιδρῦσαι ἐν τῶι ἁγίωι, meaning the statue is to be set up in a holy place, and in the Memphis Canopus; G L59-60, D L 58-59; Philae 1 H L7a-7e, D 7b-7e. Robins 2005, 4-6; See chapter 3 for more discussion. Memphis; Bernand 1992, G L41; translated as ‘a gold shrine’ in Quirke and Andrews 1988, L41. 134 Memphis G L42-43, D L25-26, H 8-9; Philae 1 H L11e-11f D L11h12a. 131

Daumas 1952, 175-176. 128 Daumas 1952, 175-176. 129 Hornung 1996, 137-139; Wilson 1997, 903; Chicago Demotic Dictionary 2001, 146. 130 Wilson 1997, 710; Chicago Demotic Dictionary 2001, 146. 127

132 133

17

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 6. Procession of priests carrying shrines, on the staircase to the roof at Dendera (© Author)

this is the statue group composed of the king, queen, and local god. There has been some question about whether this image is in fact a statue group as the words used, eikon, twt, and ẖnty can all refer to any type of image.137 Stanwick has suggested these were actually reliefs, like those found on temple pylons, such as that of Ptolemy XII at Edfu.138 This interpretation is appealing, but there are a number of problems. Firstly, these words can refer to statues, and are used to do so elsewhere in the decrees, for example in the First Philae decree where the sacred statue of the queen is referred to as twt.139 The number of images to be put up throughout the temples of Egypt makes more sense in relation to a statue group. In addition, while it is always dangerous to argue from absence of evidence, there are no examples of these particular images in relief for these particular kings in such locations. Furthermore, the decrees specify that the images must be attended by the priests three times a day in accordance with Egyptian rituals toward statues in temples, and that the royal images

decree as καθιδρῦσαι ἐν τοῖς ἀδύτοις μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ναῶν, meaning it is to be set up in the sanctuary with the other shrines. In both decrees, the terminology refers to the holy place or inner sanctuary of a temple. For almost all the decrees, the Demotic phrase used is pȝ nt wˁb, meaning literally ‘that which is pure.’135 The Hieroglyphic phrase pr-nṯr translates as god’s mansion, and refers to the inner sanctuary as well as the shrine depending on its context.136 Taken together, these phrases can only refer to one part of an Egyptian temple; the enclosed sanctuary with the principal naos of the temple deity at the centre, surrounded by shrines to the other gods who existed there as synnaoi theoi (temple-sharing gods). This was the holiest part of the temple and can be identified in the plan of Edfu as the area labelled A-M (fig. 7). These statues were cult statues in the full sense of that term, and as such they were situated in the sanctuary of the temple. B.2.2. Statue groups The second type of image appears in the three decrees from Ptolemy IV and V (Raphia, Memphis, and Philae);

Stanwick 2002, 7-8. Stanwick 2002, 7-8. 139 First Philae H L11b. 137

Chicago Demotic Dictionary 2001, 20. 136 Daumas 1952, 172; Wilson 1997, 350. 135

138

18

Textual Sources

Figure 7. Plan of Temple of Horus at Edfu (Kurth 2004, inner cover © D. Kurth)

are to be treated like those of the other gods, associating them with other Egyptian statues.140

number of areas in the temple, but by the Ptolemaic period was used on its own to refer to the front (peristyle) court.144 Following on from this, the term ḥwt-nṯr means ‘gods house’ and is specifically used to designate the temple.145 From the language of the decrees, the statue groups must be placed within the forecourt of the temple, identified in the plan of the temple of Edfu as H’ (fig. 7).

The context of the statue group is an area of some debate. The Greek phrase, ἐν τῶι ἐπιφανεστάτωι τόπωι, meaning ‘in the most conspicuous place’, is used in honorific decrees of the Greek cities during this period.141 This phrase is not very specific, and in other Greek decrees there is often an area mentioned, such as the agora. Here, it is used in relation to the Egyptian temple, but it is unclear whether it refers to the temple building or the general sanctuary. The phrase does rule out most of the main part of the temple building (the hypostyle hall, pronaos, and naos) as these areas were restricted to anyone but the priests. It focuses attention on the front court and surrounding area of the temple complex. The Demotic phrase n pȝ mȝ mȝˁ nt wnḥ n pȝ jrpy, meaning ‘the place that is most open of the temple’, is similarly vague, but useful in that it does focus on the temple itself.142 The most illuminating part is the Hieroglyphic version, wsḫt mšˁ nt ḥwt-nṯr, which translates as ‘the court of the multitude/people of the god’s house.’143 The term wsḫt, meaning ‘court’, referred to a

This is further supported by the location of the decrees themselves, which are also to be set up in the most conspicuous place. Both Philae decrees are found inscribed on the Mammisi (birth-house) wall in the forecourt of the temple of Isis, and other decrees such as the copy of the Canopus decree from the temple of Amun at Tanis come from the area of this court. The question arises as to why a more specific description was not given in the Greek version of the decree. Daumas suggests it was because the writer did not fully understand the layout and accessibility of the Egyptian temple.146 This seems unlikely as the Egyptian priests were clearly involved in the composition of the decrees. It might be that as the Greek phrase was a common one, used to identify an

Quirke 1992, 75. Examples of use of ‘the most conspicuous place’ – Decree of Ilium in honour of Antiochus I OGIS no.219; Austin 2006, no.162; Establishment of a Royal cult of Laodike OGIS no.224, Bagnall and Derow 2004, no.158. 142 Daumas 1952, 169-170; Simpson 1996. 143 Daumas 1952, 169-170; Simpson 1996. 140 141

Wilson 1997, 261-2; Konrad, 2006 77-84. Wilson 1997, 630; Konrad 2006, 8-9 - the term is attested in earlier periods from the reign of Amenhotep II at the temple of Khnum on Elephantine. 146 Daumas 1952, 171. 144 145

19

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

important place in Greek inscriptions (including religious space) it was considered appropriate for the Greek version. The Egyptian version though, chose to be more specific, employing terminology that made sense within that context.

the gods, and later of Ptolemy VIII and his wives at the same sanctuary.149 In these images emphasis is placed on the piety of the king and queen, and, for some, on their divinity.150 The second type of image is prescribed in two of the decrees, though only preserved in fragments of the Raphia decree. It consists of the king on horseback, holding a lance, with the queen behind and a deity holding a kneeling figure in front. This is a particularly interesting relief due to its use of Greek and Egyptian forms. The only comparable image from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt is the stele of Cornelius Gallus, which also commemorates a military victory, the suppression of a southern revolt.151 The stele is damaged, but it shows a figure on a rearing horse holding a lance, with a cowering figure in front (due to damage, it is difficult to identify the figure on horseback).152 Laubscher suggests that this type of image would have been more prevalent in Hellenistic Egypt than scholars realise.153

Alongside this group of statues, I want to consider the royal couple described in the Karnak decree. They share some similarities with the royal statues of the priestly decrees; the decrees themselves are similar, though the Karnak decree is produced on a local level, and the statues are large scale stone images of the king and queen in Egyptian style, though in the case of Karnak they are singular and do not form a group. In this capacity, the Karnak statues are like the traditional Egyptian-style representations of the Ptolemies found at temple sites, like the fragment of a Cleopatra from Karnak (65), and are reminiscent of those set up by Senoucheri. The context of the statues of the Karnak decree is different and clearer than those in the priestly decrees, though described using similar language. The Karnak statues are described as being set up in ‘the most conspicuous place on the dromos of Amun’, ἐν τῶι ἐπιφανεστάτωι τιόπῳι ἐπὶ τοῦ δρόμου τοῦ Ἄμμωνος.147 Once again this standard Greek phrase is used, but this time it allows the identification of placement on the dromos of the temple (where the decree was found). Despite using the same language, this provides a separate context from that previously discussed, for these were to be located outside the main temple building, possibly even outside the walls of the temple complex, where anyone could view them.

The preserved publication sections of the decrees state they were to be set up next to the statue group in ‘the most conspicuous place’, translated in the Hieroglyphic version as in ‘the court of the common people’.154 This puts the reliefs alongside the statues in the first court of the temple, which is supported by the presence of the Philae decrees on the Mammisi wall within the first court of the temple of Isis. This makes sense, given that the stelae refer to the statues, explaining the reason for their existence. The Karnak decree is similar, but it places the decree on the dromos alongside its statues. There is a question as to the visibility of the stelae and other images; the Philae decree for example, is located high up where it cannot be easily viewed (fig. 4). The reliefs provide an insight into the presentation of the Ptolemies alongside the statues.

This evidence confirms the ideas concerning the group statues, as the Karnak ones are not described in the same way; they are given a specific location and it is not specified that they should receive cult, i.e. any form of ritual or worship.148 As the Greek stands, it seems there is a second, more visible and open context for another set of statues.

The last group of images to consider are those authorised by the decrees, but created by another group. The only clear evidence for this is in the Canopus decree, where the daughters of the priests are to make a sacred statue of the princess Berenike.155 In Greek the term used is agalma and in Demotic it is rpy.t, which specifically refers to the statue of a female. The exact action is unclear, but what can be seen is a form of public creation and worship of a royal statue (though not one of the king or queen). The other decrees are not as explicit. They do not use the same language and, in some, the relevant areas have been destroyed. Rather, there are references to the creation and use of shrines. These shrines are an area of debate, and the decrees could refer to the worship of shrines rather than cult statues.156 The translations point to the creation of a

B.2.3.Reliefs and other images The last two sets of images to consider are the stelae reliefs and the statues to be made by others. They are different in format and design from those previously examined. They provide an insight into other types of imagery in and around temple complexes, and so add to the understanding of the nature of the context of those statues already discussed. The stelae reliefs can be identified on three of the decrees, and are specifically mentioned in two of them. They fall into two groups; the line of deities with the royal family (usually pro-offering to the deities) and the king on horseback.

Quaegebeur 1989a, 100. Quaegebeur 1978, 247-255. For the stele of Cornelius Gallus see: Daumas 1952, 265-266; Bernand 1969, no.128, Hoffman et al 2009. 152 Hoffman et al 2009, 19 (for comparison with the Raphia Decree see 27-29). 153 Laubscher 1991, 223-229. 154 Canopus: G L74-75; D L74; Daumas 1952, 169-170; Simpson 1996. 155 Canopus: G L65; D L65. 156 Stanwick 2002, 9. 149

The first group is part of a general form of representation of the Ptolemies in Egypt; there is similar imagery on the Pithom decree (fig. 5), and in temple reliefs such as at Kom Ombo of Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II offering to

150 151

Wagner. 1971, C andD L 19-21. Most likely these would have received some form of cult from the public.

147 148

20

Textual Sources

shrine by the priests and public and their involvement in a form of royal cult.

The texts also identify the role of officials in the production of statues, sometimes alongside the king and queen, and at other times alone. The priestly decrees show the role of the clergy in the creation of images for the Egyptian temples. They identify the king’s virtues and actions and in response set up statues, which they will tend to themselves.158 The clergy created specific imagery in line with their own traditions, and so were fulfilling the needs of their world, which requires the king to be present in the temple, linking him to past traditions, and demonstrating their own loyalty to the king. The clergy were clearly doing this with the guidance or approval of the ruler. The creation of these statues was dictated at synods overseen by the monarchs, suggesting that their concept might have originated from ther ruler, or that at least there was a certain amount of foreknowledge and approval.

It is important to be aware that the decrees are only providing an ideal of what images should be set up and where; this does not mean that their instructions were followed. This is observed at Philae where there is no evidence for the publication of the text in Greek, as the decree states there should be, and in the two similar, but slightly different, reliefs of the Raphia decree, demonstrating there is always room for interpretation. The decrees are also concerned solely with statues placed in Egyptian temples, one aspect of contextual placement in Ptolemaic Egypt. They show only a select group of images, which, while being generally representative, are not all inclusive. The priestly decrees are an invaluable source for Ptolemaic statuary, providing a range of evidence for one general context, the Egyptian temples. From them it is possible to identify a number of different types of imagery, from cult statues to reliefs, and to identify more specifically where they were located. Furthermore, they provide a better understanding of the creation and function of royal statuary.

The same could also be true for other administrators. Senoucheri is the best example of an administrator and member of the Egyptian elite creating royal statues, and in a similar context to those of the priestly decrees. It is possible he too required a level of permission to erect statuary. This comes to the fore in relation to the Letter from Claudius; Claudius gives his permission for the statues, yet they will be created by the community of Alexandria and by the procurator.

C. Commissioning statues One of the principal features of the literary sources is the information they provide concerning the creation of these statues. Statues were not random objects, but were often carefully chosen, crafted, and placed images, aimed at fulfilling a variety of functions. These sources show the different groups who were responsible for the commissioning and placement of such images, from which can be identified the reasons for creation and the statue’s function. I briefly identify these groups, demonstrating the role of rulers, the clergy, and individuals.

Many of the textual sources point to a certain amount of central control in the creation of royal imagery. This is explicitly shown in the tax receipts of Elephantine, where the provision of funds for the creation and maintenance of imperial statues is controlled by tax, and in the priestly decrees where even domestic ruler worship is partially controlled and determined by the elite. This is not the case for all royal images, as discussed below, but the sources provide substantial evidence for control of the creation, distribution, and style of royal imagery by the monarchy or clergy, even when set up by individuals, cities or the elite.

The role of the ruler in the creation of the statues is identifiable in the majority of the sources. In the Athenaeus passages this can be assumed from the context; it was most likely the Ptolemies who decided on the themes of the Procession and Ptolemy IV who decorated his own Riverboat. This involvement is also observable in the Mendes decree, where Ptolemy II is responsible for the deification of his sister-queen Arsinoe II, and the Letter of Claudius, who has the final say on what type of statues can be erected to him and where.157 These all show the direct influence of the ruler on the creation of statues, and their control over attributes and placement. In maintaining control of their imagery, the rulers were able to manage the way they were represented and the messages their statues passed on. These statues were their primary form of interaction with their subjects, and so how they looked and where they stood were an important part of the dialogue between the two groups.

157

The evidence for the creation of statues by communities and individuals primarily comes from the epigraphical evidence. This is seen in a statue base to Ptolemy XII from Tebtunis (46B) that provides an inscription dedicated to the king and a series of bases to Caracalla (94 B-F) set up in Alexandria by the ‘Alexandrians and Romans’. With these bases (and their accompanying statues) the question is to what extent they were purely the result of local involvement, or whether official sanction had to be given in order for them to be erected. The reasons for erecting such imagery was simple: to honour the ruler, to gain favour with them, and even to thank them. The inscription to Ptolemy XII is especially reminiscent of inscriptions by Greek cities to Hellenistic Kings. The Letter of Claudius illustrates the reciprocal relationship communities had with their rulers.

158 Raphia: L32-35; Memphis: G L38-40; D L22-24; H L6-7; Philae 2: H L13f-14e; D L11c-11h.

Mendes: L11-14; Claudius: Lewis and Reinhold, 1999, No.76.

21

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Statues set up by individuals are found throughout Egypt, and range from high quality bases such as the triad set up by the commanders of the indigenous troop in Alexandria for Ptolemy V and his parents (77) to more simple creations such as the sphinx at Zaweit el-Amwat by Protos (48). These individual dedications and offerings are part of a wider group of evidence concerning dedications to, and on behalf of, the ruler. These demonstrate the place of the rulers in the lives of their people; the king might have been in Alexandria, but his presence was felt and understood hundreds of miles away. They show the loyalty and interaction between people and monarchy, as well as feeding into the traditional forms of representation in the ancient world. The textual sources point to the creators of royal statues as the rulers, the clergy, the elite, communities and individuals. They demonstrate the control the rulers had over the majority of their imagery and its importance in the dialogue between them and the people. It also shows how wide-ranging this was and how royal statues from Alexandria to Aswan were part of this wider network of display, control and communication. D. Textual Sources: Conclusion The textual sources provide a range of evidence for the context of Ptolemaic royal statues; from general descriptions of places to specific instructions for their creation, location, and treatment. From them a range of contexts can be identified, but more than this, the nature of those contexts, how they functioned and how their purposes are seen. These sources complement each other in this way, the priestly decrees show official instructions for royal images, in the form of the clergy and the monarchy, while the inscription of Senoucheri shows a different background to a similar context. The images found in the literary texts, such as Athenaeus, show a different part of Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt, providing evidence that would not exist otherwise. These sources also supply a base from which to go on to analyse and think about the archaeological evidence. One important aspect to draw from the material is the amount of royal imagery which existed during this time, and of which only a small proportion survives. Stewart suggests that Alexander would have been a familiar face in Alexandria, and from these sources it is possible to suggest the same for the Ptolemies and Emperors, not only in Alexandria, but throughout Egypt.159

159

Stewart 1993, 252.

22

Chapter 3

Cult Statues The cult statue was one of the most important elements of temple and worship; it was the representation of the focus of cult (the deity) and the principal point of interaction between the human and divine. Both the Ptolemies and the Emperors were the focus of cult in Egypt and elsewhere in the Greek East, and their statues formed a crucial part of this. There are few, if any, extant examples of cult statues, particularly from Egypt; the majority of the evidence comes from textual sources which do not always focus on the statues themselves. In discussing cult statues it is important to understand that the term covers three different and distinct types of cult, which must each be analysed separately. I begin by focusing on the cult statues of the Ptolemies in the Egyptian temples, the most wellknown area due to the survival of the priestly decrees and the remains of Ptolemaic temples. I then discuss statues associated with Greek-style cult in Egypt, principally based in Alexandria and Ptolemais. Finally, I focus on the Imperial cult in Egypt, including the position of the Emperors within the Egyptian temples. The evidence for each section varies considerably, and provides insight into the presence and context of royal cultic statues in Egypt. A. Cult Statues of the Ptolemies in Egyptian temples Directions for the creation of cults and cult statues of the Ptolemies in the Egyptian temples can be found in the priestly decrees; for Arsinoe II, the Princess Berenike, Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, and Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I.160 That these are cult statues is made clear through the wording of these texts and the descriptions they provide (see Chapter 2). Here, I focus on establishing the nature and perception of these statues, as well as identifying their placement and treatment within the temples. These two aspects are directly linked and both must be explored in order to fully understand Ptolemaic cult. I begin by discussing Egyptian cult statues in general, before establishing the place of the Ptolemies and their cult within the temples. A.1. Egyptian cult statues Statues of gods in ancient Egypt were meant to act as more than decorative or representative items; they were meant to be vessels (one could term them bodies), in which the ba, or manifestation, of the divine being could take up Arsinoe II - Mendes: Meulenaere Mendes II, 174-177, L 13-14; Princess Berenike - Canopus: Demotic Simpson 1996, 224-239; Austin 2006, no.271 G L59-64, D L58-64; Ptolemy V - Memphis: Quirke and Andrews 1988, Hieroglyphics (H), Demotic (D) and Greek (G), 16-22, G L41-43, D L24-25, H L7-8; Cleopatra I - Philae 2: Müller 1920, 57-88, H L13e-14c, D L16d-117b; Philae 1: H L10e-11e, D L11a-12a. These are the texts which are used for translations and transliterations; any alternative source will be noted in the footnotes. References follow the same pattern as in Chapter 2.

160

23

residence.161 Any statue of the god, from a colossal granite image to a faience statuette, could house the god, or part of him. There was a clear distinction between a statue that was inhabited and one that was not; this status was altered in the Opening of the Mouth ritual, which awakened the statue and was performed when a statue was completed. This meant that a number of different statues in Egypt received cult, but not all were cult statues.162 The cult statue was the main statue of the temple, the primary and most powerful place for the god to dwell. Egyptian Dynastic texts point to the statues representing the gods on a physical level. In the Book of the Cow of Heaven, Re is described with ‘his bones being silver, his flesh gold, and his hair true lapis lazuli.’163 These materials are echoed in other texts as the make-up of the gods, both in heaven and in their statues on earth, such as in the Restoration Inscription of Tutankhamun which states ‘his [Amun’s] holy image being of electrum, lapis lazuli, turquoise, and every precious stone’ and the Coronation Inscription of King Horemheb describes the setting up of divine statues ‘each to their exact shape out of costly gemstones.’164 These were the materials (gold, silver, and precious stones) of both the deity and cult statue, and it is probable that the descriptions of the gods given in these texts were inspired by the cult statues themselves.165 Only a few possible examples of these statues survive. One is a falcon-headed god in the Miho Museum, though it may be a votive; a solid-cast silver statue measuring approx. 42 cm, once entirely inlaid with gold, its wig inlaid with lapis lazuli, and eyes of rock crystal (fig. 8).166 These descriptions correlate with the information given in the priestly decrees concerning Ptolemaic cult statues. The statue of the Princess Berenike in the Canopus decree is described as being ‘gold inlaid with precious stones,’ in the Memphis decree Ptolemy V’s statue is described in the same way, and in Philae 1 it is stated that the ‘the statues of the gods of Egypt’ are of gold and precious stones.167 These passages both confirm the nature and materials of the Egyptian cult statue and show that the Ptolemaic cult statues were comparable. The location of the Egyptian cult statue is clear - it resided within a shrine in the sanctuary of the temple. Its exact location could vary depending on the temple, but it would Assmann 2001, 45; Robins 2005, 1. For an in-depth discussion of the ritual see Lorton, 1999 147-178. 162 Robins 2005, 2. 163 Lichtheim 1976, 197-199. 164 Murnane 1995, no. 99, 213 and no.106, 233. 165 Robins 2005, 4-6. 166 Miho Museum South Wing 1997, cat no.5. 167 Canopus; G L59-60, D L 58-59; Memphis G L41, D L24, H L7-8; Philae 1; Müller,1920, 31-56, H L7a-7e, D 7b-7e. 161

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

statues that order was maintained.172 There were numerous types of rituals and festivals, but the primary one was the daily ritual. This was performed three times a day, at dawn, midday, and sunset.173 It involved waking up the deity by unsealing the shrine, and bringing the statue out to be washed, anointed, and clothed, as well as to receive offerings. This was done first to the principal cult statue, then the other cult statues, and then the offerings were taken to the other statues in the temple, including those of the kings and other non-royal individuals. At the end of the ritual, the statue was returned to its shrine, which was re-sealed.174 The sanctuary and the statues were isolated from the world, and access to them was limited. Within the temple there was a strict hierarchy of priests, and only the principal officiant and those immediately beneath him (the higher clergy) could enter the sanctuary.175 It was this individual who oversaw the daily ritual and, in theory, only he gazed upon the god. In practice this is unlikely to have happened, the other priests were also involved in the ritual and had responsibility to the other gods in the temple. There would also be times when the principal officiant could not undertake the ritual. At the more important temples he would often be away on business, leaving the ritual to his subordinate. The number of people who came into contact with Egyptian cult statues was severely limited, even the priests who carried them in the processions would not have seen them as they were carried in enclosed shrines (fig. 6).176 The statues housed the most powerful form of the divine, and to prevent contamination only the purest few could interact with them.

Figure 8. Falcon Headed Deity (Miho Museum 1997, no.5, © Miho Museum)

A.2. Cults of the Ptolemies

be either in the central naos with its barque, or in the axial shrine behind it (fig. 7 A/I).168 There was probably more than one cult statue of the deity, not least for practical reasons as the statues would often have to leave on processions, sometimes for many days, but were needed in the temple on a daily basis in order to partake of the daily ritual.169 The cult statues of the god of the temple were not alone; a community of gods shared the temple, some residing in the chapels surrounding the naos.170 They were usually connected to the principal god in some capacity, and over time many gods developed their own Ennead.171 The word Ennead (psḏt), coined from the Greek word for nine, originally referred to a group of nine gods who surrounded the principal deity, sometimes connected through familial bonds. Over time the term developed to designate the community of gods resident in the temple. The cult statues of these temple-sharing gods might have been of the same type as those of the main deity.

The existence of a cult statue implies the existence of a cult. Here, I focus on the cult of the Ptolemies in the Egyptian temples, which was separate from, though related to, the Eponymous Greek cult in Alexandria and Ptolemaios (see below).177 The cult in the Egyptian temples began with the deification of Arsinoe II in the Mendes decree and the establishment of the Theoi Adelphoi by Ptolemy II c.270 BC. It was from the time of Ptolemy III, who established the Theoi Euergetai, that Ptolemaic cult became a common and permanent feature of the Egyptian temple.178 Ruler cult and dynastic cult form two strands of the cult of the Ptolemies. In his article, ‘Der Herrscherkult in den ägyptischen Ptolemäertempeln’, Erich Winter proposed that while there was evidence of a dynastic cult in temple reliefs, the idea of a cult of the living ruler could not be supported.179 Evidence for a dynastic cult focusing on the deceased

The cult statues of the temple were pivotal to its ritual and theology; it was through the rituals performed for the

Robins 2005, 8-9; Goebs 2007, 276-8. Finnestad 1997, 204-210; Lorton, 1999 131-144; Sauneron 2000, 82-91. 174 Finnestad 1997, 204-210; Lorton, 1999 131-144; Sauneron 2000, 82-91. 175 Sauneron 2000, 54, 59-60, and 81. 176 Sauneron 2000, 70-71. 177 Quaegebeur 1989a, 110-111; Quaegebeur 1989b, 45; Pfeiffer 2008, 455. 178 Quaegebeur 1989a, 94-96; Hölbl 2001, 105-111. 179 Winter 1979, 147-160. 172 173

168 Hornung 1982, 135; Wilkinson 2000, 70; Assmann 2001, 32; Robins 2005, 6-7. 169 Robins 2005, 10. 170 Assmann 2001, 7-38. 171 Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1996, 36.

24

Cult Statues

Figure 9. Offerings to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II by Ptolemy III; Gate of Euergetes, Karnak (© Author)

Figure 10. Ptolemy VIII and his wives receive royal status, interior wall relief, Kom Ombo (© Author)

25

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

royal couples is plentiful, and Winter provided a detailed list of examples, such as the relief on the Gate of Euergetes at Karnak, which shows Ptolemy III making offerings to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (fig. 9).180 This list has since been added to, with Jan Quaegebeur identifying a number of scenes including one at Kom Ombo that shows Ptolemy VI offering wine to his parents.181 These all point to an active dynastic cult of deceased monarchs in the temples, supported by the Ptolemies. Quaegebeur argued that Winter’s criteria of evidence for identifying cult examples needed expanding and that, in addition to the evidence for dynastic cult, he could identify scenes that showed the ruling Ptolemies were worshipped in the temples as gods.182 He pointed to numerous representations of the royal couple as divine, such as the Kom el-Hisn stele relief, which shows Ptolemy III and Berenike III alongside their ancestors and other gods, holding divine sceptres.183 He also cited two later examples from Kom Ombo. In the first Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II are represented with the gods Khonsu, Hareoeris, and Sobek.184 The inscriptions surrounding them indicates their divinity.185 In the second Ptolemy VIII and his wives are shown holding divine sceptres (fig. 10).186 Winter’s main objection to this was that there are no scenes showing the ruling couple receiving offerings. Quaegebeur, however, argued that in view of the kings’ role as supplicant, it would not be possible for him to present offerings to himself.187 While this is a possible reason, there are some rare examples that do show a ruler as both human and divine. Earlier examples from the Dynastic period, that is the pre-Ptolemaic era, suggest that such a form of representation was not unknown, as a relief from the temple at Soleb in Nubia demonstrates with Amenhotep III venerating his deified self, though this is a special case outside Egypt.188 From the Ptolemaic period, the relief on the Mendes stele shows Arsinoe II as both offerer and goddess (fig. 1), and in foundation plaques from the temple of Mut and Khonsu at Tanis, Ptolemy IV is listed as being beloved of Mut, Khonsu, Theoi Adelphoi (Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II), Theoi Euergetai (Ptolemy III and Berenike II), and Theoi Philopatores (Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III), meaning himself.189

Figure 11. Stele showing Tanite triad with Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, from Tanis (Digital Image, British Museum, AN00144204_001; © Trustees of the British Museum)

the institution of cult statues and religious honours for Ptolemy IV, Ptolemy V, and their wives, while they are still alive. Winter and Quaegebeur agreed that the Ptolemies were incorporated into the temples as synnaoi theoi, templesharing gods, and identified a number of reliefs that represent them as such. Winter’s list includes several examples of Ptolemy IV at Edfu offering to a line of gods that includes Horus, Hathor, Harsomtus, the Theoi Euergetai, the Theoi Adelphoi, and the Theoi Soteres.191 Quaegebeur cited a stele in the British Museum which shows Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III before a local triad (fig. 11). The royal couple offers nothing, but their dress indicates that they are divine, and Quaegebeur asserts they are represented as synnaoi theoi, temple-sharing gods.192 The priestly decrees are also clear that the cult statues and cult of the Ptolemies are to be placed alongside those of the gods of the temples. For example, First Philae decree states ‘[Be set up] a shrine...[and be placed there] the venerable image of...Ptolemy...with the divine statue of his sisterwife...put [this] in the holi(est) place with the shrines of the local gods’.193 In this way they could be integrated into the temple structure, its forms, practices, and traditions.

Quaegebeur also took into account the titles of the Egyptian priests, which in the Ptolemaic period include the names of the royal couples. There were many instances where the priests clearly used the divine epithets of the ruling couple.190 The priestly decrees also support this idea, with Winter 1979, 149. Quaegebeur 1989a, 100. 182 Quaegebeur 1989a, 93-113. 183 Quaegebeur 1989a, 102; this also shows dynastic cult as the first three couples are also divine. 184 Quaegebeur 1989a, 100. 185 Quaegebeur 1989a, 100. 186 Quaegebeur 1989a, 100. 187 Quaegebeur 1989a, 96-97. 188 Goebs 2007, 294, fig. 20.10. 189 Quaegebeur 1989a, 100. 190 Quaegebeur 1989a, 104-108; for more detailed study on the titles of 180 181

the Priests see Lanciers, 1991. 191 Winter 1979, 152. 192 Quaegebeur 1989a, 98; Quaegebeur 1989b, 49. 193 Philae 1 H L11a-11d, D 11d-11g.

26

Cult Statues

The cult of the Ptolemies in the Egyptian temples was a new creation. The kings of Egypt had always had statues in the temples, statues of the royal ka, and occasionally their own cult statues, but the cult of the Ptolemies was different.194 The divinity of the king in the Dynastic period has been much debated; during that time it was the office of kingship that was divine, rather than the person.195 There are examples of a king receiving cult in a particular place, even alongside another deity, the first such an attempt is seen with Amenhotep III who built a temple to Amun as the main deity and himself at Soleb in Nubia.196 But this number is low; there are few kings turned gods in general in Egyptian tradition.197 The best pharaonic examples are Amenophis III and Ramesses II, who were both deified in their lifetimes, though most of these cults were located in Nubia, and so were outside Egypt.198 These cults show a distant precedent for the Ptolemaic cults, but theirs was still a new phenomenon; no previous cult had been as widespread or co-ordinated.

even integrated into the pantheon at Thebes.204 Her cult was separate from the principal Ptolemaic ruler cult (in which she was included) and it was maintained throughout the period in both Greek and Egyptian traditions.205 Two other female members of the Ptolemaic royal family received cult: Philotera, sister of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, and Princess Berenike, daughter of Ptolemy III and Berenike II. Unlike Arsinoe II they were not queens and therefore could not be integrated into ruler cult. Philotera died some time before her sister Arsinoe II, but was not deified until c.260 BC.206 She received cult at Memphis which was less significant than that of her sister. Philotera was most often associated in a triad with her siblings (Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II) or in a dyad with her sister. In the Egyptian tradition it was popular to associate Arsinoe II with Isis and Philotera with Isis’ sister Nephthys.207 Her cult does not appear to have been as long-lasting as Arsinoe’s, and Müller suggests it may have been a political ploy by Ptolemy II to confirm his family’s links to the divine world.208 The second Ptolemaic cult was of Princess Berenike, described in the Canopus decree.209 Her cult was focused on the temple at Canopus, but apart from the decree little is known about it.

The primary aim of establishing a cult is to be associated with, or be made, divine. This cult not only accomplished this for one ruler, but for the dynasty as a whole. It integrated them into the traditions of their adopted country and designated them as the defenders and protectors of Egypt on multiple levels. They became incorporated into the local culture and traditions, and provided them with a link to the culture and people of Egypt, or at least with the indigenous elite.199 In her analysis of the cults of the Theoi Adelphoi and Arsinoe II, Sabine Müller emphasises their political character, that they were used by Ptolemy II to boost his own power.200

A.4. Inside the temple When identifying the location of the cult statues of the Ptolemies, it is desirable to place them within their individual shrines, inside the temple. The evidence for this location comes primarily from the priestly decrees, which state that the statues are to be placed within their golden shrines in the sanctuary.210 In the earlier discussion of the decrees it was established that the use of the term sanctuary, in both forms of the Greek agias/ aduton and the Demotic pȝ nt wˁb/pr-nṯr, can only refer to this central sacred area.211 It has been established that this is where the statues of the traditional Egyptian gods resided. The Ptolemies themselves were considered to be temple-sharing gods, and this places them alongside other Egyptian deities, both theologically and physically; it is explicitly stated in the First Philae decree that Cleopatra I’s statue is ‘to be put in the holi(est) place with the shrines of the other gods.’212 This is supported by the general insistence running throughout the decrees that the statues of the Ptolemies (all types) are to be treated like those of the other gods, that things should be done ‘that normally are’ or are ‘proper to do,’ such as receiving offerings and being included in processions.213 This shows that the

A.3. Arsinoe II and other single cults The Ptolemaic cult was focused on the royal couples. In addition, some members of the royal family gained a cult of their own. The most prominent of these is Arsinoe II, whose deification is described in the Mendes decree.201 Arsinoe II was a powerful and popular queen, and some time after her death c.270 BC, she became synnaos thea, a temple-sharing goddess in her own right in the temples of Egypt.202 Whether this deification preceded or followed the creation of the Theoi Adelphoi in the Egyptian temples and the Greek tradition is unclear. Arsinoe II had shrines and temples throughout Egypt and was often associated with other goddesses such as Isis and Aphrodite. Arsinoe II also had a distinct iconography in both Greek and Egyptian modes, with the double cornucopia in the former and a specific crown in the latter.203 She came to occupy a high place at Memphis in the Temple of Ptah, and was

Quaegebeur 1989b, 45. Quaegebeur 1998, 73-108 provides a list of material concerning the cult of Arsinoe II. 206 Hölbl 2001, 103; Müller 2009, 299. 207 Quaegebeur 1989b, 47; Müller 2009, 298. 208 Müller 2009, 299. 209 Canopus G L50-64, D L48-64. 210 Canopus G L59, D L59; Memphis G L41-42, D L24-25, H L7-8; Philae 1 H L11a-11d, D L11d-11g. 211 Daumas 1952, 172-176; Wilson 1997, 350; Chicago Demotic Dictionary 2001, 20. 212 1Philae H L11a-11d, D L11d-11g. 213 Decrees: Mendes L13-14 (places the statues of Arsinoe alongside 204 205

Nock 1986, 213; Habachi 1969. Habachi 1969, 45; Goebs 2007, 292. Nock 1986, 210; Habachi 1969; Goebs 2007, 192-4. 197 Habachi 1969, 50. 198 Habachi 1969. 199 Hölbl 2001, 284. 200 Müller 2009, 262 and 299. 201 Mendes: L11-14. 202 Quaegebeur 1989b, 42-47; Hölbl 2001, 104-105; Müller 2009, 280-298. 203 Quaegebeur 1989b, 42-47. 194 195 196

27

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Ptolemaic statues were meant to be considered in the same way as the other Egyptian cult statues of the temple. This evidence points to the cult statues of the Ptolemies being located in the central sanctuary; for them to be elsewhere would segregate them from the other gods and would remove them from the sacred space.

If the cult statues had been placed anywhere else in the temple they would not have had the same impact. They would not have been like the other gods and would not have been temple-sharing gods. By being placed in the sanctuary the statues became associated with the statues of other deities. This not only incorporated them fully into the Egyptian tradition (despite being a new cult), but also further established their divine nature. Being in that space, with those other divine objects, some of which may have been worshipped for hundreds of years, would have reflected upon the Ptolemaic statues and the Ptolemies themselves, placing them in the same world and ideology. It could be argued that as only a small number of people saw the statues in this location, this was not important. This argument ignores the fact that the statues were still known to be present with the other deities, and had the same restrictions. There can be power in hidden images, and the fact they could not be seen, like the other gods, would have contributed to their position.

The exact location of the statues is difficult to determine. If they were resident in the sanctuary of the temple, then there are a limited number of options. They could have been kept in the crypts, which were usually beneath the sanctuary and accessible by the central area.214 This seems unlikely; the crypts were mainly used as storage areas, and would have been impractical given that the cult statues were confined to shrines and used on a regular basis. The space in front of the sanctuary, connected to it, was the Hall of Ennead (fig. 7 N), and it was here that the barques were kept; this could be extended to include some of the shrines of the gods.215 The emphasis in the priestly decrees is on the Ptolemaic statues being treated the same as the other cult statues, meaning the focus must be on the location of those other statues. The cult statues of the gods were located in the chapels surrounding the principal naos, and this is where the cult statues of the Ptolemies were also presumably kept. This would fit with the Ptolemies’ relationship to the other gods as synnaoi theoi. It is possible that over time, as the numbers of cult statues increased, the Ptolemies would have gained their own room in the temple. The statues specific location would have varied from temple to temple, due to size and accessibility, and with no room other than the sanctuary specified in the decrees, the exact location was left in the hands of the priests.

Within the temple, every surface is decorated with relief imagery. As the sanctuary was the first part of the temple constructed, it was rarely unfinished. The reliefs in the sanctuary space were of the rituals and offerings to the gods made by the king (and, in the Ptolemaic period, the queen), and they surrounded the cult statues, complimenting them and reflecting their position within the temple. For the Ptolemaic statues, there was another dimension to the reliefs, in that they represented themselves, or their predecessors, performing rituals. In the sanctuary, the Ptolemies were represented as both monarchs and deities. This emphasised their role in the temples, and presented a powerful image of gods who were real and vital to the preservation of Egypt.

In temples dedicated to the Ptolemies this would have been different. There are several examples of structures dedicated to the Ptolemies: Flinders Petrie identified a chapel at Tanis dedicated to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, and the Pithom decree refers to a temple established at Arsinoe for Arsinoe II.216 These are both Egyptian sanctuaries, and so would have functioned as such. This meant treating the statues of the monarchs as the principal deity. They would be located in the central naos, or the axial shrine behind, and would have been the main beneficiaries of any rituals.

The cult statues and reliefs, along with other representations, such as ritual equipment, contributed to the omni-presence of the royal couple, especially the king, in the temple. The role and presence of the king, particularly in the southern temples, has been questioned, specifically relating to his relevance.218 With the representations of the king in relief, the king can be seen to have a constant presence in the temple. Through the cult statue holding their royal ka, the royal couple would have been considered present during rituals, and in relief they were eternally in attendance, performing those same rituals and offerings. Possibly, this was one of the purposes of the royal cult, to ensure the king was present throughout Egypt.

In looking at the location of the statues, it is important to consider the statues’ surroundings and the impact it had. Statues, images, and art objects are not figures on their own, they are to be viewed and understood in relation to the space around them; to other objects and the type of location they are set in.217 Location and surroundings can play a significant role in the purpose of an object.

The cult statues were not visible; they were located in their shrines, accessible only to the higher clergy. How objects are viewed is directly influenced by their surroundings, especially religious objects, where their context is designed to compliment and emphasise their holiness.219 When the

those of other goddesses); Raphia, Simpson 1996, 242-257, L35, 38 and 39; Memphis G L40 and 48-50, D L24, 26, and 29-30, H L7, 11-12; Philae 2 H L17b, D L14c; Philae 1 H L 14e D L 14f. 214 Seen at the Temple of Isis at Dendera; Cauville 1992, 54-59; Hornung 1992, 116. 215 Kurth 2004, 61. 216 Petrie 1885, 31; Naville 1903, ‘The Pithom Decree’, 18-21, L20-21. 217 Elkins 2002, 41.

Goyon 1989, 30-31 – notes that there have been questions regarding a split between the north and south of Egypt, and the participation of the rulers in the south; Hölbl 2001, 89 – suggests their liturgy developed without the king. 219 Tanner 2001, 261-265: though focusing on classical Greek religious art, he makes some important and relevant points about the way culture shapes the viewing of statues, and how the religious interaction with the 218

28

Cult Statues

priests approached them, they would have done so as they did other divine statues. Their location was distinctive, with its small size and limited lighting, and all interaction was highly ritualised. The daily ritual was a series of specific sections where every action was accompanied by hymns or prayers; they were wrapped in an impenetrable layer of ritual and worship. This further placed cult statues in the realm of the divine. The priests for their part were aware of the purpose of the rituals, and that they were performing them before the statue of an entity who held the fate of Egypt in his or her hands.

‘1st day of Akhet day 1: Appearing of Horus, Lord of Ombos, appearing of Euergetes, Philopator, Epiphanes, Philometor together with him.’226 This is the only time they are specifically named in a calendar, but given the extensive and growing list of royal statues this is not surprising. The other deities of the temple are also rarely listed, and are usually identified under the heading of the god’s (his/her) Ennead or ‘gods’ of the temple.227 In looking at the surviving Festival Calendars it can be suggested that whenever these phrases are used in relation to a procession, the cult statues of the Ptolemies should be included.

A.5. Leaving the temple

The decrees also provide details on festival and procession days for the royal couples themselves. In the Canopus decree there were festivals for Ptolemy III and Berenike III on the 5th, 9th and 25th of every month, as well as another festival on the first day of the second month for five days, and one for Princess Berenike on the 17th of the month Tybi, lasting four days.228 In the Raphia decree there is mention of a victory festival for Ptolemy IV on the 10th day of Phakhon for five days.229 And in the three decrees of Ptolemy V, there are festivals to him on the 9th, 17th, and 22nd of every month, as well as a number of others to him and Cleopatra I throughout the year.230 These are only those festivals referred to in the decrees, but if they were expanded to include the rest of the Ptolemies, with the assumption that each couple had at least three festivals per month, there would be a large number of festivals in their honour, alongside all the others already established. There is also evidence that in at least some of these processions, the other Ptolemaic statues/shrines were to go out along with those of the ruling couple; this is referred to in the damaged text of the Raphia decree.231 The Ptolemaic statues would be processing out of the temple on a regular basis, at least four times a month, probably more.

Festivals and processions were a major part of temple life, and were the only time the statues came into contact with the world beyond. During the processions, the statues of the deities were placed in their shrines on a barque and carried out of the temple. They followed a specific route, stopping at various points along the way to perform rituals, and then return home.220 These processions could last many days and travel long distances. Not every festival was available to the public, or left the confines of the temple. One of the most important festivals of the Egyptian calendar, the New Year festival, involved a procession to the temple roof.221 A large number of festivals were celebrated, from national ones, to deity-specific ones, to local ones. The importance of the festival to the temple is reflected in the Festival Calendars inscribed on temple walls, a practice that continued into Ptolemaic and Imperial times.222 These processions and festivals were extremely important to the public, it was their opportunity to participate in the religious activities of the temple and become close to the divine. The priestly decrees refer to the inclusion of the people in the festivals for the Ptolemaic cult, allowing them to make a copy of the shrine.223 During processions, oracles were given; anyone could approach a deity’s shrine and ask a question. This was extremely popular, and became more so during the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods.224

Despite leaving the sanctuary, the cult statues were still not seen, instead remaining in their shrines. Evidence for this can be found in the reliefs on the stairs of Dendera, showing a procession of priests carrying shrines (fig. 6), and in the priestly decrees, which specify that the shrines are to be taken out.232 In the decrees there are descriptions of what the shrines are to look like: they are to be decorated with crowns, with the iconography of the individual royal, and they are to have their names in Hieroglyphs.233 In the Memphis decree the purpose of this adornment is explicitly stated as being so the shrine ‘may be easily distinguished

The priestly decrees focus on the processions and festivals for the cult statues. The Memphis decree explicitly states that ‘in the great festivals in which the processions of the shrines take place they are to carry out [also] the [shrine] of the god Epiphanes Eu[charistos].’225 This sentiment is echoed throughout the other decrees, and makes it clear that the cult statues are to be included in these processions. The Festival Calendar of Kom Ombo specifically refers to the taking out of Ptolemaic cult statues on procession:

El-Sabban 2000, 152; Calendar of Kom Ombo on the West side. El-Sabban 2000, 169-184; Temple of Edfu, Calendars of Horus and Hathor (phrases used multiple times throughout). 228 Theoi Euergetai G L33-38, D L32-41, Princess Berenike G L55-59, D L55-58. 229 L36-39. 230 Memphis: G L46-50, D L27-30, H L10-13; Philae 2 H L15b-16d, D L12f-13e; Philae 1 H L13d-15e, D L13f-15d. 231 Raphia: L38-39. 232 Raphia: L38-39; Memphis G L42-43, D L25, H L8; Philae 2 H L16d17c, D L13e-14c; Philae 1 H L11e-11f, D L11f-12a. 233 Canopus: G L60-64, D L60-64; Memphis G L43-46, D L25-27, H L910; Philae 1 H L11f-13c, D L12a-13e. 226 227

statue is reinforced through the manipulation of our senses through the surroundings. 220 Fairman 1954, 183-186; Sauneron 2000, 92-96; Wilkinson, 2000, 95-98. 221 Lorton 1999, 146. 222 El-Sabban 2000, 154. 223 Memphis: G L52-53, D L31-32, H L13-14; Philae 1 H L16c-16d D L15h-16b; In the Canopus decree there is a description of a statues made for processions - G L65; D L65; In Raphia there is a damaged area which mentions the processions and festivals - L41-42. 224 Baines 1991, 170; OEAE2, 610. 225 Memphis G L42-43, D L25-26, H 8-9.

29

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

now and for time hereafter.’234 The shrine was expected to be taken out in processions during Ptolemy V’s lifetime and after, and it was meant to be recognised as his shrine containing his statue.

references in papyrus documents and inscriptions, and to three specific groups of archaeological evidence: first, a small group of statues from the town of Thmuis in the Nile Delta (28), second, the remains of a temple from Hermopolis Magna in Upper Egypt (49), and lastly, a sculptural triad from the Serapeum in Alexandria (75-76). I begin with a brief description of the nature of Greek cults and cult statues in the classical world before identifying the various types of Greek cult that existed in Ptolemaic Egypt.

The statues’ presence within the temple and the procession was a point of concern. The processions had a mass audience, and it is clear the Ptolemies wished for their people to see their statues and their position amongst the other deities, emphasising and securing their power and divinity. This was a way for the Ptolemies to interact with and make their presence felt to their subjects – just as they made their presence felt in the temple. The monarchy would have been a distant power to the majority, yet the way state and religion intertwined meant that the Ptolemies were vitally important. Through the cult in general, and the cult statues and processions, the Ptolemies were making their presence felt throughout all Egypt, and were linking themselves to their people. In emphasising their place within the processions, the Ptolemies are acknowledging the popular religion of Egypt, supporting it, and guaranteeing their own support.

B.1. Greek cult statues Greek cult statues were different from Egyptian in both style and ideology. While the Egyptian statue has a specific image type (small and of high cost materials), the Greek statue could range from colossal golden statues to life-size marble images, to smaller statuettes, they could even be aniconic.236 The cult statues of the Greek world looked like non-cult statues, such as votives or civic imagery, making them difficult to identify in the archaeological record. And while the Egyptian statues were supposed to represent the god in a realistic manner, the Greek statues were not meant to be an accurate image of the divine being, they were simply a representation.237 Traditionally, they stood alone within the temple, in the naos, facing the entrance. They were not typically the main focus of cult, that was the altar located in front of the temple, but they were the representation of the god who viewed and received any offerings. The sanctuary and the temple was the cult statues’ principal home, and though located inside, they were not (usually) hidden.

A.6. Cult statues in Egyptian temples: Conclusion In this analysis of Ptolemaic cult statues in the Egyptian temple, it has been possible to identify the Ptolemies as creating a new cult which was fully incorporated into the Egyptian tradition. They were synnaoi theoi in the temples, with the same material, iconography, and ritual as the gods of Egypt. The location of their statues continued this trend; they stood within their own shrines in the sacred chapels of the temple. They were not completely restricted to this space, and though still confined to their shrines, were taken out on processions, allowing a certain degree of display and contact with their people.

In discussing the word cult, and its associated statues, it is easy to associate the word solely with the worship of gods. The main focus of cult in the classical world was the worship of gods and goddesses in temples with sacrifices and festivals. But in the Hellensitic world, the line between the divine and human was more permeable, and so it was possible for humans, or those considered greater than human, to gain honours and cultic worship. This is seen most clearly in the cult offered to heroes, city founders, and (in the Hellenistic period) kings, on both a panhellenic and local scale.

By creating this cult and being identified alongside the Egyptian deities, the Ptolemies were able to take on the mantle of the divine, to identify themselves with the culture and people of Egypt, and gain legitimacy, support, and display their power. Whether this worked is disputable, though it is clear from a number of texts that their cult was worshipped outside the temple proper.235 In their cult statues they maintained a constant presence throughout their kingdom.

B.2. Greek cults of the Ptolemies There were a number of different types of Greek cult to the Ptolemies in Egypt. There were the official ruler cults and the dynastic cult centred on Alexandria and Ptolemais, as well as similar cults separate to these, which existed in towns throughout Egypt.

B. Greek cult statues of the Ptolemies Existing in Egypt alongside the cult of the Ptolemies in the Egyptian temples were a number of different cults rooted in Greek tradition; they followed the same ideas, practices, imagery, and form, as other cults in the Greek world. For the Greek cults of the Ptolemies and their accompanying statues, there are no clear documents detailing their creation, context and purpose as the priestly decrees do for the Egyptian cults. Evidence is confined to sporadic

The Eponymous cult of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies based in Alexandria is the best known. This is due to the titles of the Eponymous priest being used in the dating formulae of official documents, providing

Memphis: G L43, D L25, H L8. Sadek 1987, 286; Pfeiffer 2008, 90-95; both provide evidence of ‘clubs’ or ‘associations’ in which the ruling couples were worshiped. 234 235

236 237

30

Price 1999, 56-57. Price 1999, 56.

Cult Statues

a broad idea of how this cult developed over time.238 Ptolemy I established a cult to Alexander early in his reign. It developed into a dynastic cult through the actions of Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III who added themselves and their wives to the cult as the Theoi Adelphoi and the Theoi Euergetai. Following the addition of the Theoi Philopatores (Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III) and the first royal couple the Theoi Soteres (Ptolemy I and Berenike I) by Ptolemy IV, each successive ruler or ruling couple were added until the reign of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX, after which records cease.239 The cult was also home to a number of priestesses, including the kanephoros of Arsinoe II and the athlophoros of Berenike II.240 Though singular offices, to individuals with their own festivals, these priestesses were part of this larger dynastic priesthood and cult.

It is around these centrally created cults that the cults practiced elsewhere in Egypt were organised and based.247 These were the dynastic and ruler cults that developed outside of the two central poleis, at locations such as Hierakopolis and Krokodilopolis, both of which supply inscriptions and dedications demonstrating the existence and practice of Ptolemaic cults.248 B.3. Thmuis Above, I noted that Greek cult statues could be colossal, life-size, or statuettes, made out of various materials, and so it was their placement and how they were perceived that separated them from the general milieu. Due to this, it can be difficult to identify individual statues as cult statues without more evidence. So while there are probably many Ptolemiac heads which once received cult, they cannot be identified as such.

The same pattern was repeated in the city of Ptolemais, founded by Ptolemy I.241 The only difference was that the city began its dynastic cult with Ptolemy I, and used this as part of the dating formulae in its own documents and those of Upper Egypt.

One group of images from Egypt can be idenitified as Ptolemaic cult statues. From Thmuis comes a group of 10 marble heads identified as representing a group of Ptolemies and gods.249 They were discovered by Campbell Cowan Edgar in 1908, in a small mudbrick structure with three pillars (cat site. 7). The exact identification of each head is a cause of debate, but Katja Lembke identifies them as representing Alexander the Great, Ptolemy III (28A), Ptolemy IV (28B), Arsinoe III (28C), Berenike II (28D), Arsinoe II (28E), Isis, Dionysos, and two Aphrodites.250 Other significant finds from the structure include a number of marble limbs and several small marble altars.

There were also a number of individual ruler cults established in Alexandria.242 These are mostly recorded in the literary sources through references to their temples, such as the shrine for Berenike I known due to the comments in Athenaeus’ description of the Great Procession, the Arsinoeion referred to in Pliny’s Natural History, and the temple to Ptolemy IV, Arsinoe III, Serapis and Isis in Alexandria known through foundation plaques.243 Few of these survive in the archaeological record. The cult of Berenike I, and that of the Theoi Soteres, was instituted by Ptolemy II, who was also responsible for creating cults to his sister-wife Arsinoe II, and to both himself and Arsinoe II as the Theoi Adelphoi. The cult of Arsinoe became one of the most popular in Egypt, and she gained a number of temples in Alexandria and elsewhere.244 Through these actions Ptolemy II placed the power of creating cults in the hands of the king. Alexandria also contains examples of inscriptions making dedications both ‘on behalf of’ the Ptolemies and directly to them.245 There are also a number of faience oinochoai from Alexandria that depict images of women, identified through accompanying inscriptions as queens, partaking in ritual activity, and it is likely these objects were used in ruler cult.246 For later rulers there is less evidence of individual ruler cult, though this does not mean it did not exist.

Their identification as cult statues comes from the nature of the group itself; the inclusion of familiar deities such as Dionysos, Aphrodite, and Isis, and the presence of Alexander the Great and Arsinoe II, both of whom were gods in their own right in Egypt. Also, both royal couples, Ptolemy III and Berenike II, and Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, were identified as gods within their own lifetimes, as the Theoi Euergetes and Theoi Philopatores respectively. The group presented is intrinsically divine as all participants are deities. Additionally, the other material from the site, especially the marble altars, their presence within a structure, and the grouping of these individuals together, point to the cultic nature of the images. The statues are clearly a dynastic cultic group. They include two successive Ptolemaic couples (parents and children) as well as two important dynastic founders (Alexander and Arsinoe II). Even the deities represented are closely associated with the Ptolemaic dynasty, to the extent that various monarchs are directly attached to them, as in the case of Aphrodite-Arsinoe. In her recreation of the plan of the statues, Lembke suggests the group formed couples, associating Alexander with Isis and Arsinoe II

238 Eponymous cult: Koenen 1993 46-55; Hölb 2001; Pfeiffer 2008, 6470; Weber 2010, 62-75: For general timetable of cultic activity see Hölbl 2001, Appendix, 318-352. 239 Hölbl 2001, 287. 240 Minas 1998; Pfeiffer 2008, 66-67. 241 Hölbl 2001, 170-171; Pfeiffer 2008, 68. 242 Hölbl 2001; Pfeiffer 2008, 51-55; Weber 2010, 62-74. 243 Shrine of Berenike I: Athenaeus Book 5, 202d; Rice 1983, 22-23; Olson 2006, 474-475; Discussion: Hölbl 2001, 94; Weber 2010, 65; Arsinoeion: Pliny Nat Hist, 34.42, McKenzie 2007, 51-52; Temple of Ptolemy IV: McKenzie 2007, 64. 244 McKenzie 2007, 51-53 and 64; Pfeiffer 2008, 59-61. 245 Pfeiffer 2008, 31-32. 246 Thompson 1973.

Pfeiffer 2008, 52. Pfeiffer 2008, 53. Thmuis: Baines and Malek 1980, 175; Ochsenschlager 1980 25-26: Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 84: Statues: Edgar 1909; Lembke 2000. 250 Lembke 2000, 115-128; Walker and Higgs 2001, 49, no.11 - identify Isis as Berenike II. 247 248 249

31

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 12.a (left). Statue of an Aphrodite from Athribis (Myśliwiec 1988, pl 35 - TA III.15.85; © Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw)

Figure 12.b (below). Head of a female (goddess) from Athribis (Myśliwiec and Herbich 1988, pl 37 – TA III3485; © Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw)

with Dionysos, further emphasising both a divine and familial concept.251 These statues demonstrate both divine and dynastic themes, creating a dynastic shrine.

been identified as being similar to another group of finds from the town of Athribis in Lower Egypt. At Athribis, excavators uncovered a number of Aphrodites in a room in a Ptolemaic villa (fig. 12).254 Karol Mysliwiec notes that the rooms of Thmuis and Athribis are comparable in dimension, and the statues themselves are also similar in size and nature. The evidence from Thmuis and Athribis suggests this form of space was the primary type of context for small, possibly private, cults in Ptolemaic towns during this period.

The images themselves are typically Greek in style. They are all marble, pieced with other material, and are carved in a recognisably Hellenistic royal style: with inclined heads, diadems, and wavy hair.252 These heads would fit into any sanctuary in the Greek world. This statue style suggests that the cult practisced in the temple was also part of the Greek tradition.

The statues from Thmuis were part of a dynastic cult, most likely a private one. Through emphasising both the dynastic and divine aspects of this group, the statues would have functioned as reminders of the power, legitimacy, and nature of the Ptolemies. They also served as a sign of the devotion and loyalty of an individual or group in Thmuis, and show that amongst the population, the position of the Ptolemies as worthy of cult was embraced.

The heads were discovered in a mud brick room with three pillars, and were concentrated along the northern wall and in the south-east corner (cat site. 7). A Roman wall and a three-roomed structure were located nearby.253 This find spot reveals little about the presentation or arrangement of the statues. Both the statues and this context have Lembke 2000, 140. Smith,1991, 19-24 and 205-211. 253 Edgar 1909, 1. 251 252

254

32

Mysliwiec and Herbich 1988, 183; Mysliwiec 1992, 261.

Cult Statues

There are a large number of similar small heads from Egypt, representing both royal and divine imagery, not discussed here as they do not fit the parameters of this study, either due to their size or their lack of a secure provenance.255 Their identity as cult statues cannot be confirmed. The existence of this material though, suggests that the type of cult and cult statues seen at Thmuis were an important part of representation and worship throughout Egypt as a whole.

first thing dedicated, it most likely refers to the cult statues of the temple. From Hermopolis Magna comes a marble head of Berenike II (49). Though the head has no find spot, it is tempting to associate it with this temple. This is a traditional Greek-style head, much like those from Thmuis, but on a larger scale. Even if it is not one of the statues dedicated here, the fact the inscription is in Greek, dedicated by Greek settlers suggests that the agalmata would have been similar.

B.4. Hermopolis Magna

The description of the dedication, including a temenos, temple, and stoa, are typical features of a Greek sanctuary. The archaeological evidence points towards a classicalstyle structure with the surviving foundations and remains of classical orders, making this the only surviving classical Ptolemaic structure outside of Alexandria.258 Even the inscription is reminiscent of the language and ideas used by cities in the Greek east when dealing with Hellenistic kings.259 All these features point to this being a large-scale, traditional Greek temple and cult. Like the material from Thmuis, it emphasises the Greek roots of the cult, though it is situated in Upper Egypt, and reflects the needs and cultural ideas of the dedicators.

From the town of Hermopolis Magna in Upper Egypt comes a Greek inscription from a Doric architrave, which reads: βασιλεῖ Πτο|λεμαίωι τῶι Πτολεμαίου κα|ὶ Ἀρσινόης, Θεῶν Ἀδελφῶν. καὶ Β|ασιλίσσηι Βερενίκηι τῆι ἀδελφῆι α|ὐτοῦ καὶ γυναικὶ Θεοῖς Εὐεργέτ|αις, καὶ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ Ἀρσινόηι Θ̣|εοῖς Ἀδελφοῖς τὰ ἀγάλματα κ|αὶ τὸν ναὸν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐντὸ|ς τοῦ τεμένους| καί τὴν στο|[ά]ν, οἱ τασσόμενοι ἐν τῶι Ἑρμο|πολίτηι νομῶι κάτοικοι ἰππε[ῖ]|ς. εὐεργεσίας ἕνεκεν τῆς εἰς αὐτούς.

This temple also serves to further demonstrate the difference between the Egyptian and Greek cults. Located only c.500-600 metres away from the Greek temple is the Dynastic Egyptian temple to Thoth; in fact the Greek temple is located just outside its temenos, along the dromos (cat site. 21). That the cavalry settlers chose to erect this temple, when there was another nearby capable of holding sacred, or even non-sacred, images of the kings, suggests that it did not meet their needs. Equally, it is clear that the statues they wanted to erect could not be located in that space, and so only a traditional Greek temple complex could be used.

‘To King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the brother-and-sister gods, and to queen Berenike, his sister and wife, the benefactor gods, and to Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the brother-and-sister gods, the cavalry settlers stationed in the Hermopolite nome (have dedicated) the statues and the temple and the rest inside the sacred precinct and the stoa for the benefactions shown to them.’256 This concerns the establishment of a temenos, temple, ancillary buildings, and statues, in honour of Ptolemy II, Arsinoe II, Ptolemy III, and Berenike II, as the Theoi Adelphoi and Theoi Euergetai, by cavalry settlers in 240 BC. The archaeological evidence from the site supports this inscription. Foundations show the presence of a rectangular colonnaded court with an entrance to the centre of the southern short side and the foundations of a smaller structure, most likely the temple itself, situated within the court, aligned with the entrance. From the site come fragments of the Ionic, Corinthian, and Doric architectural orders, including brightly painted capitals. The original location of the architrave inscription is unknown, though it is too big to have been set on top of the temple.257

This is a more public creation than the Thmuis shrine, and served a larger community. Its function was similar to that in Thmuis, in that it aimed at honouring the Ptolemies, and demonstrating loyalty and acceptance of them. The inscription claims the temple serves as thanks for the benefactions given by the rulers, and no doubt was aimed at gaining further favour. In this, it demonstrates the same role cult could play as observed in the Egyptian temple, that it was key in the interaction between the Ptolemies and their people, as a way for them to be seen and accepted. B.5. Serapeum triad

The statues referred to in the text are called agalmata, a complex Greek term meaning sacred statues for the gods. It can be used to refer to offerings, but is often associated with cult statues. Given its context here, in relation to a temple, and its primary position in the inscription as the

The Serapeum triad consists of a group of three marble heads identified as representing the god Serapis, queen Arsinoe III (75), and king Ptolemy IV (76), and are identified as belonging in the Serapeum of Alexandria. The heads of Serapis and Arsinoe III were both discovered, along with a variety of other material, by Breccia in 1905-

Laube 2012 - a collection of small heads and figurines from the Sieglin expedition. 256 For Hermpolis Magna: Alston 2002, 238-242; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 162-167; Excavations at El-Ashmunein vols I-V: especially Spencer 1989; Bailey 1991; Spencer 1993; Mckenzie 2007, 56-58 and 158-160: For Inscription: Bernand 1999, no.1. 257 McKenzie 2007, 56-58. 255

McKenzie 2007, 56-58 and 158-60. Specifically using dedications as form of thanks and part of a dialogue with the kings: Chaniotis 2005, 433. 258 259

33

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

6 in a trench outside the sanctuary in Abu Mandur Street.260 The head of Ptolemy IV, currently in the Louvre, has no provenance, but has been associated with the other heads by Kyrieleis based on stylistic and technical similarities.261 Kyrieleis also suggests that this group formed a triad centred on Serapis with the king and queen positioned on either side of the god and turned to face him.262

including the stoa-like building, allowing space for the placement and worship of this group. The space itself was comprised of classical architecture, and remains from the site include Corinthian and Doric fragments, suggesting the context of the statues conformed to classical style. Unlike the sites of Thmuis and Hermopolis Magna, the Serapeum provides clear evidence for the presence of Egyptian material, including statuary, at the site. This suggests that the sanctuary itself was not wholly Greek in its make-up, as indeed, neither was the principal deity. This creates a plethora of questions concerning the context and function of statues in Alexandria in general, and it is difficult to know exactly how this affects these images, which are in every other way typically Greek in style and form. These questions, and how these cult images fit into them, will be discussed in more detail in the later chapter dedicated to Alexandria, along with the wider range of material from the city.

The Serapeum of Alexandria was the principal sanctuary of the city designed to worship the god Serapis (fig. 22).263 The sanctuary was in place during the reigns of Ptolemy I/II, but was completely rebuilt by Ptolemy III. Evidence of this structure includes foundation plaques of various materials written in Greek and Hieroglyphics, as well as the foundations of a colonnade with two entrances to the east, a temple within the temenos to the north (with a later shrine attached), a stoa-like building to the west of the temple, and two other earlier structures connected by an underground passage. Fragments from the site include classical-style architectural features and Roman coins show the temple was tetrastyle with Corinthian capitals and a Doric frieze.264

The function of these cult statues was to associate the monarchs with Serapis, a theme of the Theoi Philopatores in Alexandria, as seen with the dedication of the aforementioned temple and their addition of a shrine to Harpocrates at the Serapeum itself. Alongside this, these statues emphasised the divinity of the Ptolemies. The statues placed them on equal footing with the god and allowed the monarchs to be worshipped. In this way, though these statues stood in a different forum, they conformed to the same functions as those seen in Thmuis and Hermopolis Magna. The principal difference is that the origins of the statues and structures at those sites are clear, they were created by a local group as part of their relationship (personal and public) with the monarchs. The origins of the Serapeum triad is unclear; they could have been created by a group, a member of the Alexandrian elite, or even the monarchs themselves. If this latter point is the case then the statues’ function is more concerned with communicating with the public than with the monarchs, and is a form of self-expression and promotion of their divine status rather than a sign of acceptance of that status by the population.

The identification of the triad as cult statues comes from the presence of Serapis, the principal deity of the Ptolemaic dynasty and of Alexandria. As with the statues of Thmuis, the statue of this god suggests a cultic aspect to the group. Their cultic nature can also be deduced from the association of the group with the sanctuary itself. It was the place of Serapis and a royal creation making the presence of a cultic group honouring the two monarchs fitting. There is also other evidence in Alexandria that shows Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III were worshipped in association with Serapis; a group of foundation plaques from the city (similar to those from the Serapeum itself) demonstrates the presence of a temple dedicated to Serapis, Isis, and Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III as the Theoi Philopatores.265 Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III also dedicated a temple to Haropokrates in the Serapeum, next to the main temple of Serapis.266 Both the excavated statue heads were found in a trench dug outside of the sanctuary itself. They are better placed in the sanctuary itself due to the lack of a suitable structure identified outside the sanctuary and given the size, material, and nature of the group (as a triad). Though cult statues, it is unlikely that these statues were the principal ones of the Serapeum. The Serapeum was linked to royal cult, as the statues testify, but there is no secure evidence to place them in the temple itself. The Serapeum of Alexandria was surrounded by a colonnade comprised of a number of rooms, and contained a variety of other structures,

The Serapeum triad provides another set of images to those observed in Thmuis and Hermopolis Magna, but from it can be drawn similar themes concerning the context and function of cult statues. They aim at displaying the personal divinity and divine associations of the monarchs through placing them within the sanctuary. The primary difference is that in this case the origins of the statues may originate with the monarchs themselves, and would be the product of the monarchy communicating with the people of Alexandria.

Breccia 1907, 72. Kyrieleis 1980, 383-387. 262 Kyrieleis 1980, 383-387. 263 For excavations and discussion on the Serapeum: Rowe 1946; Fraser 1972, 247-258, 267-270; Empereur 1998a, 89-109; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 69-72; McKenzie et al 2004; Sabottka 2008; Savopoulos 2011, 293-298; Schmidt 2013, 149-174. 264 Handler 1971, 64-68; for discussion of the possible reconstructions of the Serapeum see: Sabbottka 2008, 165-181. 265 McKenzie 2007, 64. 266 Sabottka 2008, 181-186. 260 261

B.6. Greek cult statues: Conclusion Through examination of the principal groups of archaeological evidence it is possible to gain an insight into the form, style, and functions of Greek Ptolemaic cults and their statues. The shrine at Thmuis and the temple complex

34

Cult Statues

at Hermopolis Magna are both different, yet together they demonstrate the wholly Greek approach taken to these cults in Egypt, in their style and representation, and the distance placed between them and the Egyptian forms. They also emphasise the variety of approaches to these cults that existed: the private shrine and the larger community structure, and the different Ptolemies and gods associated within these. The Serapeum Triad contributes considerably to this, locating a group of statues within a larger sanctuary and continuing the concept of placement of classical material within a classical context. The Serapeum is a different sanctuary, and one that has a larger role to play within the discussion of statue context in Egypt. All these sites show the functions of these cults were basically the same: to demonstrate loyalty to the rulers, to emphasise their power, and act as a means of communication. They show that the idea of cults to the monarchs were widely accepted and practised.

and functions of the Roman cults and cults of the local area.269 A common theme of Imperial cult was the production and erection of cult statues. These statues can be difficult to identify as they can appear similar to civic statues. In his analysis of Imperial cult in Asia Minor, Simon Price identifies three types of Imperial cult statue; the cuirassed statue, the nude statue, and the civilian statue, all of which also existed in other contexts.270 In identifying cult statues, Price notes first, they stood in temples rather than in civic space; no civic statue can be identified as receiving cult.271 Second, the language used is an identifier; the term agalmata was most typically used to describe statues located in a temple identifying them as cult statues.272 The language of statues in the Greek and Roman tradition is confusing, and Price notes that eikones could also receive cult, but in general it was the former term that was used. The language and placement of statues of Imperial cult in Asia Minor conformed to the traditions of that area, suggesting that the same would occur elsewhere.

C. Imperial cult statues The Imperial cult was a phenomenon that existed throughout the Roman Empire in a multitude of incarnations. My focus is on its Egyptian version, the cults that existed within the province and the statues that formed their focal point. Archaeological evidence for this is scarce, with only one group of material that can be securely identified as cult statues and two sites identifiable as the contexts of such statues. The rest of the evidence is confined to literary sources, principally papyrus records, including lists of processions, buildings, and tax records. I begin this discussion by briefly summarising the current understanding of Imperial cult and statues in general, and the cult in Egypt itself. I then focus on a group of Imperial cult statue bases and their shrine at the temple of Amun at Karnak, before discussing the evidence for other statues and temples in Egypt. I conclude by focusing on the position of the emperors and their statues in Egyptian temples. I avoid discussion of the perceived divinity of the emperors, except in understanding the position of their images in Egyptian temples. From the evidence it is possible to identify a vibrant Imperial cult with specific ideas concerning the placement and use of cult statues.

C.2. Imperial cult in Egypt Imperial cult in Egypt was a distinct creation. Gregory Dundas observes that the material points to a higher than normal degree of central involvement, with a number of prefects responsible for dedications of temples and instituting festivals, and a focus on Imperial temples located in metropoleis.273 This evidence is based primarily on sporadic references to temples, processions, and cultic activity rather than on one particular source. From these references come information about Imperial temples (Caesarea), festivals and ‘Augustan days’ (which celebrated important events in the Imperial calendar), and statues carried in processions.274 The major question in relation to Egypt is the extent to which the Roman Emperors were incorporated into the Egyptian temples. Recent scholarship, especially by Dundas and Stefan Pfeiffer, has emphasised an Imperial break with the activities of the past.275 Dundas thought this break was symbolised by the change in titles given to the Emperors in the temples, including use of the term Autokrator.276 The Egyptian temples and their cults continued, under close supervision, but the emperors were not incorporated into them as synnaoi theoi.277 This does not mean the emperors were ignored in the temples, they continued to be identified as pharaoh in reliefs and were incorporated in other ways, through festivals and processions, but they were not considered to be Egyptian gods.

C.1. Imperial cult and cult statues The key aspect that needs to be understood in relation to Imperial cult is that there was no such thing as the Imperial cult. It was not a centralised, homogenous religion.267 Rather, as a term, it can be applied to a range of different cults and actions, with different features and styles, throughout the empire, from oath-taking, to sacrifices, to temple building, all of which change from province to province.268 In some cases the only linking factor is that they form some type of cultic action to, or involving, the emperor and his family. Imperial cult was as diverse as the empire itself, though it often conformed to the traditions 267 268

Beard, North and Price 1998, 318 and 348-363. Price 1986, 179. 271 Price 1986, 177. 272 Price 1986, 177. 273 Dundas 1993, 119. 274 Dundas 1993, 119-126; Jong 2011, 626-629. 275 Dundas 1993; Pfeiffer 2010. 276 Dundas 1993, 68-88. 277 Dundas 1993, 259-339; Pfeiffer 2010, 236 and 283-293. 269 270

Beard, North, and Price 1998, 318. Beard, North, and Price 1998, 318 and 348-363.

35

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

associate the emperors with the sanctuary and its history, yet also emphasise their difference, and the new regime that ruled the country. It provides visibility to the people of Egypt, with recent excavations suggesting that during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, habitation around Karnak extended up to the walls of the sanctuary. 283 It also suggests that the Egyptian temple might no longer have been the primary way of interacting with the rulers. In their placement, the statues and the chapel function as both a way of creating visibility and a dialogue with the people of the area, and as a way to emphasise the distance between the Roman emperors and the Egyptian temple.

C.3. Karnak Located outside the first pylon of the Egyptian temple of Amun at Karnak in Upper Egypt is an Imperial chapel, home to the only identifiable cult statue remains.278 The chapel itself is a prostyle tetrastyle structure with Corinthian capitals. Placed alongside the inner walls of the cella are fourteen statue bases, four have surviving outlines of the attached stone statues and six have Greek inscriptions identifying two to Augustus as Zeus Eleutherios (66 A, B), three to Claudius (66, C, D, E), and one to Titus (66 F). The first question that must be considered is whether these are the remains of cult statues. The principal evidence is their location. This structure is a small temple, and the statues are all placed inside the cella or naos. As Price noted, this was the traditional location for cult statues in Asia Minor.279 There are also the inscriptions on the statue bases themselves, which refer to Augustus and Titus (and Vespasian) as theon. There has been much discussion on the meanings of the words theon and theos in Egypt, and their use in relation to the emperors, but in this case it seems clear the inscriptions refer to the (probably deceased) emperors as gods.280 Pfeiffer notes that a similar chapel and group of statues have been identified as belonging to Imperial cult in the forum of Narona in Dalmatia.281

C.4. Other Imperial statues used in cult in Egypt Within the statuary records of Egypt, there are many examples of Imperial statues which could be identified as cultic ones, such as the colossal head of Hadrian from Athribis (34), or the cuirassed statues of Marcus Aurelius (89) and Septimius Severus (91) found near Cleopatra’s Needles in Alexandria. All three of these conform to ideas about the image of Imperial cult statues, and come from areas reported to hold temples, but without further evidence it is impossible to identify them as such. Other evidence comes from literary sources, though these can be difficult to substantiate, and are often associated with Egyptian temples rather than classical-style ones. In relation to the existence of statues in the classical context, there are the receipts for a special tax concerning the provision or renovation of Imperial statues discussed earlier (see Chapter 2).284 One states that a statue of Trajan had been placed in the local Caesareum.285 Ulrich Wilcken interpreted this as meaning the statues in the receipts were cult statues, providing evidence for cults and cult statues in Upper Egypt to emperors from the reigns of Hadrian to Marcus Aurelius.286 The statues are described as being of gold and silver, and it is possible these are cult statues of Imperial temples whose maintenance is being paid for by the people and supervised by the state. The terms used to identify the statues in these receipts are andrias (ἀνδριάς), meaning a statue of a man, and protomē (προτομή), usually referring to a bust.287 This language is not traditionally used to describe cultic images, and so points to another type of statue that resided in the temple. The andrias and protomē could be the same images that were taken out during processions in place of cult statues, though these are associated more with the Egyptian temples.

Little remains of these statue bases, and so far no remains of their statues have been recovered. Given the nature of the chapel, its tetrastyle form and Corinthian capitals, they were most likely classical in style, a concept supported by the surviving outlines on the bases. What these bases emphasise is that the cult statues of the emperors in this context follow the same traditions and placements as others in the Greek east. They are not represented as Roman pharaohs and are not directly part of the Egyptian temple cult. The chapel itself has no dedicatory inscription. Its origins and date can only be guessed at. The bases for Claudius have been identified by Jean Lauffray as belonging to the first year of his reign, AD 41/42, meaning that the chapel was established during the Julio-Claudian period, possibly as a temple to Augustus, and then remained in use, with new emperors added over time, to at least the Flavian period.282 Its style, as identified in the surviving fragments, is classical, and particularly Roman with the use of a podium and frontal steps. This evidence locates these cult statues within a typically Roman classical context, suggesting the actual cult also conformed to this type.

C.5. Caesarea There are many Caesarea recorded throughout Egypt, usually in papyrus, some with only one line referring to them. Between them, Dundas and Pfeiffer have collected these together, allowing identification of Caesarea in

The chapels’ classical nature is especially noticeable given that it is located on the dromos of the temple of Amun at Karnak, one of the oldest and most important religious sites in Egypt. In location, the chapel is able to

Sullivan 2010, 23. Wilcken 1899, 152-155, no.94, 100, 105, 151, 249, 254; Wallace 1939, 159-162; Fishwick 1989. 285 Wallace 1939, 159; Fishwick 1989, 336. 286 Wilcken 1988, 152-153; Fishwick 1989, 335-336. 287 Fishwick 1989, 335-336. 283

Chevrier 1939, 557; Lauffray 1971, 118-121. 279 Price 1986, 177. 280 Jong 2006; Jong 2011. 281 Pfeiffer 2010, 143. 282 Lauffay 1971. 278

284

36

Cult Statues

Alexandria, Canopus,Arsinoe, Philadelphia, Herakleopolis, Oxyrhynchus, Hermopolis Magna, Antinoopolis, Karnak, Lykopolis, Elephantine, and Philae.288 A number of these towns are also identified as being home to temples to Hadrian and some to Faustina, including Alexandria, Arsinoe, Oxyrhynchus, and Hermopolis Magna.289 The evidence provided by the literary sources, both for the Caesarea and the statues as discussed above, suggests that Imperial temples are the places to locate cult statues, and it is through a discussion of these locations that an understanding of statue context can be reached. Apart from the chapel at Karnak, little survives in the archaeological record. Even the large temple at Alexandria has only a few remains.290 The only other re-constructible Imperial temple in Egypt is located on the island sanctuary of the temple of Isis at Philae.291

This shows that the temple evolved into an Imperial one, with emperors added over time, and the local inhabitants assumed its maintenance. The description of the temple at Philae is similar to the one at Karnak. They have the same basic form, architectural features, a similar location, and show the same practice of adding emperors over time. It is possible they were created at the same time, or are representational of the type of structure used to house Imperial cult statues. It is the location that is most interesting; like the Imperial shrine at Karnak, this one is positioned in relation to an Egyptian temple. The Imperial temple at Philae is closely related to the Egyptian temple, simply because it is confined to the island, but it would have stood out as a different style, emphasising this juxtaposition of ideas in that these new Imperial temples both draw on the importance and place of the older Egyptian ones and distinguish themselves from them. This pattern of erecting classical structures next to Egyptian temples is not confined to Imperial cult. The temple of Serapis at Luxor (fig. 14) was also a classical structure with a classical statue of Isis (still present, now headless) and along the dromos of Dendera classical nymphaea (fountain houses) were built.295 The construction of classical style structures in relation to Egyptian temples was a feature of the Imperial period. These structures were aimed at both linking the new regime and culture to the Egyptian past, yet also asserting the new classical order and style. It seems that the emperors could only be represented at the Egyptian temples in this classical manner.

The temple at Philae is a prostyle in antis tetrastyle temple with Corinthian capitals (fig. 13). In front of the temple stands a rectangular space for the placement of an altar or statue. An inscription on its architrave records its dedication: Αὐτοκράτορι Καίσαρι Σεβαστῶι εὐεργέτῃ,(ἔτους) ιη ἐπὶ Ποπλίου Ῥοβρίου Βαρβάρου

σωτῆρι

καὶ

‘To Imperator Caesar Augustus, saviour and Benefactor, in the 18th year (13/12 BC) during the term of office of Publius Rubruius Barbarus.’292 The chapel was a creation instituted during the term of Publius Rubruius Barbarus at one of the most important religious sites in Egyptian thought. It was also a classical Roman temple, with a podium and stairs, though one which incorporated local features such as the use of granite, diorite and an Egyptian cavetto cornice.293 Originally dedicated to Augustus, a later dedication has been uncovered to Vespasian reading:

C.6. In Egyptian temples The key question relating to Imperial cult in Egypt has always been whether it was absorbed into the Egyptian temples, whether the statues of the emperors continued the Ptolemaic tradition of being theoi synnaoi. Recent work has shown such statues were not. There is no evidence to suggest the emperors were considered as gods alongside the traditional Egyptian deities.296 This means there was no Egyptian cult statue of the emperor in the temple, in the holy of holies, as there had been for the Ptolemies.

Αὐτοκρά[τορα Καίσαρα] Ο̣ὐε̣[σπασιανὸν Σεβαστὸ]ν τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ εὐεργέτηω, οἱ ἀπὸ Φιλῶν καὶ Δωεκασχοίνου ‘To Impera[tor Caesar] Ve[spasianus Augustu]s, Saviour and Benefactor, consecrated by the inhabitants of Philae and the Dodekaschoinos.’294

This does not mean the emperors were left out of the Egyptian temples completely. The evidence demonstrates an Imperial presence, but in a different way to that of the Ptolemaic kings. The emperors were identified as pharaohs in the reliefs of the temples, and were incorporated into that aspect of representation. There are also examples of cultic actions being paid towards the emperor in various ways: there are references to a ‘Prophet of Caesar’ at Memphis during the reign of Augustus, to a priest of the Naos of Caesar in the Fayoum, and of a shrine to Claudius at Oxyrhynchus.297 These positions demonstrate the

Dundas 1993, 135-177: Alexandria, Canopus, Arsinoe, Philadelphia, Oxyrhynchus, Hermopolis Magna, Lykopolis, Heptakomia, Philae; Pfeiffer 2010, 237-244: Alexandria, Philae, Canopus, Antioopolis, Arsinoe, Elephantine, Heptakomia, Herakleopolis, Hermopolis, Lykopolis, Oxyrhynchus, and Philaedelphia. 289 Dundas 1993, 135-177: Hadrian - Alexandria, Memphis, Arsinoe, Oxyrhynchus, Hermpolis Magna. Faustina - Oxyrhynchus, Hermpolis Magna; Pfeiffer 2010, 257-258: Hadrian - Alexandria, Memphis, Arsinoe, Bubastis, Herakleopolis, Hermopolis Magna, and Oxyrhynchus. 290 McKenzie 2007, 177. 291 Dundas 1993, 173-177; McKenzie 2007, 166-167; Pfeiffer 2010, 141-142. 292 OGIS II 657; Bernand 1969, no.140, 72-76. 293 McKenzie 2007, 166. 294 Bernand 1969, no.161, 146-150. 288

McKenzie 2007, 168 and 160. Dundas 1993, 341-344; Pfeiffer 2010, 293-294. 297 Naos: P. Oxy. X 1256; Claudius shrine: P. Oxy. VIII. 1144; General discussion: Dundas 1993, 313; Herklotz 2007, 304; Pfeiffer 2010, 282-285. 295 296

37

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 13. Temple of Augustus at Philae (© Author)

Figure 14. Temple of Serapis, Luxor (© Author)

38

Cult Statues

existence of cultic activity in the temples directed towards the emperors, but are not a universal and continuous feature, and do not identify the emperors as gods on the same level as the Egyptian ones.

processions, and the emperors themselves received a form of cult through activities performed to them. They had a place in the temples, but as important, respected rulers or new pharaohs, not as gods.

Most important are the references made to images, specifically those being carried on procession and in the inventories of temples. A fragment from the Oxyhrynchus papyrus describes a procession listing the various gods involved, including Zeus, Hera, Kore, and Caracalla, Julia Domna, and Septimius Severus.298 Inventories from the Oxyrhynkite nome, among others, mention statues identified as small effigies.299 Like those identified in the tax receipts, these statues are generally referred to as andrias and protomē, language that does not typically associate them with cult statues. It has even been suggested that such images were not even statues, but could have been any representation of the emperor, such as a painting.300 This shows that there were Imperial images in Egyptian temples that were not regarded as cult statues, and so did not receive daily offerings. They were still an important part of ceremonies and festivals, and so possessed almost semi-cultic positions. The location of these statues or images within the temple is difficult to ascertain; they were not cult statues and so cannot be placed in the naos of a temple. Given their place in temple inventories, and their position in cultic activities, it would be logical to place them with the other equipment for such activities. In some ways, the representation of the emperors in the Egyptian temples is reminiscent of the treatment of the Dynastic pharaohs, who held a special place in the temple but were not worshipped as gods. This is seen most clearly in the continued representation of the emperors in pharaonic forms in relief and in the existence of offices such as the prophet of Caesar. In general, the representation of the emperors in Egypt did not conform to Dynastic material, as seen in the existence classical shrines and statues of Philae and Karnak. C.7. Imperial cult statues: Conclusion There is little evidence for Imperial cults or cult statues in Egypt, though more for other forms of imagery. The evidence that does exist, particularly from Karnak and Philae, points to Roman-style statues in a classical Roman context, albeit contexts that incorporated Egyptian stylistic features. This aspect of cult, which is confined to the Caesarea, is separate from the Egyptian temples. This division is made clear by the placement of Imperial temples adjacent to Egyptian ones, a move that both emphasises the difference between the emperors and the old Egyptian forms and attempts to associate them together. In the Egyptian temples the emperors were incorporated, but not as gods with cult statues. Rather, semi-divine representational images were used in P. Oxy. XII 1449; Pfeiffer 2010, 287-289. P. Oxy. XII 1449; Pfeiffer 2010, 286. 300 Pfeiffer 2010, 287. 298 299

39

Chapter 4

Categories and Contexts Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt was home to a number of different cultures, each with its own sculptural style and concepts concerning the look, placement, and purpose of royal images. The archaeological evidence for the context of royal statues is fragmented, with an uneven distribution of material throughout Egypt, and a disproportionate focus in excavation on particular sites. Despite this, it is possible through drawing on the available evidence from Egypt, and evidence from earlier periods and comparable sites elsewhere in the ancient world, to identify a number of clear patterns of placement relating to style, type of site, and location for the royal statues. I begin by considering the different categories of statue, and then focus on the two types of sites the material comes from - Egyptian temples and metropoleis. I set out the basic features of these different sites and identify the locations royal statues normally occupied within them. I discuss the evidence that has been found in other contexts, identifying these sites and how they fit into the evidence. I end by discussing in depth the patterns that can be identified in the discussion of the catalogue evidence, relating to style, geographical distribution, and the nature of the archaeological evidence. A. Categories of royal statue The different categories of royal statue present in Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt have already received substantial scholarly attention, especially in the works of Bernard Bothmer, Helmut Kyrieleis, Bert Smith, and Paul Stanwick.301 Six different categories of sculptural style can be identified in the sculptural material present in this study. The first category of statue is the most numerous - the Egyptian-style statue. This is the traditional pharaonic statue, typically standing with one leg forward, with a back-pillar, wearing a shendyt, ureaus, and headdress. Fifty-one examples of Egyptian-style royal statues are found throughout the country, including three from the temple of Amun at Tanis (the broken torso statue (23), the seated pharaoh (24), and the statuette of Ptolemy II (25)) and three from the temple of Amun at Karnak (a standing Ptolemaic king (61), a torso of Ptolemy VI (63), and the fragment of a standing queen (64)). The second category is the Greek-style statue. This is a Ptolemaic royal image that conforms to the classical forms of the Hellenistic world and ruler imagery. All possible examples of Ptolemaic Greek-style statuary have been

301

Bothmer 1969; Kyrieleis 1975; Smith 1988; Stanwick 2002.

collected by Kyrieleis.302 There are twenty provenanced examples of this style, including the cult statue group from Thmuis (28) (see Chapter 3), a head from Bubastis identified through portrait features as Arsinoe III (31), and a head identified as Berenike II from Hermopolis Magna (49) (see Chapter 3). The Imperial statue is the third statue category identified in the contextualised evidence of this study. This statue style is the traditional representation of the emperor, ranging from colossal images to life-size heads, and showing the emperor in civic, religious, or military dress. The only example from Lower Egypt is the colossal head of Hadrian from Athribis (34). There are nineteen others found elsewhere in the country, ten in Upper Egypt and nine in Alexandria, including a cuirassed Marcus Aurelius from Alexandria (89). The Imperial style also represents other members of the Imperial family, such as a head of Antonia Minor from Alexandria (86). The fourth and fifth categories of statue are related. They are the Egyptian statues with Greek features (representing the Ptolemies), and the Egyptian statues with Roman features (representing the emperors). Both present a traditional pharaonic statue with classical elements incorporated into it, usually confined to the head, consisting of classical portrait features and hair. Egyptian statues with Greek features are identified in three locations, Canopus/Herakleion-Thonis (6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 19), at the site of Medinet Madi and Tebtunis in the Fayoum (42-46), and Alexandria (78-80, 83-85) (though there are examples ‘said to be from’ other regions). Examples of these categories include the heads of Ptolemy IV (6) and Ptolemy VI (7) from Canopus. There are twenty-one examples of Egyptian statues with Greek features with an identifiable provenance in total. Egyptian statues with Roman features are found throughout the country, with seven present in the catalogue, including statues of Caracalla from Tanis (26) and Mendes (27). A sixth and separate category is the inscribed statue base or plinth. These bases and plinths are included in this study as they often have a strong provenance and provide insights into the representation of the king or emperor through epigraphic evidence. The style of the statues these bases supported is usually indeterminate, and use of a particular language in the inscription is not a guarantee of style. Not all the Greek inscribed bases present in the catalogue identify their accompanying statue as representing that of the monarch. These bases have been included because they were still meant to carry a statue, 302

40

Kyrieleis 1975.

Categories and Contexts

Figure 15. Ram-headed sphinxes lining the dromos of Karnak (© Author)

architecture. It functioned primarily as the house of the god, identified in the cult statue, and was wrapped in the rituals and rites (see Chapter 3). The temples also played a pivotal role in the politics and economy of the country. From the rule of Ptolemy I there was investment in Egyptian cults and architecture. It was during the Roman period that a general decline began, along with the movement of authority to the idios logos in Alexandria.303 During Imperial rule, there were additions to numerous temples, but investment did not match the level of Ptolemaic involvement.304

possibly of the royal referred to in the inscription, and provide insight into the placement of royal imagery and ideology in Egypt. There are also a number of inscribed bases where different scholars have translated the text differently, some suggesting the inscription does refer to a royal statue. There are eleven inscribed statue bases or plinths referring to monarchs with a provenance, including of Arsinoe III (5) and Cleopatra III (8) from Canopus, and those of Ptolemy VI from Philae (67 and 68). B. Egyptian temples

The standard plan of the temple was developed during the New Kingdom and refined under Ptolemaic rule. It consisted of a series of regular spaces arranged in a linear pattern defined by a central pathway and monumental gates. The best preserved example is the temple of Edfu, begun by Ptolemy III in 237 BC and completed in 70 BC (fig. 7). From the inside out, Egyptian temples typically consisted of a central naos surrounded by chapels, a series of Halls with adjacent rooms (such as a library) and stairs leading to roof chapels, a pronoas, and open forecourt(s) defined by pylons. Outside the temple proper were a variety of other structures both sacred (such as the

The majority of the evidence in the catalogue comes from an Egyptian temple context. The statues either have a find spot within an Egyptian temple or a provenance from an Egyptian temple site. These examples include statues from the temples of Amun-Gereb at Herakleion-Thonis (17-18), of Amun at Tanis (23-26), the temples at Mendes (27) and Pithom (29), from the sanctuary of Renenutet at Medinet Madi (42-44) and from the temples of Amun at Karnak (6165) and Isis on Philae (67-68). In order to understand the context of these royal statues, I outline the major features of the Egyptian temple, and then identify the placement of royal sculpture.

Finnestad 1997, 229. McKenzie 2007, 136-41; also see Arnold 1999a for a chronological list of additions to temples in the Late Period. 303

The temple was the dominant feature of the Egyptian landscape and the principal form of monumental

304

41

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 16. Layout of Temple of Amun at Tanis (Baines and Malek 1980, 176; © John Baines and Jaromir Malek)

Mammisi (birth-house)), and secular (such as workshops). The entire temple area was enclosed by an undulating mud-brick wall representing the primordial waters. There were numerous gateways around this enclosure, with the principal one connected to the temple. This gate and the primary dromos often linked the temple to the Nile.305

chapels, open courts, lining pathways, defining pillars, and flanking gates.306 Placement of sculpture is illustrated by the material found in situ at the temple of Amun at Karnak. In Azim and Reveillac’s analysis of Legrain’s excavations at Karnak, there are many examples of statues found in such areas, including ram-headed sphinxes lining the dromos (fig. 15) and two alabaster colossi flanking the Tenth pylon.307 Similar examples are observed with the line of sphinxes at the Temple of Amun at Luxor (fig. 17) and in the placement of statues within the Valley Temple of Khafre at Giza.308 Loeben has also collected together evidence through reliefs and inscriptions at Karnak

In Dynastic Egypt, temples had always functioned as the principal location for the placement of statuary, particularly royal statuary. The theological ideas of the Egyptian temple and the entwining of ‘religion’ and state made royal representation a necessary feature of construction and worship. There are many examples from the Dynastic period that demonstrate this. From the Old Kingdom onwards royal statues are found standing in subsidiary 305

Arnold 1999b, 41-9; Robins 2001, 34-42; Kjølby 2007, 231-44. Azim and Reveillac 2004, Sphinxes: 87-101, 4-1/27-34, Statues: 239242, 4-7/1-4. 308 Arnold 1999, 42. 306 307

Finnestad 1997, 189-90; Coppens 2007, 10.

42

Categories and Contexts

Figure 17. Sphinxes and colossi defining the dromos and entrance of the Temple of Luxor (Photo: Author)

demonstrating that statue placement, especially royal statues, conforms to these patterns.309

The primary evidence for placing royal statues in the forecourt of the temple is in the priestly decrees (see Chapter 2). The decrees of Raphia, Memphis, and Philae all detail the creation of Egyptian-style statues and state they are to be placed (in Hieroglyphics) in wsḫt mšˁ nt ḥwt-nṯr, which translates as ‘the court of the multitude of the god’s house.’313 This is the forecourt of the temple. A number of copies of the decrees have been found at the same Egyptian temple sites as royal sculptural material, including Tanis and Philae. Within the temple of Amun at Tanis (fig. 16), a copy of the Canopus decree was discovered in the temple area, along with a range of other material including sculpture and inscriptions from both the Dynastic and Late Periods. The Canopus decree states that the inscription itself is also to be set up in the court of the multitude, identifying the area the decree was found as that court. This is also observed at the temple of Isis on Philae where the Philae decrees are inscribed on the Mammisi wall in the court (fig. 4). These texts show that this space was the location for the placement of Ptolemaic royal sculpture.314

The statuary material located in these areas did not only represent the king. Accompanying him were statues of gods and the elite, often priests or scribes. Examples of such representation can be found in the Karnak Cachette, which was composed of large amounts of non-royal material up to and including the Ptolemaic period.310 These statues occupied the same types of locations as royal material and served the same basic functions, to establish a presence in the temple.311 The current evidence presented by Ptolemaic and Imperial material from Egyptian temple sites shows that it followed the same patterns in placement and location as earlier Dynastic sculpture. The focus of the statues’ placement is on the forecourt of the temple and the dromos, and the definition of gates and entrances. 312 There is no evidence for the presence of royal statues in relation to mortuary temples, as these structures are not a feature of this period.

References for the priestly decrees follow the same pattern as in Chapter 2 and 3: Raphia Decree: Simpson 1996, L35-37; Memphis Decree: Quirke and Andrews 1988, G L38-40; D L22-24; H L6-7; Second Philae: Muller 1920, H L13f-14e; D L11c-11h; First Philae: Müller 1920, H L9b-10a, D L9f-10d; Daumas 1952, 169-170; Simpson 1996. 314 Canopus Decree: Bernand 1992, no.9; Simpson 1996; G L74-75; D L74. 313

Loeben 2001. 310 Karnak cachette: IFAO Cachette Database 2011, examples include CK5 (K5) group statue, CK23 (K24) block statue, CK27 (K29) head of a priest, CK219 (K250) striding statue. 311 Robins 2001, 41-2; Ben Tor 2001; Kjølby 2007. 312 Brophy 2014b. 309

43

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

The material from the temple of Amun at Tanis also demonstrates the placement of Ptolemaic and Imperial royal sculpture in these traditional areas. From Tanis comes a statue head of the emperor Caracalla (26). The head was discovered by Auguste Mariette, who gives its find spot as the temple of Amun. No further information is provided, but the head is listed alongside other finds including a Dynastic sphinx and the statue of a queen, suggesting it came from a similar location.315 With no further description, it can only be assumed Mariette meant the head came from within the temple itself. If the head originated from within the temple proper the only place this statue could be located is the forecourt, as no other space (the naos or halls) can be identified as holding sculpture during this period. The area identified as the forecourt of the temple of Amun is full of fragments of inscriptions (including the aforementioned Canopus decree), architecture, and sculpture.

temple of Amun, but also with a small Egyptian shrine. When Petrie excavated the area, he uncovered a structure interpreted by him as a shrine to Ptolemaic ruler cult based on the presence of this statue and two stelae depicting two Ptolemaic couples in a divine manner.317 The statue was part of the construction and use of the shrine. Egyptian temple complexes were made up of numerous shrines and naoi, all of which commanded their own sculptural material. C. Metropoleis The second principal sites for the discovery of royal sculpture are the metropoleis, or major towns, of Egypt. In Dynastic Egypt, the entire country was divided into administrative regions called nomes, each with its own capital. Little is known of these urban areas in the Dynastic period. There is significantly more evidence from the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods, due to the excavation of sites such as Athribis, Oxyrynchus, Hermopolis Magna, and Antinoopolis. The majority of sculptural material from the metropoleis have been discovered without any architectural or immediate contextual framework. This means that, unlike material in the Egyptian temples, the statues of the metropoleis do not have direct contexts. It is necessary to understand the fabric of the towns in general in order to gain an idea of the setting of these statues.

A comparable location is known for the statue of Caracalla from the temple of Min at Koptos (60). This statue was found at the base of a set of stairs leading in to the temple in a small court-like area. Flinders Petrie suggested that the statue stood at the top of the stairs, defining the entrance. Also from the forecourts of Koptos come a fragment of a torso of Ptolemy III (58) and a fragment of the headdress of Arsinoe II (59). At Karnak a torso of a Ptolemy (61) was found as part of the Karnak Cachette in the seventh court of the temple. The accessibility of this material in the temple forecourt by the population is open to debate, but the statues were seen by the priests and elite, and were part of the rituals of the temple. All these statues point to the presence of Ptolemaic and Imperial royal sculpture in the forecourt of the Egyptian temple.

During the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods, the towns of Egypt developed significantly, with the addition of Hellenic styles and culture creating a new fabric in Egypt. Though there were only three official Greek poleis (Alexandria, Naukratis, and Ptolemais Euergetis), papyri refer to the presence of Greek cultural institutions throughout the country, such as Gymnasia in Memphis and Thebes, Baths at Arsinoe and Philadelphia, and a Hippodrome in Herakleopolis Magna.318 The Imperial period provides the majority of evidence concerning the metropoleis and their layout, especially the physical developments of the second century AD. These developments altered the make-up of towns to match other cities in the Roman east. The facilities and civic infrastructure, already in place in the Ptolemaic period, came to the fore. Excavations and papyri provide evidence for the construction of colonnaded cardo and decumanus streets, the primary streets around which everything grew, including stoai, gates, baths, temples, temples to imperial cult, tetrastylae, theatres, and bouleterea.319

The other secure example for the placement of sculptural material at Tanis is the statuette of Ptolemy II (25). This statue was excavated by Petrie in front of a small shrine on the dromos of the temple. It is one of many royal statues to come from a temple dromos, including c.28 sphinxes (42) from the temple of Renenutet at Medinet Madi, two statues of late Ptolemies (45-46) from the temple of Soknebtunis at Tebtunis, a sphinx from Zaweit el-Amwat (48), and a statue of a Cleopatra from Karnak (64). This was a primary location for sculptural material. The dromos was the most highly visible part of the temple. The statues placed there, such as this Ptolemy II, were the most accessible images of the temple, sculpture that could be interacted with. Evidence from the New Kingdom shows that royal and divine statues placed in such locations were the focus of cultic activity.316 This statue of Ptolemy II (25) existed in a space so as to represent, and be a point of interaction with, him.

The best examples of these newly refurbished cities which provide evidence for royal sculpture are Athribis and Hermopolis Magna. Athribis was an ancient nome capital, with an Egyptian temple to Triphis. Recent Polish excavations have uncovered a large amount of the

The role of the statue of Ptolemy II (and other material from the dromos of a temple) as an object for cultic interaction is further emphasised in its association not only with the 315 316

Stelae: Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II - BM1056, Cleopatra’s Egypt 1988, no.14, 103-104. Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III - BM1054, Cleopatra’s Egypt 1988, no.15, 105. 318 McKenzie 2007, 152-153. 319 Bowman 2001, 179-82; McKenzie 2007, 154-60. 317

Mariette 1887, 15-16. Habachi 1969, 17-19, 42-44, 49.

44

Categories and Contexts

material and fabric of Athribis.320 The material shows a shift in emphasis from (though not an abandonment of) the Egyptian temple in the west to the town in the east during the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods. The excavations have uncovered a large amount of ceramic material and several substantive Ptolemaic structures, including a villa containing sculptural fragments of several statues of Aphrodite.321 There is also evidence for the development of Baths under Claudius and Nero, a colonnaded cardo and decumanus built in the mid-second century AD, a classical temple with Corinthian capitals, and the marble cornice and capital of a tetrastylon.322

Corinthian architectural features and a Greek architrave inscription dated to 240 BC that reads: βασιλεῖ Πτο|λεμαίωι τῶι Πτολεμαίου κα|ὶ Ἀρσινόης, Θεῶν Ἀδελφῶν. καὶ Β|ασιλίσσηι Βερενίκηι τῆι ἀδελφῆι α|ὐτοῦ καὶ γυναικὶ Θεοῖς Εὐεργέτ|αις, καὶ Πτολεμαίωι καὶ Ἀρσινόηι Θ̣|εοῖς Ἀδελφοῖς τὰ ἀγάλματα κ|αὶ τὸν ναὸν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐντὸ|ς τοῦ τεμένους| καί τὴν στο|[ά]ν, οἱ τασσόμενοι ἐν τῶι Ἑρμο|πολίτηι νομῶι κάτοικοι ἰππε[ῖ]|ς. εὐεργεσίας ἕνεκεν τῆς εἰς αὐτούς. ‘To King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the brother-and-sister gods, and to queen Berenike, his sister and wife, the benefactor gods, and to Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the brother-and-sister gods, the cavalry settlers stationed in the Hermopolite nome (have dedicated) the statues and the temple and the rest inside the sacred precinct and the stoa for the benefactions shown to them.’329

The metropolis of Hermopolis Magna, modern ElAshmunein, is centrally located in the Nile valley, approximately 100 km south of Oxyrhynchus.323 From the Dynastic period it was a religious centre, home to a major temple to the god Thoth. Hermopolis Magna provides material evidence for Ptolemaic and Imperial towns through the so-called Repairs Papyrus. This is a report to the senate of the city from AD 264 by Aurelius Appianus that lists the buildings in need of maintenance along Antinoe St and the surrounding area.324 This list refers to the Sun Gate, the north stoai, the first tetrastylon, the arch, the gate of the temple of Aphrodite, the temple of Tyche, the Great Tetrastylon, the tetrastylon of Athena, stoai, and the Moon Gate. And along a second street: a temple of Hadrian, a south-west stoa, the market building and stoa, the stoa near the agora, the temple of Serapis by the Nile, the komasterion (procession house), east and west nymphaea (fountain houses), and the temple of Tyche.325 Other papyri documents supplement this list with structures from around the city, including temples to Apollo, Asklepios, Bastet, the Dioskouri, three to Serapis, Faustina, Alexander Severus and Julia Mamaea, a Sebasteion, and a Kaisereion.326 As well as a council house, a town hall, a library, and a complex composed of the Baths of Hadrian, the gymnasium, and the Great Serapeum.327

Alongside this temple there are also the remains of the komasterion or procession house. Enough of this structure has been uncovered to create a reconstruction showing it had Corinthian capitals and a Roman style entrance.330 The komasterion as a building type appears to have only existed in Roman Egypt.331 Numerous other fragments (more capitals) have also been found, including a partial Corinthian capital belonging to the tetrastylon of Marcus Aurelius (52).332 The town of Hermopolis Magna, despite the presence of a Dynastic temple to the Egyptian god Thoth, sounds like a typical classical city in the Repairs Papyri and looks like one in the archaeological record. The towns of Egypt provided the structures, amenities, and infrastructure required to place classical sculpture. Towns were the principal centres for representation in the Hellenistic and Roman period in the Greek East, and pivotal places for display include the agora, forum, theatre, baths, law courts, and gates.333 These were places where statues were observed by the masses, and where events, meetings, and the business of the town took place. Examples of royal statues occupying such locations include the statue of Antiochus III in the council house at Teos, of Ptolemy III in an Athenian gymnasium, and the statues on the monumental gate at Perge that included emperors, their wives, founders of the city, and the dedicator’s family.334 Panhellenic and local sanctuaries were another area for display, for example the statues of Philip and his family in the Philippeion at Olympia, the column statues of Ptolemy

Alongside this Repairs Papyrus, the site has been visited, explored, and recorded since the 19th century, but the principal excavations were undertaken by A. Jeffrey Spencer and Donald Bailey in the 1980s.328 Finds from the site consist of a range of architectural blocks and foundations for a variety of structures along the two main streets of the town (cat site. 21). The most substantial remains include the foundations and architectural remains of a classical-style structure, including Doric and Mysliwiec and Herbich 1988; Mysliwiec 1992. Mysliwiec and Herbich 1988, 183; Mysliwiec 1992, 261. 322Alston 2002, 136-8; McKenzie 2007, 164. 323 For Hermopolis Magna: Alston 2002, 238-242; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 162-167; Excavations at El-Ashmunein vols I-V: especially Spencer 1989; Bailey 1991; Spencer 1993; McKenzie 2007, 158-160. 324 Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten X 1971, No.10299 (P. Vindob gr 12565). 325 Bailey 1991, 57-59; McKenzie 2007, 158. 326 Bailey 1991, 57-59; McKenzie 2007, 158. 327 McKenzie 2007, 158. 328 Spencer and Bailey 1984a; 1984b; Spencer 1989; 1993; Bailey 1991.

329 For Hermpolis Magna: Alston 2002, 238-242; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 162-167; Excavations at El-Ashmunein vols I-V: especially Spencer 1989; Bailey 1991; Spencer 1993; Mckenzie 2007, 56-58 and 158-160: For Inscription: Bernand 1999, no.1. 330 Spencer and Bailey 1986, 231-7; Bailey 1990, 125-6; Alston 2002, 238-242; McKenzie 2007, 159-60. 331 McKenzie 2007, 159. 332 Spencer and Bailey 1984, 45-6; Spencer 1989, 74. 333 Smith 1988, 18-9; Fejfer 2008, 226-7; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2011, 134. 334 Antiochus III: Smith 1988, 19; Ptolemy Gymnasium: Pausanias I.17.2; Gate at Perge: Boatwright 2000, 64-5.

320 321

45

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

from the sanctuary refers to the dedication of agalmata alongside the physical structures, and this term can refer to large-scale imagery. The context of the head of Berenike II was a large temple complex, using classical architectural features, and placed within a Hellenic town. This head most likely formed part of a group with other images from the site, providing a representation of the Ptolemaic dynasty within a typical Hellenistic framework.

II and Arsinoe II dedicated by Kallikrates at Olympia, and the statue to Attalus II at Delphi.335 The creation and dedication of royal statues was part of the dialogue between city and king. The material from Egypt points to numerous towns providing the same contexts and placements for sculpture as towns did elsewhere in the ancient world.336 From Athribis come two heads, firstly a late Ptolemaic head identified through comparisons with seals from Edfu as Ptolemy IX/X (33), and secondly a colossal head of Hadrian (34). Neither of these statues was found within an architectural framework. The former statue has no find spot at all, while the latter was found in the north-west section of the town. Both heads suggest a placement in relation to the town. Athribis was a developed nome capital, complete with the necessary political and architectural infrastructure required to create these statues and place them within a specific context. The best example from the site of such a context is the non-royal representations of Aphrodite from a shrine in the Ptolemaic villa, showing that such classical-style sculpture was placed in familiar locations.337 The statue head of Hadrian (34) indicates the presence of monumental architecture at the site. Given the developments in Athribis during the second century AD, this statue was likely placed within its own structure, possibly a temple to Hadrian.338

It is the tetrastylon of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (52) that provides a specific context from the site.339 A number of Roman era tetrastylae and column monuments exist within Egypt, the most well-known being the Column of Diocletian in Alexandria. The tetrastylae occupy classical contexts and enhance them with representations of the emperors. The other metropoleis surrounding Hermopolis Magna also possess tetrastylae. Antinoopolis and Oxyrhynchus both contain a group dating to the second century AD.340 These monuments form a significant part of town structure and display within Egypt from the second century AD onwards. Their role in displaying the Emperor, his family, and his successors, was an important one. In Hermopolis Magna, the Repairs Papyrus refers to three separate examples of tetrastylae, the First Tetrastylon, the Tetrastylon of Athena, and the Great Tetrastylon. It is the Great Tetrastylon that is of interest. This has been associated with a now missing dedicatory inscription to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (52), and a partial large Corinthian capital and column drum, both with lewis holes, excavated by Bailey and Spencer.341 All three items were found in the same vicinity, outside the eastern walls of the portico of the Great Basilica, around the intersection of the Dromos of Hermes and Antinoe Street. This is the location of the Great Tetrastylon seen in the Repairs Papyrus. It is Bailey who identifies these finds with the monument, stressing not only their location, but also the size of the capital and column drum, which are suitable for a tetrastylon. Bailey also compares the capital and drum with other material from the site, particularly fragments from the komasterion. These comparisons date the capital to the second half of the second century AD.342 Though no statue survives there is little doubt that one stood atop the structure. The size of the Corinthian capital shows this is possible, and as Bailey states ‘the statue placed on the Hermopolis tetrastylon must have been truly colossal.’343 These fragments are all that remain of the larger monument, which entailed four columns standing at the four corners of the intersecting streets.

Other material from metropoleis encounter the same problem. Though the material, such as the head of Arsinoe III from Bubastis (31), can be identified as belonging to towns, the statues are not situated within an architectural framework, and can only be identified as occupying a general context within the structures and locations of Hellenic-style towns. From Hermopolis Magna come three royal statues, a head of Berenike II (49), the torso of an emperor, possibly Hadrian (50), and a head of Antoninus Pius (51), as well as the column and inscription of part of a tetrastylon to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (52). Unlike the material from Athribis and other sites, the sculpture from Hermopolis Magna provides two pieces with discussable contexts, the head of Berenike II (49) and the tetrastylon of Marcus Aurelius (52). The head of Berenike II (49) (see Chapter 3) is a high quality work that demonstrates time and effort had gone into its creation (for instance, the marble was imported). It belongs in a suitably high standard context. If the head had been found in a space outside Egypt, at Pergamon or Priene for example, it would be associated with a major temple or some other fitting location. At Hermopolis Magna, the head is associated with the temple to the Theoi Adelphoi and Theoi Euergetai. The architrave inscription

This description of the monument (52) provides a specific location. The tetrastylon was placed at the very centre of the town, surrounded by classical structures, with stoai and temples on all sides. The temple to Thoth was nearby, but the structure, and its statues, were clearly embedded in

335 Philippeion; Schultz 2009, 125-19; Statues: Hoepfner 1971, 11-54; Attalus II: Austin 1981, no.206. 336 Brophy 2014b. 337 Mysliwiec and Herbich 1988, 183; Mysliwiec 1992, 261. 338 Fejfer 2008, 427.

Bailey 1990, 127-33; Bailey 1991, 29-32. Bailey 1990, 127-33; Bailey 1991, 30-32. 341 Bailey 1991, 29-32. 342 Bailey 1991, 29-32. 343 Bailey 1991, 31. 339 340

46

Categories and Contexts

the ‘Roman’ part of the town. As part of the character of the town, the tetrastylon is a distinctive monument, and a classical one with its Corinthian capital and acanthus base. Such columns have a history in the classical landscape, from those of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II at Olympia through to those of the tetrarchs at Graret Gser el-Trab.344 This column is both part of the external fabric of the classical town, and supports the distinctive classical context of the statue.

niches.347 The Ptolemaic head can be included alongside these statues as a classical-style representation of an important (divine?) figure within a home. There are no other examples for the solely domestic placement of royal imagery, though the priestly decrees refer to the creation of shrines by the people and at some temple sites domestic dwellings reached the temenos walls.348 Many statues, especially inscribed bases and plinths, are found reused. The base for a statue of Arsinoe III at Canopus (5) was reused as a step, and the base for the statues of Ptolemy VI (67) was found reused as the back of a bench for a boutique in Aswan. For such finds, an original placement is impossible to determine, though from the surrounding sites and epigraphic evidence a general provenance can be ascribed. The base of Arsinoe III can be associated with a temple given the ruins it was found close to and that it was dedicated by a ‘priest of the Nile’, while the reference to Isis and Horus on the base of Ptolemy VI (67) suggests it belongs on the island sanctuary of Isis on Philae.

D. Other contexts Examples of royal sculpture have been identified in three other context types; graves, villages, and reused spaces. Frequently, the examples are closely associated with other locations, such as temple sites, through their physical context or inscriptions. The first context regards the material found in graves. Three statues are identified as coming from tomb deposits; the Paraitonion head of Ptolemy IX found in a hypogeum tomb (1), the head of Arsinoe II from a crocodile tomb at Abu Rawash (38), and the plaster head of a first century BC Ptolemy found in a deposit outside an earlier tomb in Saqqara (40). All are part of ancient dumps, and are associated with other contexts. The Paraitonion head (1) is thought to have come from the nearby Hellenistic town of Paraitonion. A tomb is an unusual location for the placement of such imagery, and the head is better associated with the metropolis context where it could stand in a temple or agora. The head of Arsinoe II (38) has a closer association with the wider religious context of the site where it was found. The crocodile tomb is one part of a larger religious area and required the same imagery as the Egyptian temple, so this head can be associated with that general space. Only the plaster head of a late Ptolemy (40) was found where it was originally placed. This is a sculptor’s model, identifiable from the painted lines on the eyes and face, and was found with a collection of other models including both Egyptian-and Greek-style material. The deposit as a whole demonstrates the presence of a workshop in Saqqara that produced sculptures of the Ptolemaic kings as well as other images, and provides an insight into the creation and disposal of such images.

E. Categories and context In focusing on the placement of statues it is possible to identify a number of patterns relating to style and site. The first pattern to note is the difference in the available evidence between the various styles and the regions of Egypt.349 The material evidence is not evenly spread throughout each area, and there are significant differences in style and place (see Table 1). Firstly, there is the emphasis in the material of the Ptolemaic pharaonic statue, which outweighs all other statue styles everywhere but in Alexandria. Secondly, there is the distribution of Egyptian statues with Greek features. Despite the focus on this statue style in previous scholarship, there are few examples with good contexts, and the statues are found in only three areas in the whole country. The Egyptian statues with Roman features also display an unusual pattern, with the surviving seven concentrated in Lower and Upper Egypt at key temple sites. Finally, while the number of Greek-style images is equally distributed throughout the kingdom, the concentration of Imperial sculpture is in Alexandria and Upper Egypt. The reasons for these distribution patterns are partially due to accident of evidence and focus of excavation (especially the Egyptian material as the Egyptian temples are a focus for excavation), but they also point to a regional emphasis in stylistic representation. The geographical distribution of statue style suggests that different areas of Egypt were approached in different ways.350

There is only one example of a royal statue from a village. From the site of Karanis in the Fayoum comes a Greekstyle limestone statue head (41) identified by the Kelsey Museum as representing a Ptolemaic king, due to the fleshiness of the face and the presence of a diadem.345 The head was found in an Antonine layer in House 84. This Ptolemaic head has been identified by Elaine Gazda as originally standing in a wall niche within House 84.346 The wall niche is a common feature of the houses of Karanis, and they functioned as a location for the placement and display of such images. A selection of Ptolemaic style Aphrodite statues are also interpreted as occupying these

The primary pattern to emerge from the evidence is that Egyptian royal sculpture usually comes from the Egyptian Gazda 1978 – Aphrodite examples no. 18 and 19; Zeus no.47. Canopus Decree: Bernand 1992, no.9; Simpson 1996; G L65; D L65; Raphia Decree: Simpson 1996, L41-42; Memphis Decree: Quirke and Andrews 1988, G L52-53; D L31-32; H L13-14. 349 Brophy 2014b; Brophy Forthcoming. 350 Brophy 2014b; Brophy Forthcoming. 347 348

Bailey 1991, 30. Gazda 1978, no.37. 346 Gazd, 1978, no.37. 344 345

47

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 18. House structures of Karanis (© Author)

temple and the Greek-and Imperial-style sculpture is typically found in the metropoleis.351 This pattern can be observed in the examples used in the discussion of each type of site. All the material identified as coming from the temple of Amun at Tanis is Egyptian style (23-26), as is the material from the sites of Pithom (29), Heliopolis (35-37), Medinet Madi (42-44), Koptos (56-60), and Karnak (6165). Even Egyptian statues with Greek/Roman features follow this pattern, seen with the Caracallas from the temple of Amun at Tanis (26) and the temple of Banebdjedet at Mendes (27). Meanwhile, material associated with the metropoleis includes a Ptolemy (33) and Hadrian (34) from Athribis and those of Hermopolis Magna (49-52) as well as other sites such as Bubastis (31) and Aphroditopolis (53-54) can be identified as Greek-and Imperial-style representation.

have classical-style features; Canopus provides evidence of baths, mosaics, and Greek-style shrines, providing a context for the few examples of Greek-style material (2 and 4). But the towns themselves do not conform to the metropoleis pattern of Egypt or the classical world. Both sites demonstrate a clear Egyptian disposition in their material finds. While providing a ‘town’ context, the sites of Canopus and Herkleion-Thonis do so in a different way to the metropleis of Egypt. The head of Hadrian from Athribis (34) also raises questions. The head was discovered in the vicinity of the Dynastic temple to Triphis. There is a question as to whether the head should be associated with this space, flanking the doors of the temple alongside a line of sphinxes? There are several arguments against this suggestion, primarily the nature of Athribis during the period of discovery. The site was a jumble of blocks, making it difficult to associate finds with specific find spots. There is also other evidence that points to the presence of Imperial structures and statues located close to Dynastic temples. This is observed at both Karnak and Philae, where Imperial cult temples and images were erected along the dromos (see Chapter 3). It is possible that this head was part of a similar context, in a classical Roman structure, built purposefully for a cult and colossal statue of Hadrian, and placed adjacent to the Egyptian temple.

There are several examples within the evidence presented here that do not fit this pattern exactly. The material from Canopus (2-16), almost entirely Egyptian in style, was primarily found in a dump, and though close to a templelike structure, could have originated from anywhere in the town.352 Herakleion-Thonis also provides material that is not associated with a temple site (19).353 Are these statues actually part of a town context? In many ways they are, but this is not simple. The plan and structures of both sites is not the same as those of the metropolis of Athribis; there is no cardo or decumanus. Both sites did

Final consideration must be given to the first century BC plaster head from Saqqara (40), and to other (non-royal) material from that site. The head was found in a mixed

Brophy 2014b. Goddio 2007; Libonati, 2010. 353 Goddio 2007; Libonati, 2010. 351 352

48

Categories and Contexts

dump of Egyptian and Greek material, all from the same workshop.354 This suggests that in at least one area, two forms of stylistic material were being produced together. It raises the question as to whether there was a context where the two styles, Greek and Egyptian, were placed side-byside. The bust, while being produced alongside classical material, cannot be defined as serving in such a context. Saqqara is home to one example of such placement. The dromos of the Egyptian-style Serapeum was decorated with Dionysiac imagery, in keeping with the god’s Hellenised form. Bergmann suggests that one of the statue heads from this group can be identified as a Ptolemaic king; though Lauer and Picard note it is extremely worn and lacks the iconography for secure identification (it could represent a Dionysiac figure).355 This is a distinctive site, and, alongside the Ptolemaic bust, raises further questions concerning the relationship between style and context. If the fragment were a Ptolemaic head, it would provide a unique view, surrounded by classical imagery and yet set within a larger Egyptian context. Given its position on the dromos of Serapis, an Egyptian god absorbed into Greek culture, it is possible this is a special case, highlighting the uniqueness of this particular god. Within non-royal material culture in Egypt, there are many examples of sideby-side material, and even some that combine Egyptian and Greek or Roman motifs. This varies throughout the country, and it does not appear to extend to large-scale royal sculpture. F. Categories and Contexts: Conclusion From this analysis of the material collected here it is possible to establish the primary contextual sites for the placement of royal sculpture of the Ptolemaic and Imperial period. The statues are found in the religious and urban areas of Egypt, in the Egyptian temple and the Greek metropoleis. In relation to the temple, the location for such imagery is typically the forecourts, gates, and dromoi of the sanctuaries. In this capacity they follow Dynastic patterns of royal sculptural placement. The rulers also were only represented in Egyptian style in these sites. The Greek-and Roman-style material is found in the towns. Due to the lack of evidence, it is difficult to identify the exact placement of material in the metropoleis, though the site of Hermopolis Magna offers the most complete insight into the locations of such material. The archaeological and papyrological evidence of the towns provide an insight into their make-up and allows the deduction that royal imagery placed there occupied traditional classical contexts.

Emery 1970, 10; Hastings 1997. Lauer and Picard 1955, 259-260; Bergmann 2007, 246-263; McKenzie 2007, 119-120. 354 355

49

Chapter 5

Environment of Royal statues and Egyptian Statues with Greek Features The context of a statue is composed of a variety of different elements. Context is not simply the statue’s archaeological find spot or immediate placement, but also encompasses the wider environment; the surrounding statues, structures, and people. These elements form a key part of understanding royal sculpture in Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt, in how the statues fitted into these contexts, or environments, and how they functioned within them. I begin by discussing metropoleis, highlighting its makeup as revealed through archaeological excavation and papyrus records, and considering how these surroundings influence the statues. In considering the Egyptian Temple, I focus on using two particular sites as primary examples, Medinet Madi and Tebtunis in the Fayoum. Both of these sites have been well-excavated and provide interesting examples of royal sculpture (43-46). These sites also provide examples of Egyptian statues with Greek features. This is an oft-discussed group of Ptolemaic sculpture, and one that requires further investigation. The nature of the questions surrounding these statues, such as who were they intended for, makes them a vital part of the consideration of the wider environment of the royal statues. A. Environment of the Metropoleis It has already been established that Greek-style royal sculpture can be identified as originating from the metropoleis of Egypt. Their exact placements can be difficult to identify in the archaeological record, but from the excavation of the sites Athribis and Hermopolis Magna, as well as the papyrus record, it is possible to identify the Greek- and Roman-style royal statues as occupying the traditional locations associated with classical towns, standing in temple spaces and as part of tetrastylae monuments. When identifying the placement of royal statues in the metropoleis, the general environment and make-up of the sites of Athribis and Hermoplis Magna was also discussed (see Chapter 4). The archaeological evidence and papyrus records together make it clear that the nature of the towns reflected those of their Hellenic cousins elsewhere in the Mediterranean and Asia Minor. The Repairs Papyrus of Hermopolis Magna in particular points to the presence of stoai, temples, gates, baths, and an agora, all typical features of a classical town.356 This is further supported by the archaeological evidence, such as the inscription and remains of the temple to Ptolemy III and Berenike II, Corinthian capitals of the komasterion and the remains of

the Great Tetrastylon. This classical environment is also reflected in the other metropoleis of Egypt, in the theatre of Oxyrhynchus and the Hippodrome of Antinoopolis.357 The Greek- and Roman-style statues of the Ptolemies and Emperors were clearly one element of a wider classical environment that flourished in the metropoleis of Egypt. Royal statues were not the only images to exist within the metropoleis. Classical cities were often filled with sculpture representing not only kings, but important members of the community and gods. These statues typically occupied the same locations as those of rulers, including temples, gates, and stoai. There are a number of examples that demonstrate the presence of other classical sculpture in the metropoleis. From Hermopolis Magna are statue bases dedicated (in Greek) to Zeus Olympios and to a woman (Paullina?) set up by the city, demonstrating the presence of ideals and infrastructure typical of Greek towns.358 The group of Aphrodite statues from Athribis (fig. 12), found in what has been identified as a shrine or small chapel in a Ptolemaic villa also show the presence of other classical sculpture and ideas (this time concerning the gods) in the towns of Egypt.359 The theatre at Oxyrhynchus, excavated by Petrie, was found to be decorated with colossal marble statues, most likely representing the Muses.360 The classical temple of Serapis at Luxor had a classical-style Isis statue (fig. 14). These examples show that the erection of Greek-style statuary reflects practice found elsewhere in the Greek world, in both the way they were created and the forms used, and suggests that traditional contexts were used for the placement of statues in the metropoleis. The sculptural representations of the Ptolemaic and Imperial rulers stood in the same contexts as their Hellenistic cousins. One of the key aspects of the environment of these contexts is how public they were. The royal statues were placed in public buildings, and were meant to be seen and interacted with (see also Chapter 2). The head of Berenike (49) and the tetrastylon of Marcus Aurelius (52) in Hermopolis Magna were not hidden away in a quiet location, but placed in the central parts of the town - busy sites frequented by people going about their business – to the market or the bank. The people of Hermopolis Magna would have been viewing these images every day. This was one of the key purposes of their placement, to be visible, and to be part of the fabric of the town. The Egyptian metropoleis were not solely classical - not solely composed of Greek and Roman material. The Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 171. Bernand 1999, no. 16 and 17. 359 Mysliwiec and Herbich 1988, 183; Mysliwiec 1992, 261. 360 Petrie 2007, 52. 357 358

Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten X 1971, No.10299 (P. Vindob gr 12565); Bailey 1991, 57-59; McKenzie 2007, 158.

356

50

Environment of Royal statues and Egyptian Statues with Greek Features

Alongside the metropoleis of Egypt existed an unknown number of small towns and villages, many of which most likely held sculpture. There is only one example of a royal statue fragment from such a site in this study, the head of a Ptolemy from the village of Karanis (41). This statue occupied a domestic context, and was part of the decoration and fabric of the household. What is striking about the material from Karanis is that both Egyptian and Greek motifs are brought together, contrary to what appears in the public contexts of the metropoleis of Hermopolis Magna or Athribis. This ‘mixing’ of cultural styles is observed in the bronze Zeus wearing an Atef crown (fig. 19), and is also reflected in the ethnicity and relations of the population of the town; papyri point to a mixture of Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans, and suggest there was little concern about ethnic divisions showing that in the domestic sphere the line between the three cultures was blurred.361 The Ptolemaic head (41) was surrounded by a range of ‘mixed’ style imagery, in a place where such imagery and ‘mixing’ was the norm. This evidence stands in contrast to what can be observed in royal sculpture in general, showing that in the public sphere different ideas concerning display existed. B.1. Environment in the Temples: Medinet Madi and Tebtunis Medinet Madi and Tebtunis are two sites located approximately 15 km from each other in the southern part of the Fayoum (Map 1). Both sites are dominated by their temples and were excavated in the 1930s; Medinet Madi by Achille Vogliano and Tebtunis by Carlo Anti and Gilbert Bagnani.362 Both sites received additions to their temples throughout the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods, including kiosks, deipneteria (dining rooms), and sculpture. The sites also contain substantial remains of structures and other material such as shops, houses, and temples (cat sites 17 and 18).

Figure 19. Zeus wearing Atef Crown (Gazda 2004, no.47; © Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor)

majority began as Egyptian towns, centred on the temple, before becoming important centres in the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods. Hermopolis Magna was home to a temple to the god Thoth, while Athribis contained a temple to Triphis. Both of these temples continued to function during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, and elements of the classical towns were constructed adjacent to these structures – the temple to the Ptolemies at Hermopolis Magna was placed outside the gate, along the dromos, of the temple of Thoth. This raises the question as to the Egyptian element in the metropoleis.

Medinet Madi and Tebtunis provide a small group of royal sculpture, all Egyptian statues with Greek features. From Medinet Madi comes a collection of approximately twenty-eight sphinxes, many representing the king in traditional Egyptian form with Greek facial features (42), but also including a number of female-headed sphinxes.363 There is also a head wearing a nemes most likely belonging to another sphinx (43), and a diademed head from the rubble layer inside the temple (44), the diadem suggests it represents a Ptolemaic king, though its features are similar to the striding draped males from this period.364 From Tebtunis comes a standing, faceless king (45), a larger striding king (46A), and the now lost statue base inscribed to Ptolemy XII (46B) associated with the latter statue due to its find spot. Alongside these statues from Tebtunis there was found a full-length striding male (fig. 20), as

In many ways this question is superfluous. The existence of Egyptian material in any part of Egypt is hardly surprising, and, as has already been established, there is no evidence to suggest that the Greek- and Roman-style royal statues stood in these spaces. In fact, the presence of this material side-by-side highlights the division in the context of the royal statues. At Hermopolis Magna for example, the disparity in style between the temple of Thoth and than of the Ptolemies would have been obvious, and the decision to construct a classical style a temple so close to an Egyptian one suggests that the temple of Thoth did not meet the needs of the local Greek population. The Greek and Egyptian material exists at these sites side-by-side, but there is no evidence that in relation to the royal statues there is mixing. This material rather reflects the different cultures that existed in Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt.

Zeus: Gazda 1978, no.47; Papyri: Alston 1995, 138. Medinet Madi: Vogliano 1936; Vogliano 1937; Vogliano 1942; Tebtunis: Rondot 1997; Rondot 2004. 363 Stanwick 2002, 23-4. 364 Bianchi 1978; Rondot 2004, 139-141. 361 362

51

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Figure 20. a and b Standing Male from Tebtunis (Rondot 2004, no.108 to 111, 277; Archives Anti © Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Padua Inv. No. 184, Photogr. No. 012 and 013)

well as a number of sculptured lions and stelae.365 These are two of the best preserved sites in Egypt, and provide the best evidence for considering the relationship between environment and statue.

different royal examples, one small (45) and one large (46A), each representing a different king, as well as a number of sphinxes.368 These statues did not stand directly next to each other, but they shared the same general space. The sphinxes of Medinet Madi (42) functioned in the same way, defining space and influencing the positioning of other material. Not only were these statues surrounded by other royal Ptolemies, but also by earlier kings. From Medinet Madi come examples of Dynastic statuary including a statue of Merenptah of the 19th Dynasty.369 The presence of Dynastic material is observed at other temples, especially at Tanis, Koptos and Karnak. The presence of other royal sculpture, from both the distant and immediate past, establishes a link between royal statues; they directly influence the placement of material at the site, and act as links to the past and history of Egypt.

B.2. Location and Environment in the Egyptian Temples The typical locations for royal statuary in Egyptian temples have been identified as along the dromoi, flanking entrances, and within the open courts.366 The material from Medinet Madi and Tebtunis are consistent with this pattern. Both the statues and the statue base (45 and 46 A and B) from Tebtunis were discovered at the end of the dromos of the temple, defining the vestibule (fig. 21).367 The sphinxes from Medinet Madi (42) lined the dromos of the temple. The statue head (43) from Medinet Madi comes from a rubble deposit within the 12th Dynasty temple. There is no reason to suppose that it did not belong to the dromos or courts.

The sculpture of a temple was not confined to royal statuary. From Tebtunis comes a fully preserved striding draped male, a distinctive statue type that has been much discussed, particularly by Robert Bianchi.370 It was a type present at a number of temple sites, alongside examples of priest and scribe statues.371 The presence of this statue continues the tradition of the elite placing statues of themselves in the temples. The striding male from Tebtunis

A primary aspect concerning the context of the royal statues was that they did not exist at these sites in isolation. At Tebtunis and Medinet Madi the spaces inhabited by royal statues were shared by other imagery, including other royal statues. From Tebtunis come two significantly Rondot 1997, 105. Arnold 1999b, 41-9; Robins 2001, 34-42; Kjølby 2007, 231-44; Brophy 2014b. 367 Rondot 2004, 136-9.

Rondot 2004, 136-7. Stanwick 2002, 24. 370 Bianchi 1978; Rondot 2004, 139-42. 371 Goyon et al 2004.

365

368

366

369

52

Environment of Royal statues and Egyptian Statues with Greek Features

Figure 21. Standing statue feet in situ, from Tebtunis (Rondot 2004, no.106, 276; Archives Anti© Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Padua Inv. No. 186, Photogr. No. 001)

was found on the dromos in front of the deipneteria.372 Alongside these statues were others, of gods and animals (lions), placed there as part of the traditional make-up of the temple.373 The Karnak cachette also provides evidence for a range of priest and scribe statues being erected in the temple, and the dromos of ram-headed sphinxes (fig. 15) defined the area where a statue of Cleopatra was found (64). The presence of this material creates a distinctive statuary landscape within and around Egyptian temples. The royal statues were part of that. The royal statues of the Ptolemies and the emperors shared this space with earlier kings, with the elite, and with other representations. These statues contributed to the temple, and were an intrinsic part of context.

statue is erected, but also in relation to later structures. Vincent Rondot suggests that the royal statues at Tebtunis (45-46A) lack bases because they were moved and re-used as part of reconstruction during the Roman period. This demonstrates not only that the surrounding structures have a direct impact on a statue (no matter when erected), but also shows the reuse of imagery. The Egyptian temples themselves should not be thought of in isolation. Structures surrounded and encroached upon them. At Medinet Madi (and Tanis and Karnak), the dromos was lined with domestic houses, and the temple was bordered by a portico and other classical structures that were built to directly relate to the temple.374 The temples were closely engrained in their physical environment, and therefore so were their statues. The spaces around temples were meant to be used, and so the statues were viewed constantly, not only by those using the temple itself, but by those going about their business in the vicinity.

Sculpture was not the only thing to surround the temple. At most sites throughout Egypt other structures closely linked to its ability to function are present outside the temenos. Along the dromoi of Medinet Madi and Tebtunis stood shrines, dining rooms, and kiosks, many temples had other shrines and secular buildings outside of their walls; the island temple of Philae in particular highlights the variety of gates and other structures that could make-up a sanctuary site (cat no.26). These structures were part of the temple make-up, especially the dining rooms which acted as places for congregation, ritual, and celebration. These structures were also used for the positioning of statuary. A statue can be placed in front of a structure to add definition to it, because it is aesthetically pleasing, and because it was the best place to be seen. Examples of this include the striding draped male discussed above and the statuette of Ptolemy II from Tanis (25). This concept need not only be considered in relation to structures that exist when the 372 373

B.3. Egyptian statues with Greek features One of the significant aspects of the sculptures from Medinet Madi (43-44) and Tebtunis (45-46) is that they are all Egyptian statues with Greek features. The other Egyptian statues with Greek features come from Alexandria () and Canopus (), but it is the material from Medinet Madi and Tebtunis that have the best contextual evidence. These statues from the Fayoum have all been found in relation to an Egyptian temple, fitting into the traditional forms and usual spaces associated with Egyptian royal statues. This places them contextually within an Egyptian environment, and further underpins the idea put forward by Bert Smith

Rondot 2004, 139-41. Rondot 1997, 105; Arnold 1999, 144a.

Medinet Madi: Vogliano 1936; Vogliano 1938; Vogliano 1942; Tebtunis: Rondot 1997; Rondot 2004.

374

53

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

that these are Egyptian statues with Greek additions, rather than a ‘mixed’ image.375

Despite this, the context of the statues at Medinet Madi and Tebtunis was, at its most basic level, Egyptian, and the statues were primarily Egyptian statues located in a traditional Egyptian temple context, though one in which Greek imagery and culture was also present. This raises a number of questions concerning the link between style and context and suggests that it is typically the principal context that dictates the primary style of the statuary, such as an Egyptian temple or a Greek agora. The placement of a statue into the context it did not fit aesthetically, traditionally, or conceptually was unlikely. Therefore, in the Fayoum where the temple was the major monument, yet there was a unique cultural group of inhabitants, the statues erected were primarily Egyptian, with inserted Greek features so as to fully display - and reflect - the monarch and the local community of the Fayoum.

These statues existed in contexts composed of Greek and Roman structures, including pylons and porticoes, bath houses, and inscriptions, papyri, and ostraca that used Greek alongside Demotic. These features point to the presence or influence of Greek ideas and material in the Fayoum. The statues stood in what can only be described as an ‘Egyptian’ context, though the wider environment of these locations was influenced by other factors. Therefore their context is one with multiple cultural levels. The best example is the statue and base of Ptolemy XII (46 A and B) from Tebtunis. The statue displays the traditional iconography of Egyptian art and pharaonic representation: it is frontal and wears the nemes and shendyt. Yet the statue includes Greek features - most notably the facial features, but also the accompanying inscription as identified and discussed by Guido Bastianini and Claudio Gallazzi.376 This inscription is reminiscent of a number of honorary dedications made in the Hellenistic kingdoms at this time, suggesting that whoever set it up was familiar with this practice. Bastianini and Gallazzi suggest that the dedicator was the village itself, or the elite, attempting to curry favour with the newly returned king.377 The statue and inscription together demonstrates the use of two cultural traditions by the community of Tebtunis during the first century BC, and shows that the positioning of Egyptian imagery alongside Greek ideas and language was acceptable and practised.

B.4. Egyptian statues with Greek inscriptions A particular aspect of royal representation in the Egyptian temple is the presence of Greek inscriptions accompanying Egyptian-style statues.379 There are a number of examples of these throughout the country, including a sphinx from Zaweit el-Amwat (48), the base of Arsinoe from Thebes (62), and two bases from Philae (67 and 68) (and the base and statue from Tebtunis 46 A and B). The main question concerns the purpose of these inscriptions, and how they were associated with the statue and its context. An inscription is meant to convey something about an image, the identity of the individual represented, the dedicator, and the reasons for it.380 The use of Greek in the bases suggests that these were set up by, and intended to be seen by Greek-reading individuals. There is plenty of evidence to support a strong Hellenic culture in Egypt, seen at Hermopolis Magna and in the gymnasium inscription from Thebes.381 There is also evidence of Greek writers at temple sites through graffiti, such as those from Deir el-Medina.382 Evidence such as the priestly decrees, show that it was not just ‘Greeks’ who could read these inscriptions; the Egyptian elite and clergy could also read such inscriptions and documents. The inscribed bases exist alongside a number of others in temples, found at Philae and Dendera.383

There are still questions as to why Egyptian statues with Greek features with provenances are only found at the sites of Medinet Madi and Tebtunis, (and Alexandria and Canopus), despite the presence of Greek settlers throughout Egypt and evidence for the presence of Greek and Egyptian culture side-by-side in other areas, of gymnasia, Greeks in Egyptian temples, and the use of dual names.378 The answer lies in the Fayoum, and its unique position within Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt. The material it provides is different to elsewhere in Egypt, not only in its preservation, but also in its nature, due to the larger concentration of immigrants, its economic focus, and prosperity. These factors led to the Fayoum creating a more cohesive and original popular culture, which expressed itself differently to elsewhere in Egypt. The sites of Alexandria (see Chapter 8) and Canopus (see Chapter 4) also show evidence of a distinct cultural milieu, suggesting that they shared some of the factors that influenced the creation of Egyptian statues with Greek features in the Fayoum.

These Greek inscriptions are often juxtaposed with Egyptian images. The sphinx from Zawiet el-Amwat is fully Egyptian (48) and the bases from Thebes (62) and Philae (67-68) indicate that the statues were Egyptian in style. The Greek inscription on the base of Ptolemy VI and his family (68) is also juxtaposed against a Demotic inscription. These inscriptions are indicative of the more complicated and nuanced interactions in material between Greek, Roman, and Egyptian cultures. The principal thrust

From considering the environment it is possible to see the impact of this unique cultural diaspora on the statues. The statues were engrained in a complex context that influenced their style and the nature of their location.

379 These are kept separate from the Egyptian statues with Greek features as the Greek elements are not sculptural, though there is an argument that they could be grouped with them due to the present of Greek ideas. 380 Ma 2007, 205. 381 Clarysse 1995, 1-20; McKenzie 2007, 152. 382 Rutherford 2003, 171-189; Latjar 2006. 383 Alston 2002, 199-202; Bingen 2007, 31-43.

Smith 1988, 86-7. Bastianini and Gallazzi 1989. 377 Bastianini and Gallazzi 1989. 378 Gymnasium: McKenzie 2004, 152; Dual names: Clarysse 1995; Greek inscriptions: Łatjar 2006, 80-86. 375 376

54

Environment of Royal statues and Egyptian Statues with Greek Features

of this discussion has been that different sculptural styles of royal statues are typically found in their traditional cultural contexts, within familiar architectural space. As highlighted in the discussion of the material from Hermopolis Magna, Karanis, and the sites in the Fayoum, this division is not reflected in the material of the country as a whole. From the use of dual names to the terracottas of Horus in a Roman cuirass, there is clear evidence of interaction. Even at Hermopolis Magna, though the statues can be identified as being located within traditional contexts, the Greek/Roman town and the Egyptian temple existed side-by-side. In this capacity, the inscriptions stand as a reminder of this, and that Ptolemaic and Imperial royal statues are unusual in maintaining such a strict division.

into the variety of different groups and cultures that exist in one area. From this analysis though, it is possible to see that in both the metropoleis and the Egyptian temple, statues did not exist in isolation, either from other statues, structures, or individuals, and that in both cases the royal statues were placed within the familiar worlds of classical and Egyptian material. A key aspect is that both sites can be identified as being composed of both Greek and Egyptian elements, with towns having Egyptian temples and Egyptian temples being surrounded by colonnades. These elements inform our wider understanding of the context of the royal statues, emphasising the different groups that existed in Egypt and the audiences that might have come into contact with the statues. They do not detract from the principle context of the statues as being either the classical metropoleis or the Egyptian temple, and in fact highlight further the division between them regarding the placement of royal sculpture. Only the limestone head from House 84 at Karanis providing a domestic context show evidence of the direct association of different cultural styles, illustrating the differences between public and private art forms.

C. Audience and Ethnicity A major feature of the debate surrounding Egyptian statues with Greek features has been the question of audience were the statues created for a specific group? And by extension, were the Greek- and Roman-style statues also created with a specific audience in mind? Audience is a pivotal concept for understanding context. In scholarship, there has been a concept of ‘Egyptian’ statues for Egyptians and ‘Greek’ statues for Greeks. Yet this concept is clearly untenable. At Medinet Madi and Tebtunis classical structures surround the Egyptian monuments, indicating the presence of classical ideas, and that there were individuals of such a sensibility coming into contact with the Egyptian temple. The statue and base of Ptolemy XII (46 A and B) demonstrates this. This is also seen in the graffiti, names, and inscriptions found at other temples.384 There are many examples of Greek structures beside Egyptian ones, as already discussed, the Serapeum at Saqqara and the classical shrines outside the temples of Luxor, Karnak and Philae.385 Likewise, many of the metropoleis are home to not only classical structures and material, but also Egyptian temples, such as the temple of Thoth at Hemropolis Magna. There is also the question of how one would ensure a particular group saw a particular image. There was a certain amount of movement between cultural areas and any individual would have been able to see any statuary outside the temples of Medinet Madi and Tebtunis. It is difficult to continue the concept that one type of statuary, and one type of context, was favoured by one ethnicity. Even more so as the work of scholars such as Jean Bingen has demonstrated how difficult it is to pindown concepts of ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt.386

Context was a rich tapestry of features, and the royal statues both occupied this space, and were an integral part of it. In relation to the style of statues used, it becomes clear that context generally played a significant role in how statues were understood, and this influenced what style should be erected.

D. Conclusion The wider environment of the context of the royal statues is a complex concept to consider. It is vitally important to providing an understanding of context and a framework for looking at the functions and positions of the statues, but can also appear contradictory in providing an insight Rutherford 2003; Lajtar 2006. Lauer and Picard 1955, 259-260; Bergmann 2007, 246-263; McKenzie 2007, 119-120. 386 Bingen 2007. 384 385

55

Chapter 6

Functions of Royal Statues When analysing sculpture from the ancient world, it is easy to forget that it was often designed to serve as something more than a decorative or artistic item. Statues of individuals were intended to function on a number of levels and in a number of ways beyond simply being a representation of that person. In the discussion so far, it has become clear that the royal statues of the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods were closely related to their contexts, through both their style and the nature of their environment. The focus of this chapter is on how the different categories of royal statues functioned within their contexts, as both statues in themselves and within the greater framework of their placement. I begin by discussing the functions of royal statues within the metropoleis, before taking a broad approach to the material that stood in the Egyptian Temples, including considering in greater detail the representations of the emperors in the temples. A. Statue functions in the Metropoleis Royal statues existed with a primary function - to represent the king, queen, or emperor. Specifically, individual statues or statue groups aimed at representing certain ideas concerning individuals - their lineage, their abilities, their personality. The statues of the Hellenistic kings provide some of the best illustrations of this, such as employing rams’ horns to demonstrate strength and divine associations. In the material from Egypt and the metropoleis, this function is shown in the ruler statue from Aphroditopolis (53). This statue is a typical representation of Hellenistic kingship, displaying a nude king with a portrait face holding a spear or sceptre and wearing the chlamys. It contains a host of ideas that dictate its meaning and context. It is a statue about conquest and the right to rule, presented using Hellenistic conventions. It may not be as fine or distinctive as the ‘Terme Ruler’, but it is the same basic image, and is wrapped in the same group of cultural messages.387 All these Greek-and Imperial-style marble statues from Egypt are the same in this respect, they are part of this visual language and represent the monarchs in that classical vocabulary. The statues from Hermopolis Magna show that the royal statues of the metropoleis are part of the dialogue between monarch and town. This is observed in the dedication of the temple to the Theoi Adelphoi and Theoi Euergetai and the associated head of Berenike (49). This monument and statue were created by the local population and dedicated specifically to the monarchs, demonstrating a direct form of communication. This is also illustrated in the base dedicated to Ptolemy XII (46B) from Tebtunis. These 387

Smith 1988, cat no. 44; Smith 1991, 19-20.

statues were part of the dialogue between town and king, an intrinsic part of the relationship between ruler and ruled during the Hellenistic and Imperial periods. These royal statues also represent a complex network of relationships in the ancient world. The tetrastylon of Marcus Aurelius (52) was set up in Hermopolis Magna and dedicated by the Prefect of Egypt (a common feature of dedications during the Imperial period, also seen in the Gallus Inscription and the temple of Augustus on Philae). This means the monument and statue create a direct relationship between town, Prefect, and emperor. The tetrastylon illustrates the complex set of relationships that existed in Egypt, and shows how royal statues functioned as a way to build and honour these relationships. The statues of the metropoleis also function as the expression of Hellenism and Hellenistic ideals. The temple dedicated by the cavalry at Hermopolis Magna was set up specifically within the ideas and norms of Greek temple construction and dedication, to the extent the inscription could come from anywhere in the Greek world at this time. The same can also be said for the tetrastylon, especially as by the time it was erected, the monument was surrounded by other classical structures. I am not suggesting that these statues were part of a bulwark against Egyptian or Egyptianising motifs. Rather, that in the creation of these images, a choice was made in relation to their style, and the choice of Greek and Imperial imagery shows they were part of a wider set of cultural norms that expressed the ideas and needs of the local population. The context of the statue was vital to its ability to function. The point has already been made that context and imagery can be intertwined, the context of a statue can influence its function. For the Aphroditopolis statue (53), and those of Berenike II (49) and Marcus Aurelius (52), this is especially true. They were images that did not translate if positioned within a different context.388 The statues did not fit into an Egyptian context. Not only would the image be visually jarring, but they would not be meaningful, they would not be able to fulfil their functions or impart their messages. The Egyptian, Greek, and Roman royal statues belong in recognisably Egyptian, Greek, and Roman spaces. And these spaces require the presence of such images in order to be properly functioning themselves. B.1. Statue functions in Egyptian temples At their root, Egyptian royal images served the same function as their Greek-and Imperial-style counterparts - they were representations of the Ptolemaic rulers as 388

56

Smith 1988, 32, 46-53; Smith 1991, 19-20.

Functions of Royal Statues

the Egyptian king. They aimed at sending messages to the people and elite of Egypt concerning the ruler’s legitimacy, the strength of the dynasty, and their position within Egypt. These representations of the Ptolemies in the temples functioned to place and engrain them within Egyptian forms, tradition, and theology. On one level, the statues placed the Ptolemies alongside the Dynastic monarchs, observed at the temple of Karnak, which still contains statues of earlier kings, and in the Karnak cachette which included alongside the statue of a Ptolemy (61) many examples of Dynastic material. On another level, Egyptian-style statues also functioned simply to place the Ptolemies directly into the Egyptian temple, into the courts (58-60) and along the dromos (48, 67), where they were seen and interacted with by the elite and people of Egypt. The Ptolemies did not have to take this approach to representation in Egypt, it was a choice. In doing so, they were able to gain the support of the priests and the role of the temples and to establish their dynasty.

emphasises the architectural nature of statues and the role they played in the life and practices of the sanctuary.393 This is identified in the sphinxes from Medinet Madi (42), and elsewhere in Egypt, which fulfil both representational and architectural decorative functions. This can also be observed in the material from, Tanis, Koptos (56-60) and Karnak (61-65) that stood in the forecourt of the temple, and partook in the daily ritual alongside other divine and elite sculpture. Kjølby states that statues, and monuments, were part of distributing and extending the personhood of the individual through time and space. She notes the use of the placement of statues as an important part of establishing identity for the elite.394 This is a concept that can easily be applied to the king and the Ptolemies. Placement was an important part of statue creation, which is why there is a focus on placement in the priestly decrees. The placement of royal sculpture on the dromos and in the forecourt functioned as a way to establish the Ptolemies identity as pharaoh and as part of Egypt and the temple.

It is difficult to emphasise how much royal statues were part of the Egyptian temple. Egyptian statues were more than representations of the elite, they served proper functions within the temple. Sometimes physically and decoratively such as the use of sphinxes at Medinet Madi (42) which function to both decorate the dromos and to define it, and theologically, as the focus of cult, observed in the dedication of the sphinx to Apollo at Zaweit el-Amwat (48) and the statuette of Ptolemy II (25) at Tanis.389 They were an extension of the monument, almost more than they were an extension of the individual represented.390 This point is emphasised by Jan Assmann, who argues that the position of statues in the open court, one of the principal places for Ptolemaic statuary, exposes them to light and human view and therefore they ‘belong to the general appearance of the architectural structure and thus functioning in the context of a subordinate text.’391 That is, they function in two dimensions, in themselves as representations of the monarch and as part of the wider infrastructure (and purpose of) the temple. This is illustrated by consideration of the statues outside the first pylon at Karnak as described in the Karnak decree, and other sculpture from a temple dromos such as the Cleopatra from Karnak (67) and the material from the temples of Medinet Madi and Tebtunis (42-46). These statues represent the king and queen, displaying them to the world and the people, associating them with the role of pharaoh, the power and responsibilities of that role, and the power of the temple. Equally, the statues position the king and queen in relation to the temple. They are part of the wider text that defines the entrance to the structure, the power that lies within it, showing its patronage and position.392

These concepts demonstrate two aspects. Firstly, the importance of placement within the temple and the institutional nature of the presence of royal statues. Secondly, that statues functioned on multiple levels. Not only did the statues of the Ptolemies aim at communicating specific messages to their people, at representing the monarchs, and acting as foci for worship, but they also functioned as part of the matrix of the temple, part of the temple’s messages and communication. B.2. Roman statues and Egyptian temples In the Roman period the Egyptian temples continued to function, but with less freedom and under the overarching control of the idios logos in Alexandria. There were a number of small constructions, such as two temples in Hermopolis Magna, but the majority of work was confined to decoration.395 The lack of new Egyptian temples compared to the number of new Caesarea or Hadrianea suggests that there was a different emphasis in Imperial Egypt.396 The Emperors demonstrate different patterns of representation to the Ptolemies. They are almost entirely represented in classical-style, and almost never in pharaonic form (only in their appearance in relief on Egyptian temple walls). This means there was a break with the traditions of Egyptian royal representation. Throughout the Ptolemaic period the traditional and wholly pharaonic statue was used as a form of representation, demonstrating an understanding and embracing of Egyptian culture by the ruling dynasty. In focusing on a different style of representation, the evidence suggests that under the Empire there was not the same level of interaction or acceptance regarding royal imagery. In Egypt, the emperors looked much as they did elsewhere.

In such concepts Assmann is joined by other scholars, including Sergio Donadoni and Annette Kjølby. Donadoni Assmann 1996, 56. Assmann 1996, 65. 391 Assmann 1996, 65. 392 Donadoni 1989, 105.

Donadoni 1989, 98-185. Kjolby 2007. 395 Arnold 1999a, 225-273; Also Appendix: List of Late Period Temples. 396 Dundas 1993, 135-177; Pfeiffer 2010, 237-244.

389

393

390

394

57

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

There is a small group of Egyptian statues with Roman features.397 Four of these statues come from Upper Egypt, two Caracallas from Sheik Fadl (47) and Koptos (56), a possible Hadrian from Hermopolis Magna (50) and the Karnak Augustus (65). I have kept these statues separate from the Egyptian statues with Greek features as they represent a different political power. The Egyptian statues with Roman features are still principally Egyptian statues and belong to an Egyptian context. All the examples come from major temple sites in Egypt; Tanis, Mendes, Hermopolis Magna, Koptos, Karnak, with the exception of Sheik Fadl. The Caracalla from Koptos (56) is the best example, discovered by Petrie at the bottom of a set of stairs leading up to the temple of Min and Isis.398 Earlier evidence including the priestly decrees, show that the temples and their clergy were primarily responsible for creating and commissioning their own imagery and sculpture. These statues are then the product of these individual sites, acting as a way to demonstrate Imperial power in a familiar way to the local population and clergy, and perhaps to please the emperor himself.

the traditions of Egypt and to establish the temple itself. The available evidence demonstrates the importance of statuary in context, and suggests that style and function were dependant upon context to an extent. The material also showed that Imperial sculpture did not reflect Egyptian culture in the same way as the Ptolemaic, and the Emperors were represented in their traditional forms, to the extent that they provided the necessary classical context at Egyptian sites to allow this. The Egyptian statues with Roman features were still linked to the overriding Egyptian context, but were also dependant on both the place they were created and the individual represented.

There are a number of examples of classical Roman buildings erected alongside, or within, Egyptian temple complexes that contained classical-style Imperial statues. These have been discussed briefly in Chapter 3, but are worth mentioning again. The classical Imperial structure of the Egyptian temples include a nymphaeum outside the pylon of the temple of Hathor at Dendera, the temple of Serapis at Luxor (fig. 14), a shrine to Imperial cult at Karnak, and the temple to Augustus at Philae (fig. 13).399 These structures stand in sharp contrast to their Egyptian surroundings, and though they use Egyptian material, the buildings are primarily composed of classical architectural forms. The very presence of these structures raises a number of questions, about who built them, their aims, and the Roman attitude towards Egypt and Egyptian culture. It demonstrates both a desire to link the new rulers to the Dynastic temples, but also emphasises the new culture and new way of communicating with the emperors. C. Statue Function: Conclusion All statues function primarily as a means of representing the individual, of translating messages about that person (or group) to the masses. The royal statues of Egypt continue this pattern, and in their style and placement demonstrate the need of the rulers to communicate with different groups, in different ways. The statues of the metropoleis, especially at Hermopolis Magna, show the role of royal statues as part of complex relationships between town and ruler, and emphasise the presence of Greek ideas and forms. The statues in the Egyptian temples also show some of these facets, but more importantly, they demonstrate how close the statue is to the temple, and how they function together to both associate the monarch with Brophy 2014a. Koptos: Petrie 1896; Baines and Malek 1980, 111; Galliano and Gabolde 2000; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 214-217. 399 Lauffray 1971, 118-121; Bailey 1990, 125, 127, 233. 397 398

58

Chapter 7

Alexandria

Map 3. Layout of Alexandria (Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, fig 2.1.1; © Judith McKenzie)

Founded by Alexander the Great in 332 BC, the city of Alexandria was the capital of Ptolemaic and Imperial Egypt (Map 3). Located between the Mediterranean and Lake Moeris, it was one of the principal centres for trade, culture, and learning during this period. The city has received a lot of attention from scholars over the last fifty years, particularly from Peter Fraser, Jean-Yves Empereur, and Judith McKenzie who have all contributed substantially to the understanding of the layout and fabric of the city.400

400

Fraser 1972; Empereur 1998a; McKenzie 2007.

59

In the Roman period, Alexandria was known as Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, Alexandria by Egypt, and it is in this capacity that I consider Alexandria here, as both part of Egypt and separate from it. The aim of this chapter is to examine how the evidence of Alexandria fits into the patterns and sculptural landscape already identified throughout Egypt. I examine the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods separately. Previous evidence has demonstrated a difference in style and emphasis between the statues of these periods, and in continuing this division I identify how this pattern presents itself in Alexandria. Though all the material from Alexandria has a specific provenance, many are random finds, or else blocks reused in later structures. Due to this, I focus on certain examples from specific sites within the

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

city. I conclude by considering the presence of Dynastic, that is pre-Ptolemaic, material in Alexandria. I explore the reason for the presence of this material in the Ptolemaic and Roman capital, and establish how this influences the context and function of the Late Period royal imagery.

sphinxes (69), two bases to Arsinoe II (72-73) (72 is of unknown style with a Greek inscription), a royal head identified by Evaristo Breccia as Berenike II (74) due to the hairstyle and idealised features, and two marble heads identified as Arsinoe III and Ptolemy IV (75 and 76 - see Chapter 3) due to comparisons with other portraits, which formed a triad with a head of Serapis.

A.1. Royal statues of Ptolemaic Alexandria The statuary items representing the Ptolemies from Alexandria number twenty-two in total. The material is comprised primarily of Egyptian-style statues, ten altogether, with a small group of Greek-style heads, numbering four, and two bases of unknown style, both with Greek inscriptions. Alexandria also provides a small number of Egyptian statues with Greek features, six altogether. These statues span the entire Ptolemaic period, from the late fourth century to the first century BC.

In relation to the general placement of these statues, their locations can only be suggested based on what is known at other sites. The sphinxes (69), though not a matching pair, were found together by Breccia in a trench running along the south side of the sanctuary. Following previous patterns, the sphinxes could have stood at the entrance to the sanctuary, or flanking another entrance or space within the temenos, as seen at the temple at Medinet Madi in the Fayoum (42). Since the sphinxes are early sculptures, they might have been related to the subterranean passages at the site.404 The statue bases of Arsinoe II (72-73) are placed securely within the temenos, like the examples from Koptos (58-60). The base to Arsinoe II (72) visible in the substructure of Diocletian’s column was reused from the surrounding area. These bases could belong to the first phase of the temple, but given the popularity of Arsinoe II throughout the Ptolemaic period this is difficult to establish.

The majority of these statuary items are chance finds, with little contextual evidence, such as the base to Ptolemy V and his parents (78) found near the Rosetta Gate, and the head and torso of Ptolemy IX (81) which has no architectural context and was found with some ‘Hellenistic wares’. These statues provide a picture of the material that existed in the city, but reveal little about context. The contextual evidence is provided by a group of statues that occupy thoroughly excavated sites. These statues are concentrated in the Serapeum of Alexandria and the recent underwater excavations around the Pharos Island and the Royal Harbours. Alongside the evidence from these sites, some material can be discussed in context due to earlier descriptions and reports, such as the Hadra Dyad (79) whose archaeological context is preserved in a description by Wilkinson. This material forms the basis for the discussion of Ptolemaic royal statues in Alexandria, and from it, it is possible to identify a number of trends specific to the city, yet also fitting with observed patterns.

The head of Berenike II (74) has no secure find spot, though Breccia appears certain it was found inside the temenos wall. This is the same location identified for the head of Berenike II at Hermopolis Magna (49) where it was associated within the temenos of the sanctuary of the Theoi Adelphoi and Theoi Euergetai. Given the position of other Greek-style statues in the Hellenistic world, the Alexandrian head would have stood within a room or exedra within the sanctuary. This is fitting as the main sanctuary was built under Ptolemy III and Berenike II. Finally, there is the triad of Ptolemy IV (76), Arsinoe III (75), and Serapis. The head of the queen and god were found outside the sanctuary (in the same trench as the sphinxes 69). They are unlikely to have stood outside the sanctuary as there is no evidence of a shrine or structure to house them. The heads are more appropriately placed inside, in a similar context as that of Berenike II (74). These heads are most likely cult statues given the presence of Serapis and belong in a room where they could receive some type of cult. This is an appropriate statue group for the Serapeum as the smaller shrine built by Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III is located next to the temple.405 The statues were part of the sanctuary, occupying traditional space, and fitting into it as part of its decoration, display, and infrastructure.

A.2. The Serapeum The Serapeum of Alexandria was the principal sanctuary of the city (fig. 22).401 Though there was a sanctuary in place during the reigns of Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II, it was completely rebuilt by Ptolemy III, evidence for which is provided by foundation plaques written in Greek and Hieroglyphics.402 It was this structure that stood throughout the Ptolemaic and early Imperial period, until it was destroyed and rebuilt in Roman style in the second half of the second century AD. The Serapeum is one of the most comprehensively excavated sites in the city, and its evidence has been compiled and discussed in detail in two separate studies by McKenzie and Michael Sabbottka.403 The Serapeum itself provides seven examples of royal statuary. These examples include two early Egyptian-style

The principal feature of this sculptural evidence is that there are both Greek- (74-76) and Egyptian-style (69, 7273) royal statues in the Serapeum. This is unusual when compared to the material examined throughout Egypt,

For excavations and discussion on the Serapeum: Rowe 1946; Fraser 1972, 247-258, 267-270; Empereur 1998, 89-109; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 69-72; McKenzie et al 2004; Sabottka 2008; Savopoulos 2011, 293-298; Schmidt 2013, 149-174. 402 Rowe 1946; McKenzie et al 2004, 81-82. 403 McKenzie et al 2004; Sabottka 2008. 401

404 405

60

McKenzie et al 2004, 83-84, 89-90. McKenzie et al 2004, 84-85.

Alexandria

Figure 22. Plan of the Serapeum, Ptolemaic period (McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes 2004, 82; © Judith McKenzie)

where the trend for royal imagery has been to keep the two styles separate, within their specific contexts (this is more complex with other types of material culture). The answer to this side-by-side representation is identified within the Serapeum itself, and demonstrates that the statues are following the same patterns and rules as those elsewhere in Egypt.

the Hieroglyphic script (including his Egyptian name Osiri-Apis). The sanctuary also had a Nilometer and continued to use the subterranean passages, whose exact function is unknown, but appear closely related in design to the necropoleis of Saqqara.406 These Egyptian features were dressed up in Greek styles. Numismatic evidence shows the temple was a tetrastyle prostyle structure with a Doric entablature and Corinthian capitals, and many of the architectural features from the site are Greek in style,

In Alexandria, Serapis was an Egyptian god in Greek clothing. This duality was reflected in the sanctuary. The foundation plaques are part of Egyptian temple tradition, and refer to Serapis’ Egyptian origin through

406

61

McKenzie et al 2004, 89-90.

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

including Corinthian capitals.407 There are also a number of non-royal sculptures in both Egyptian- and Greek-styles, including two statues of Pshenptah, an Egyptian priest and court official of Ptolemy X, and a range of Greek style material and inscriptions.408

and a public representation of the queen. The base shows how royal representation was placed in a sanctuary, by an individual or group, and that the statues functioned as a way of illustrating and creating a relationship between monarch and the public.

The cult in Alexandria was made up of an Egyptian core (the god) surrounded by Greek physical elements (the temple). When viewed from this perspective the inclusion of Egyptian-and Greek-style royal imagery side-by-side is fitting. It supports the representation and infrastructure of the sanctuary itself. The Alexandrian Serapeum was a site where different categories of royal statues, and other material, could be placed together, as this side-by-side mixture was part of the basic foundation of the sanctuary. This concept fits with the patterns for statue and context already established. Function and context are two possible determining factors in deciding the placement of imagery, with typically Egyptian-style in an Egyptian temple and Greek-style in a Greek temple. In the Serapeum at Alexandria, these two contextual styles exist within one site, a site with a Greek outer face and Egyptian core. Therefore the site allows the existence of the two statue styles.

The primary question concerns the function of the second Egyptian statue identified as Arsinoe II (73). If this statue stood in a traditional Egyptian temple, it would have been incorporated into the rituals and fabric of that temple. The question is whether it could fulfil these roles in this space? Did the Alexandrian Serapeum have a liturgy the same, or similar, to the Egyptian temples? The temples of Serapis in the Mediterranean employed the use of Egyptian-style sculpture to emphasise their link to the god’s Egyptian past, but these were more ornamental than ritual in function.409 The presence of subterranean passages at the Alexandrian Serapeum, and their continued use, suggests there was a continuous element of Egyptian ritual practiced at the site, and this statue (and others like it) received the same attention and ritual, and fulfilled the same roles as other Egyptian-style material. This made the Egyptian statues part of wider Egyptian ideology concerning the place of the monarch and their role in the physical and spiritual protection of Egypt. If not, the royal statues, and other Egyptian sculpture, were only a representation of the Egyptian element of Ptolemaic kingship, and did not have the pivotal cultic function that restricted its access and dictated interaction.

It is interesting to note which statues are Egyptian in style, and which Greek. The Egyptian royal material (69, 7273) represents the earlier monarchs, and can be associated with the first phase of the temple. The later Greek-style ones represent the kings and queens who participated in creating the Greek façade for the god (Berenike II (74), Arsinoe III (75), and Ptolemy IV (76)). This indicates a temporal context at work, in which the earlier sanctuary was perhaps more Egyptian in look as well as focus. The sanctuary held both types of style of sculpture to the end of the Ptolemaic period, as seen in the priest statue of Pshenptah, so, while this suggests a change in emphasis concerning the representation of the monarch in the Serapeum, it does not cancel out what has already been established.

The statues of the Alexandrian Serapeum fit into observed trends and patterns for the placement of royal imagery observed elsewhere in Egypt. The use of different styles side-by-side fits into the unique design and focus of this sanctuary. A.3. Underwater Ptolemaic statues: The Pharos and Royal Harbour During the 1990s a series of underwater excavations took place in the harbours of Alexandria. First, by Empereur around the edge of the Pharos Island, the current location of the Quait Bey Fort, and later by Franck Goddio around what has been termed the ‘Royal Harbours’ due to identification of the eastern side as the site of the Ptolemaic royal palace (fig. 23).410 These excavations uncovered material including architectural fragments and sculpture dating from the Dynastic to the late Roman periods. From this material come nine royal Ptolemaic statues: from the Pharos, a group of six colossal granite statues (78 A-F), all heavily worn and fragmented, identified as representing three royal couples; and from the eastern side of the Harbour, three statues, two sphinxes (82 and 83) and the colossal head of a king identified by Zsolt Kiss as Caesareion (84) due to the fleshiness of the face.

There is a question of how this context affected the statues’ function. At the Alexandrian Serapeum, statues continued to maintain their traditional roles and purpose, the principal one being to represent the monarch in various forms. The sphinxes (69) represented the pharaoh as powerful and a protector, while the triad (75-76) represented the secure rule of the couple alongside their relationship with Serapis. In the Serapeum the statues were representing the different aspects of the monarch, in both Egyptian-and Greek-style showing their role as both pharaoh and basileus. The base to Arsinoe II (72) demonstrates the continued function of royal statues as both representations of the monarch, as objects of devotion to them and the god, and as part of a complex series of interactions with the population. Its inscription shows it was dedicated by ‘Thestor son of Satyros, the Alexandrian’, so it was a personal dedication

Fraser 1972, 266. Pharos excavations: Empereur 1995, 743-760; 1996, 959-970; 1998, 64-87; Royal Harbour excavations: Goddio and Yoyotte 1998; Goddio and Bernand 2004; Goddio EST.

409

Handler 1971, 64-68; Fraser 1972, 266; McKenzie et al 2004, 85-87. 408 Pshenptah: Tkaczow 1993, no.9; Savvopoulos 2011, no.8; Greek Sculpture: McKenzie et al 2004, 100. 407

410

62

Alexandria

Figure 23. Ancient and Modern Coastline of Alexandria with relevant areas labelled (Goddio and Bernand 2004, 89; Map Franck Goddio © Franck Goddio/IEASM)

The material from the Pharos (78 A-F) has drawn attention specifically because these are large scale Egyptian-style statues from such a prominent location. The Ptolemaic statues were part of a much larger group of material, amounting to approximately 3000 fragments including granite and marble columns, Corinthian capitals, and Dynastic statuary.411 The exact date of the statues themselves is difficult to determine given their condition and the nature of their find spot.

statues could have stood anywhere in the city or anywhere within Egypt. If the statues did originally stand in Alexandria, this reevaluation of the statues’ context provides a wide number of sites they could have occupied. The Pharos Island is a likely location given their proximity, and other sculpture has been found there, including the base of a Triad (71). Drawing upon what has already been established, the statues most likely stood in a religious context, grouped together, as a demonstration of dynastic power. The statues could have stood within a sanctuary like the Serapeum, that utilised both Greek and Egyptian forms. An Egyptianstyle context is likely, but there is little secure evidence for an Egyptian-style religious structure in Alexandria. Roman coins show Egyptian pylons and shrines identified as belonging to Isis and Osiris.414 Recently, a small red granite pylon was discovered off the coast of the Acra Lochias dating to the late Ptolemaic/early Roman period, pointing to the presence of Egyptian architecture in the city.415

Empereur has suggested that, due to the find spot of the statues, and the existence and placement of their statue bases, these six statues stood at the base of the Lighthouse. The statues were then viewed by anyone entering or leaving the city, representing the power and dominance of the Ptolemies. Others have found this idea appealing. Many statues were placed in such liminal spaces, and literary and pictorial evidence shows the presence of other decorative statues on the Lighthouse.412 There is, however, no evidence to support this theory. There are many visual representations of the Lighthouse of Alexandria, particularly on Roman coins, and while versions differ in the detail they provide, there is no representation of large scale statues along its base, though they do show other figures that decorated the structure.413 There is also no reference to such statues in any literary work, such as Strabo’s Geography. Given the nature of the other evidence found underwater, which is a mixture of styles, materials, and dates, the area excavated was most likely a man-made dump created over time, meaning these

The majority of the statue fragments from the Pharos are too weathered to be able to identify attributes or facial features. The two that have been the least affected (78 A and C) are identified as Egyptian statues with Greek features. It was established when discussing the statues from the Fayoum (Medinet Madi and Tebtunis), that this aspect itself did not appear to influence placement or context, but was the result of the influence of the wider environment upon the statues. Those in the Fayoum (4146) still occupy traditional locations, i.e. the Egyptian

Empereur 1998a, 71-75. Roman Coins: Handler 1971, 58-62; McKenzie 2007, 42. 413 Handler 1971, 58-61. 411

412

414 415

63

Handler 1971, 61-64. Savvopoulos 2011, no.12, 302, 317-18.

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

temple, but reflect the wider social and cultural world of the local population. As there is no secure context for these colossi, it is difficult to analyse the use of these statues in the city. The material in the Serapeum has demonstrated that statues follow context, and so these statues can be placed in an Egyptian-style location, or in a context that uses both cultural styles. They are unlikely to have been placed in a totally Greek-style context. No matter where they stood, these statues were impressive displays of the Ptolemaic couples.

continued use of Egyptian-and Greek-styles side-by-side, an aspect that can be reconciled if this is what the context allows. This is a key element of representation of the Ptolemies in Alexandria. A.4. The Hadra Dyad The Hadra Dyad (79) is a partially preserved colossal standing duo with an Egyptian-style queen, and an Egyptian king with Greek facial features. Nothing remains archaeologically of its context, but there is a detailed description of its find spot recorded in John Wilkinson’s Modern Egypt and present in the catalogue.

The statues excavated by Goddio in the late 1990s have a very different context. The aim of the project of Goddio’s team was to map the ancient coastline of Alexandria, and whilst doing so they were able to identify several ancient structures, such as the Timonium, and uncovered a range of architectural fragments, sculpture, and inscriptions, including two Ptolemaic sphinxes (82-83) and a colossal pharaonic head (84) (fig. 23).

This description states that the dyad comes from the remains of a structure, identified by Wilkinson as a temple. The description refers to yellow marble (most likely sandstone) sphinxes, granite columns, a portico, and a pool or water feature. It is impossible to recreate a plan or outline of the site, but the description sounds like an Egyptian temple, especially the reference to the pool and sphinxes. The description also suggests the temple is round, which alters this interpretation, as Egyptian temples do not use such forms. Possibly Wilkinson and Richard Pococke (whose earlier discussion Wilkinson draws upon) are incorrect in identifying the temple as having been round, or it is a temple, like the Serapeum and the structures around the royal harbour, that employs both Greek and Egyptian features.

The two sphinxes (82-83) were found on the esplanade of the Antirhodos Island, located centrally in the harbour. Most of this area has been affected by the strong sea currents, and while the sphinxes are associated with the island, it is unlikely they were found in situ. The sphinxes were found with a collection of other material, including a Greek-and Egyptian-style statue of a Canopic Priest and a headless statue of a Greek-style Hermes.416 Exactly what structure stood on the island is difficult to determine. A large amount of the material evidence dates to the Roman period, and it is hard to know the structure and plan of the island during the Ptolemaic era. Traditionally, sphinxes are located in a religious context, usually flanking doorways or entrances, and Kiss suggested that this is what was located on the island.417

In either capacity, this statue stood within the confines of a sacred site or just outside, representing the king and queen in a traditional manner, and emphasising strength in their togetherness. If the structure was an Egyptian temple, this statue would have received cult, and been incorporated into the infrastructure of the temple. This statue is not the principal cult statue, and to identify this space as a dynastic shrine based solely on its existence is incorrect. This statue is a representation of the monarchs in a temple, and the temple itself could be dedicated to any deity.

As with the Serapeum, this was a space open to both styles of material. Goddio identifies this area as belonging to the palaces of the Ptolemies, so it is not surprising to find both the Egyptian and Greek sides displayed together, representing both aspects of Ptolemaic rule.

The temple and statue are located in the Hadra area, a space usually associated with the necropolis.419 This was an early cemetery in the city’s history, with hypogea decorated in Greek-style. The necropolis was quickly swallowed up by the expanding city, and from the area come a number of shrines and houses, as well as a second base to a Cleopatra (81), though this has no useable contextual evidence. The Hadra Dyad is part of a more low key, or ‘ordinary’ sanctuary than the Serapeum or major religious centres such as Tanis. It served to represent the monarch primarily to those in the neighbourhood. This does not change its overall function or context, but provides a less public and more small scale display of material in Alexandria.

The colossal head (84) has a less secure find spot. The head was found along the ancient coastline opposite the Antirhodos Island. It was not found in situ and no trace of the body has been identified. It is difficult not to compare this head to the Pharos colossi, and to consider whether it served similar functions or occupied a similar context. A religious context is suggested by Kiss due to the surrounding material found on the coastline, including another sphinx.418 Equally, the head served as part of the decoration, or definition, of the palace space, placed in a visible area to advertise the young king. Altogether, the material in this area is identified as having strong religious and political themes, aspects that fit well into a palace context. The statues demonstrate the Kiss 1998, 178-185; Goddio and Bernand 2004, 100-104; Libonati 2010. Kiss 1998, 175. 418 Kiss 1998, 188. 416

417

419

64

Tkaczow 1993, no.145, 176.

Alexandria

was marked by the placement of Cleopatra’s Needles, two obelisks from Heliopolis, moved by Augustus with inscriptions dating this transportation to approximately 12 BC. They are the only substantial pieces of evidence from the site, alongside some fragments of architecture and statue bases. The statues of Marcus Aurelius (90) and Septimius Severus (91) were found together near the Obelisks, and the bases of Mark Antony (85) and Caracalla (95) were both found near the Tram station.

A.5. Other material and contexts The emphasis in this discussion has been on the Egyptianstyle material, and its place within Alexandria, as this has the best contextual evidence. This focus neglects the largely Greek nature of the city. This nature is observed in the descriptions of Strabo, among others, who notes the classical institutions and design of the city.420 The catalogue of Barbara Tkaczow, and many others, is also full of classical architectural features and sculptural fragments all pointing to the rich Greek style of Alexandria.421 Alongside these are the many Greek-style royal heads, large and small, with no provenance, that most likely come from the city.422 The description, and other material, serve as a reminder that alongside these multi-style contexts, Alexandria had a classical form, with classical structures functioning as the context for statues.

That these statues could be associated with the Caesareum is possible. Philo provides the only real description of the site as follows: ‘huge and conspicuous fitted on a scale not found elsewhere with dedicated offerings, around it a girdle of pictures and statues in silver and gold, forming a precinct of vast breadth, embellished with porticoes, libraries, chambers, groves, gateways, and wide open courts, and everything which lavish expenditure could produce to beautify it – the whole a hope of safety to the voyager either going into or out of the harbour.’424

B.1. Imperial statues in Roman Alexandria The number of statues or bases to the Roman Emperors and members of the Imperial family in Alexandria outweighs the number found elsewhere in Egypt, with seventeen altogether. These form a different group of material compared to the Ptolemaic ones as they fall into two principal categories, the full length statue, of which three survive, and the inscribed statue base, of which there are thirteen. There is also one female head identified as Antonia Minor due to the distinctive hairstyle from the Royal Harbours (86). Apart from this head, and a base to Mark Antony (85), all the material dates to the second and third centuries AD, with one to Trajan, and the rest to Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Julia Domna, Septimius Severus, and Caracalla. As with the Ptolemaic material, many are scattered finds, but there are concentrations in the central area of the city and on the Antirhodos Island.

The Imperial statues (Marc Antony (85), Marcus Aurelius (90), Septimius Severus (91), and Caracalla (95)) could be part of this ‘girdle of pictures and statues.’ During excavations in the 1990s Empereur uncovered a number of finds associated with the sanctuary, including a twocolumn inscription dated to AD 175/6 honouring a magistrate responsible for looking after images of the emperor.425 This space is similar to any number of religious and secular spaces in the Roman Empire, in which the Imperial image is a central part of the display and fabric of a town. There are few remains from the area to be secure of identifying the extent of the site, or its precise architectural features, but it appears to have resembled other Roman structures, and the presentation of the emperors followed other examples.

B.2. Central area A number of Imperial statues and bases have been recovered from the central area of Alexandria, in the vicinity of the modern Ramleh Tram Station and close to the location of the so-called Cleopatra’s Needles. These include the three standing emperors, a cuirassed Marcus Aurelius (89), a togate Marcus Aurelius (90), and a cuirassed Septimius Severus (91), as well as two inscribed bases, one to Mark Antony (85) and another to Caracalla (95). This area contains the remains of several different structures dated to the Imperial period. Though the central area has received few excavations, the material it has produced provides ample room for discussion.

There are more substantial remains further west from the Caesareum. In 1880 during the building of the Hospital (and demolition of the Zizinia Theatre), a peristyle structure was uncovered, with a number of porphyry columns, marble pedestals, and broken statues, dating to the Late Roman period.426 The cuirassed statue of Marcus Aurelius (89) was found in the adjacent building plot. This statue is associated with this peristyle building and stood alongside statues of other (later) emperors. Such a statue was at home in this space, and whatever the purpose of this building, which can only be identified as a public space of some kind, it fits into the wider concept of public Imperial display.

The principal feature of this area is its association with the Caesareum, founded by Cleopatra and completed by Augustus.423 The general location of this sanctuary Strabo 17.1. Tkaczow 1993; Tkaczow 2008 (focusing on Kom el Dikka); Examples of sculpture: Fragaki 2009. 422 For a complete range of Greek style Ptolemaic heads see: Kyrieleis 1975; Smith 1988; Laube 2012. 423 Discussion of the Caesareum: Empereur 1998a, 111-123; McKenzie 420

2007, 177-8. 424 Philo Embassy to Gaius, 151. 425 Excavations and inscription: Empereur, Hesse, and Picard 1994, 511; Empereur 1998a, 114-116. 426 Tkaczow 1993, no.50, 104.

421

65

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Alongside the Caesareum and the peristyle building, this area is also the location of the so-called Temple of Isis Plousia (most likely another public building) and the socalled Tower of the Romans.427 These structures are all dated to approximately the second or third centuries AD. Together with the statues, these buildings demonstrate a high level of Imperial public display and construction in this area. This coincides with a general trend of public works in Egypt in the second century AD, as observed at Athribis and Hermopolis Magna. In this construction and display, Alexandria comes to resemble many cities in the Roman East, which gain new buildings and representations of the Imperial house. The focus on this central area is located away from the focus of the Ptolemies, seen at the Serapeum and Palace, and demonstrates the reorientation of power to a new area.

B.4. Numismatic evidence for Imperial statues Alongside these areas, there is other evidence from Roman Alexandria for the presence of statues at other sites. These come from the numismatic evidence. The numismatic evidence from Alexandria is useful for researching the buildings and architecture of the city. In this capacity, a number of commemorative arches have been noted. Susan Handler identified four types, dating to the reigns of Domitian, Trajan, and Hadrian.429 These coins show the presence of statues on these arches, chariot groups on top and other statues in niches (fig. 24). There are many examples of Imperial statues occupying such locations, such as the Gate at Perge and the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum, which had relief images of the emperor. 430 If these Alexandrian arches were set up to a particular emperor, it is likely his statue would have adorned it. There is though, no archaeological evidence to place alongside this material. As a context, the arches fit into what has been observed in Alexandria, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Roman East for the display of Imperial imagery.

B.3. Antirhodos Island The second concentration of Imperial material comes from the Antirhodos Island, which has already been discussed above. From the island comes a collection of seven inscriptions, one to Commodus (94 A), and six to Caracalla (94 B-G). There is an eighth inscription not included here as only one word remains.428 The inscriptions follow the same basic pattern, and those to Caracalla are dedicated by the Romans and Alexandrians. The inscriptions and statues appear to show the relationship of the city with the emperor.

C. Pre-Ptolemaic sculpture in Alexandria One of the key features of Alexandria is the presence of Dynastic, that is pre-Ptolemaic, material, despite there being relatively little activity on the site pre-Alexander. The underwater excavations around the Pharos unearthed a large number of Dynastic fragments, as did those in the harbour, and from the Serapeum come a granite falcon and statue of Ramesses II amongst other.431 The most famous examples are Cleopatra’s Needles, transported from Heliopolis around 12 BC. There is the question as to when this Dynastic material as a whole was transported to the city. The presence of this material in the city, occupying the same contexts, is part of how Ptolemaic and Imperial royal statues could have been perceived.

The context of the Antirhodos Island is difficult to establish. Like the Ptolemaic sphinxes, these columns were found on the esplanade, but at different points around the island. It is difficult to tell whether the inscriptions were purposely set up at different points, so these statues could be seen from land and sea, or whether they were placed together, facing the entrance of the island or the coastline. Either way, the statues were large scale images, the fragmented columns themselves are all over 1 m, and were aimed at displaying the relationship of Alexandria with the emperor, and who ruled Alexandria, Egypt, and the Mediterranean.

First I must consider when this Dynastic material was moved, specifically was it during the Ptolemaic or Roman periods? This has generated a large amount of debate, with some scholars (Jean-Pierre Corteggianni) suggesting this is a Ptolemaic programme, others (Paolo Gallo) that it was a purely Roman concept, and even the suggestion (Fraser, Yoyotte) that it can be identified as belonging to both periods.432

There is a question as to why these bases were placed on the Antirhodos Island. It dominates the harbour, and faces the Caesareum and the palace of the Ptolemies, by this point the governor’s palace and headquarters. It is a location that cannot be missed from land or sea, and this must have fed into the decision to place the images there. The placement of the statues supports the Imperial dominance of the area, providing a clear sign of who was in charge. The presence of a sanctuary, especially one with representations of earlier kings, was an incentive for placement. Caracalla is one of the few emperors to be securely represented in pharaonic guise and so associations with an old sanctuary site, complete with pharaonic imagery, would have been appealing.

For the Ptolemies, there is one example of the movement of material to Alexandria, the obelisk for the Arsinoeion.433 This obelisk has been used to demonstrate that this transportation habit was alive and well during the Ptolemiac period, and was instigated early on. There Handler 1971, 70-71. Gate at Perge: Boatwright 2000, 64-5: Arch at Beneventum: D’Ambra 1998, 82-83. 431 Empereur 1995; Empereur 1996; Yoyotte 1998; McKenzie et al 2004, 100. 432 Fraser 1972, 266; Gallo 1997; Corteggianni 1998; Yoyotte 1998, 204208. 433 Pliny Nat Hist, 36.67. 429 430

427 Tkaczow 1993, Temple of Isis Plousia no.49, 103-4; Peristyle building no.51, 105; Tower of the Romans no.82, 129-130; see also no.81-92, 128136. 428 Bernand 1998, no.2, 148; the word is ‘Lykopolis’.

66

Alexandria

Figure 24. Two coins of Commemorative Arches from c. AD 81-138 (Handler 1971, 70, 1.22 and 23; © Graeco-Roman Museum)

is no archaeological evidence for this object and it is only referred to by Pliny. Elsewhere the archaeological record shows the Ptolemies produced their own pharaonic material, including obelisks, as seen by those of Ptolemy VIII at Philae.434 The obelisk of the Arsinoeion stands as the only example of such movement by the Ptolemaic kings, and one that was for an exceptional monument and a much-loved queen.

It represented Ptolemaic Pharaohs and Ptolemaic Egypt, not the Egypt of the Dynastic Pharaohs. Egyptian art and material culture had never been a monolithic whole, emerging in the First Dynasty and remaining unchanged to the 30th, it had always had phases and developments. This has been strongly acknowledged for Ptolemaic Egyptian temples, and the same is true for the royal statues, with the most noticeable development being the use of Greek features. Therefore the Egyptian material and style of Alexandria was a Ptolemaic one. This is demonstrated in the sites of the Serapeum and the Palace complex, where the Egyptian and Greek-style material sit side-by-side. The Egyptian-style statues of the Serapeum were as much Ptolemaic as their Greek counterparts, albeit with different traditions behind them.

In general, there is little evidence for the Ptolemies moving Dynastic material anywhere in Egypt. Rather, the Ptolemaic period produces its own pharaonic material. The many examples of Egyptian-style statues and temples that have been analysed throughout this book point to a Ptolemaic policy of adoption and production rather than appropriation. It is often noted how adaptable the Ptolemies were to their Egyptian role of pharaoh, and there are many statues that show this side of them. This is also reflected in the material of Alexandria. The Serapeum sphinxes (69), the Pharos colossi (78), and the Hadra Dyad (79) are all Ptolemaic creations. The Egyptian material in Alexandria under the Ptolemies was Ptolemaic not Dynastic.

Imperial Alexandria was a different matter. It appears to have been full of Dynastic material, and the question is why? Kyriakos Savvopoulos suggests that the importation of Dynastic material was an attempt to create a new narrative in relation to the Ptolemies, to provide them with a place within the Dynastic history of Egypt and so lessen their position, prestige, and power in Alexandria.437 This idea seems overly complex, especially as in general the Roman administration left Ptolemaic material and Egyptian traditions alone. More likely, the movement was part of a wider trend for the transportation of native material; a similar pattern is observed in Athens with a number of temples and other structures moved to the Athenian Agora during the early Roman period, such as the temple of Ares.438 This functioned as a way to emphasise the new Imperial rule and presence in the city. It could also be part of a general interest and trend in Egyptian material during this period, and where better to explore and show this element than Alexandria.

There is more of a tradition for movement and transportation during the Imperial period, to which the many obelisks and statuary in Rome testify.435 There is little evidence of investment in Egyptian-style material during the Imperial period. There are no examples of wholly Pharaonic Emperors, and only a selection of Egyptian statues with Roman features. And while there were Egyptian-style temples constructed and decorated during this period, focus turns to more classical structures which can be identified in the Repairs Papyrus of Hermopolis Magna.436 The Dynastic material in Alexandria should be attributed to transportation during the Imperial period. In relation to the context of Alexandria and royal statues, this creates an interesting picture. During the Ptolemaic period, the Egyptian material that existed was their own.

The presence of Dynastic material in Alexandria was an Imperial development. As far as can be seen in the available evidence, the Ptolemies did not need to use Dynastic material as they produced their own, and placed

McQuitty 1976, 177-179; Hölbl 2002, 280. Roullett 1972; Ashton 2004. 436 Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten X 1971, No.10299 (P. Vindob gr 12565). 434 435

437 438

67

Savvopoulos 2011, 305-306. Camp 1992, 184-187

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

it alongside their Greek forms. In the Imperial period, there is a change, with less investment in Egyptian-style construction, and the transportation of Dynastic material to the capital, as a way to associate it with this long tradition and to add distance to the Ptolemaic dynasty. D. Alexandria: Conclusion The current material from Alexandria provides an insight into the royal statuary landscape of the city. What can be identified in examining the context of the available evidence is that while the way the context is framed and created for the Ptolemaic statues is different from elsewhere, it actually continues the trend of usually being dependant on the nature of the context the statue occupies. The Serapeum is a good example, where the existence of the Egyptian- and Greek-style material together is a reflection of the sanctuary itself. This is not to say that there were not other contexts where the Egyptian statue is in an Egyptian context or the Greek in a Greek context, but that within all these the same trends are followed. This is also observed in the Imperial statues, which follow the traditions of representations of the Emperors, both in Egypt and elsewhere in the Empire. These statues occupy specific contexts in the dominant areas of the city, as part of a larger area of public space in which Imperial statues were a primary part of decoration and display. Only those on the Antirhodos Island differ from this, though they continue the trend of displaying the relationship of the Alexandrians with the Emperor and displaying them in a dominant position. While there are no pharaonic emperors in Alexandria, it is clear that the movement of Dynastic material can be attributed to the Imperial period. It functioned as a way to demonstrate Imperial power and to decorate the city. The current evidence for royal statues from Alexandria shows that they occupy the same contexts as other statues in Egypt. The statues are found in prominent religious and political locations, and though they sit in contexts that do not exist in the other regions of Egypt, their presence is still determined primarily by these contexts. In this they follow the same patterns as other royal statues.

68

Chapter 8

Outside Egypt In order to complete this analysis of royal statues and context, it is important to consider the images that have been recovered from outside Egypt. This amounts to a small group of Ptolemaic statues, ten in all, nine hardstone Egyptian-style statues and one marble head, and one head of Augustus. In looking at the locations of these statues, I further show how elements of context, style, and function can be linked, and that particular categories of statue typically reside in particular spaces. By nature of the evidence, and the limits of this book, this chapter focuses primarily on the Ptolemaic material, whose Egyptian-style statues are identified as originating in Egypt. A. Meroe Meroe is approximately 400 miles south of the Roman Frontier, on the east bank of the Nile. It was the capital of the Meroitic kingdom, and is home to a number of archaeological remains. In 1910, John Garstang excavated the mound associated with the town and necropolis, discovering structures he identified as a palace and a number of temples.439 During excavation a bronze head of Augustus was discovered (96). It was found buried in a pocket of clean sand in front of the entrance to a columned building decorated with frescoes of a king and queen in triumph, accompanied by bound captives. The head itself is an Actium type portrait with inlaid eyes that has been cut at the neck. Though the head was found outside Egypt, the evidence provided by its context and the debates surrounding its origin, make it an interesting addition to this study. The context of the head of Augustus from Meroe (96) is clear. The structure where the head was found has been interpreted as a victory chapel, due to the presence of victory iconography on the walls. The placement of the head underneath the threshold is interpreted as part of the symbols of victory displayed in the shrine. The head has been the cause of much discussion, namely relating to how it came to be in such a context. Robert Bosanquet suggested the statue was taken during the ‘Ethiopian’ raids on Upper Egypt during the first years of Roman rule, and may have been set up in Aswan in 30 BC for the visit by Augustus, explaining its presence in Meroe as a spoil of war.440 Haynes suggests that it was erected somewhere in Upper Egypt and taken during the Ethiopian raids between c.25-20 BC.441 Though this would explain its location, under the threshold of a space that celebrates 439 Garstang 1912, 45-52; Bosanquet 1912, 66-71; Walters 1915, Pl LXI; Haynes 1983, 177-181; Torok 1997. 440 Bosanquet 1912, 70. 441 Haynes 1983, 177-181.

69

triumph, others suggest it is unlikely such a statue would have been in place at that time. Given the processes by which such imagery was constructed, a bronze statue could be produced quickly, so this is not a convincing argument. Another suggestion, that it was a gift from Augustus to the Meroitic Queen, is also extremely problematic.442 As Bosanquet states, there would have been a huge number of bronze Augustus’ throughout the Empire, and it is likely the head was originally set up at Aswan, or elsewhere in Upper Egypt, and then moved south. That the head originated in Egypt there seems little doubt. This is the only contextualised example of a bronze head from Ptolemaic or Imperial Egypt. There are a number of non-provenanced bronze examples, such as the Mantua Arsinoe and the supposed Hadrian said to come from Qena, but there is no other evidence.443 From what has been discussed, it is possible to form an idea of the statue’s original placement. The head is a classical image, and required a classical location, within a central space or a temple complex, like the head of Berenike II from Hermopolis Magna (49) or the Hadrian from Athribis (34). The head could also have been located in a military context, possibly in relation to the legion at Aswan. These would be typical locations for such a representation of the emperor. B. Statues in Italy The majority of the statues from outside Egypt come from Italy, specifically from Rome. This group is made up of seven statues, including the Vatican Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (36 and 37) from Heliopolis found in the gardens of Sallust, a standing king from Bubastis found in Rome (30), a queen from the Iseum in Regio III (97), a Ptolemaic head from the Iseum in the Campus Martius (98), a Ptolemaic head found in the Tiber (99), and a standing king from the Temple to the Syrian Triad on the Capitoline (100). These are all large scale, hard stone, high quality Ptolemaic statues in Egyptian style. They originated in Egypt and some have inscriptions identifying their original context. They are primarily dated to the second century BC. The existence of these statues in Rome can be attributed to the movement of material during the Roman Empire. After Augustus’ acquisition of the country as a province in 30 BC, there was large scale movement of monuments and statuary to the Empire’s capital, most notably obelisks, Bosanquet 1912, 70. Mantua Arsinoe: Smith 1988, No.50; Qena Hadrian: Graindor 1937, No.11; Kiss 1984, 59.

442 443

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

such as those that ornamented Augustus’ tomb.444 This material functioned as both a sign of Rome’s domination over the country, and as a form of decoration for a city that contained artworks from elsewhere in the ancient world.445 This acquisition and display continued, peaking under particular emperors such as Domitian and Hadrian, but also followed a more general trend for the consumption of Egyptian and Egyptianising products.446

belonged in specific areas, though in this case they did so following Roman ideas. Whilst considering the material in Italy and Rome, it is important to consider the number of Egyptian statues with Roman features found there. These have not been included in the catalogue, as they are not from Egypt. This is a group of statues made from Egyptian material and produced in an Egyptian style with Roman portrait features, but created in Italy and designed to be seen by audiences there.451 These statues were part of a widespread development that saw the creation and display of Egyptian and Egyptianised products in Italy. Examples include a statue of Domitian associated with the Iseum at Beneventum (and a number of other examples as the Imperial cult was closely linked to that of Isis) and a number of statues of Antinous, particularly from Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli.452 There are actually more of these Egyptian statues with Roman features present in Italy than in Egypt.

In looking closely at the placement of the material, it is clear these statues were not merely plucked from Egypt and distributed in a random fashion, to decorate the streets of Rome. Rather, they occupied ‘Egyptian’ contexts. The statues from Regio III (97) and the Campus Martius (98) stood inside Isea, and formed part of a wider sculptural programme decorating the sanctuaries with Egyptian material.447 The Vatican Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (36 and 37) found in the Gardens of Sallust, also come from an area defined as an ‘Egyptian’ style context. The part of the Gardens they come from included other Egyptian material, such as a 19th Dynasty queen and Egyptian style architecture.448 Kim Hartswick suggests this area of the Gardens was ‘themed’ as Egyptian, with the appropriate architecture and imagery to go along with it.449 Even the Temple of the Syrian Triad on the Capitoline followed this idea. The temple is not Egyptian, but it is eastern and foreign, and played host to more than one piece of Egyptian imagery.450

Despite being Roman versions of Egyptian ideas and images, these statues still conform to ideas about placement and style. The statue of Domitian for example, comes from the Iseum at Beneventum, donated by the emperor, and the Egyptian material at Hadrian’s villa forms part of a themed area, similar to what has been described at the Gardens of Sallust.453 Though not from Egypt, representing a pharaoh, or being displayed to Egyptians, these statues followed the same conventions as the Ptolemaic ones, and other statues in Egypt, in that they were placed in ‘Egyptian’ contexts. It is true these are ‘Roman Egyptian’ contexts, and do not have the same features, rituals, or history, but they illustrate the idea that such images were typically placed in familiar and appropriate contexts.

Egyptian-style Ptolemaic statues were not singular examples of Egyptian style material in Rome, surrounded by Corinthian capitals and marble athletes. They were placed in areas that were seen to have strong Egyptian links, with similar material. There was a concept that this type of space is where these statues belonged, as a way to reinforce the presence and origin of Isis, or to decorate a garden in a novel and fashionable way.

C. Other locations Throughout their reign the Ptolemies had significant influence and investment in the Mediterranean. During the 3rd century BC the Ptolemaic empire reached its peak, stretching along the coast of Syria and across the islands of the Aegean, with continued interventionist activities in mainland Greece.454 As the dynasty continued, their influenced slowly waned, becoming more focused on Egypt. The Ptolemaic presence in the Mediterranean though, resulted in a range of sculpture and other imagery being created that was never meant to be associated with Egypt, such as the statues of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II from Olympia.455 The primary focus here is on the material that can be identified as originating in Egypt, though the presence of other Ptolemaic representation must be kept in mind.

Martin Bommas writes that the inclusion of Egyptian style material in the Isea of Rome was linked strongly to memory. That these objects (amongst other material, such a living animals) were consciously used to create a memory of Egypt in these places, to recreate the Egyptian landscape as the Romans thought they knew it, in order to link the glorious Roman present with the Egyptian past. It was though, a fictionalised past, as the Roman’s had no real memory of Egypt, instead they used what they thought they knew. In many ways this idea links with my observations here. In placing the royal statues, the Roman’s were following a very basic knowledge of where such imagery should be placed, i.e. in a temple. They understood that the Egyptian temples needed statues, and they were part of the temple make-up, and so acted accordingly. The Romans understood that the statues

Two other statues have been identified as representing Ptolemies in hard-stone Egyptian style, yet are not in

Roullet 1971, 1-12, 43; Ashton 2004, 8-11. Roullet 1971, 18; Ashton 2004, 8. 446 Roullet 1971, 18-20. 447 Roullet 1971, 23-38. 448 Roullet 1971, 45-51; Hartswick 2004, 130-138. 449 Hartswick 2004, 130-136. 450 Lembke 1994, 221-244. 444

Roullet 1972, 18-22; Ashton 2004, 48-51; Brophy 2014a. Ashton 2004, 172; Domitian: Müller 1969, 66; Hadrian’s Villa: Roullet 1972, no.167b-172. 453 Hartswick 2004, 130-136. 454 Hölbl 2001, 35-77. 455 Hoepfner 1971, 11-54.

445

451 452

70

Outside Egypt

Egypt. The first is the Aegina Ptolemy (101), a statue head of Ptolemy VI found in the sea off the coast of Aegina, and the second is the head of a Cleopatra from modern day Kerch in the Ukraine (102). Both statues have secure find spots, but provide no contextual evidence. Their locations suggest they were transported from Egypt, probably during the Imperial period. Based on what has been seen in Rome, they may have been destined for an Iseum or Serapeum, both popular sanctuaries in the Mediterranean during the Roman Empire. The final statue for consideration is the head of Ptolemy Apion (103), found inserted into the pedestal of a statue of C. Cornelius Lentullus Marcellinus in the sanctuary of Apollo at Cyrene. Technically, this head should not be part of this discussion. The head was never meant to stand in Egypt and is for a ruler who never ruled the country. It is still important to consider its place within Ptolemaic representation, and how it, and others, influenced the context of those statues in Egypt. The statue was not found in situ and its original location is unknown, yet the sanctuary of Apollo is the perfect location for a marble head of a king. Like its cousins in the Serapeum of Alexandria (75-77), this head fits into this context. This could not have been an Egyptian image, firstly because Ptolemy Apion was not a pharaoh, but also because of the nature of the sanctuary and the culture surrounding it. In relation to the number of Ptolemaic statues, this head acts as a reminder of the power and influence of the Ptolemaic dynasty during their rule. There are many Greek style marble and limestone heads of the Ptolemies without a provenance, and while many likely originated in Alexandria, others belonged to the islands and poleis of the Aegean. There are already examples of such imagery at Olympia, with the two statues of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II.456 These Greek style Ptolemaic images existed throughout the Greek world, and usually conformed to the same general patterns of placement as those that were displayed in Egypt. D. Outside Egypt: Conclusion This small group of Ptolemaic statues demonstrates the huge amount of royal sculpture that existed in the Mediterranean, both during and after their rule. Specifically, it shows that whether the statue was transported from Egypt or set up in Rome, the statues appear to have followed some of the same patterns concerning context and style that were part of the statues displayed in Egypt. The Iseums and gardens of Italy might not have been the same as the temples of Tanis or Karnak, but they represented Egyptian art and ideas, and it was normally in such places Egyptian style statues of the Ptolemies (or emperors) were placed.

456

Hoepfner 1971.

71

Chapter 9

Conclusion The aim of this book was to analyse Ptolemaic and Imperial royal statues in Egypt from a contextual viewpoint. To focus on the identifiably royal material with an archaeological context or a recoverable provenance, and use this to identify and discuss the statue’s placement, style, and function. This approach has identified a number of different statue categories, the various contexts the statues occupied relating to site and placement, and the range of functions the statues had. Based on the current evidence, it has demonstrated that generally there existed a relationship between context, statue, and function regarding the royal statues in Egypt. The primary question facing this book was where were royal statues of the Ptolemaic and Imperial period located? Even by focusing on evidence with a secure find spot or recoverable provenance, there was little material that provided direct answers. The literary sources supplied a range of evidence for the general placement of particular statues, indicating religious and urban spaces as the most popular locations. The literary sources also highlighted some contexts not present in the archaeological record, such as the Great Procession of the Ptolemies. Analysis of cult statues also showed a religious context, and one that was divided into three distinct cultural areas, the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman. The material in the catalogue shows that large scale royal statues occupied two specific contexts in Egypt, namely the Egyptian temple and the metropoleis. Within these sites, royal statues typically conformed to the traditions of statue placement observed in other sculptural material in Dynastic Egypt and the Hellenic East. The statues stood in courtyards, along the dromos, and at the entrances of the Egyptian temple. In the metropoleis the statues are associated with temples, theatres, and column monuments. Within this, the current evidence points to a general division in statue style and location, with Egyptian-style material located in Egyptian temples and Greek-and Imperial-style material in the metropoleis. This was observed in the material throughout Egypt, at sites such as the temples of Amun at Tanis and Karnak and the towns of Athribis and Hermopolis Magna. Even the Egyptian statues with Greek or Roman features followed this pattern by standing within Egyptian temples. This phenomenon regarding large scale royal sculpture does not necessarily translate to other types of material. Royal sculpture needed to be placed in the appropriate context in order to fulfil their functions. The principal functions of all royal statues were to represent the individual, and to pass on messages concerning the Ptolemaic or Imperial dynasty, their divinity, and their

72

power. This was illustrated most clearly with the statue from Aphroditpolis (53), a Hellenistic ruler statue tied to the imagery and messages of the period. One of the primary functions for these royal statues though was as part of a system of communication between the ruler and people of Egypt. This was first highlighted in the literary sources, which showed those responsible for the commissioning of royal statues, including the monarchs, clergy, elite and people, and was further emphasised in the epigraphic evidence, such as the statue base of Ptolemy XII from Tebtunis (46B) and the inscriptions from Hermopolis Magna. All categories of royal statues were used to establish a relationship and dialogue between the rulers and the different groups of Egypt, and each group used their own cultural style and milieu in order to achieve this. Many of the statues in this study had wider functions, in that they were an intrinsic part of the context they occupied, especially the Egyptian-style material. In being placed within the Egyptian temple these statues had to fulfil the roles ascribed to them within Egyptian ideology and tradition. The statues were part of temple ritual and practice. It would be different for a Greek-or Imperial-style statue as it could not fulfil such a role within an Egyptian temple. The royal statues were tied to their contexts and environment in a direct way. By being placed in the appropriate space the statues could properly fulfil their functions. It is possible to observe from this that the context, style, and function of the royal statues were usually entwined with each other. The statues functioned on multiple levels, and often needed to be placed in a particular type of context in order to meet these functions. The material in Alexandria also supports this idea, as the material from the Serapeum and the Royal Harbours shows the combination of styles within a particular context. There was also the fact that in choosing to be represented in a particular sculptural and cultural style, the rulers or groups creating the statues in question were choosing a particular set of norms and ideas in which to project themselves and communicate with the people, and alongside this was the need to place them within a context the statues would fit. The final area this book considered was the difference in representation and placement between the Ptolemaic and Imperial royal statues, and a break was identified in the approach to representation between these two groups. From the available material it appears Ptolemaic sculpture was concentrated on the use of traditional Egyptian-style representation, whereas the Imperial statues are primarily classical in style, except for seven Egyptian statues with

Conclusion

Roman features. This difference is part of a wider approach taken to Imperial representation in Egypt, reflected not only in the sculptural evidence but also in the construction record, including the emphasis on Imperial-style temples. The evidence indicates an alternative approach to representation during Imperial rule.

interesting, as it cannot be observed in other artistic areas of Egypt, suggesting the high profile cult and large stone royal statues were set apart. In their role representing the monarch, the royal statues needed to conform to traditional contexts in a way other material did not. In maintaining these traditions the Ptolemies and Emperors, and others responsible for commissioning royal statues, were reflecting their own ideas and policies, yet also conforming to the perceived ideas of how and where royal statues should be placed, allowing them to fulfil their designated functions, primarily as a form of communication between monarch and people.

This study identified the locations of royal statues of the Ptolemies and Emperors in Egypt. It has demonstrated that there were specific sites a royal statue usually inhabited, and that there is no mixing of statue style and cultural context unless it is specifically allowed. This is particularly

Egyptian Lower Egypt

Egyptian with Egyptian with Greek Roman

Greek

Roman

Unknown – Inscribed Bases

Total

26

7

3

11

1

2

50

Fayoum

0

33

0

1

0

0

34

Upper Egypt

12

0

4

2

7

1

26

Meroe

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Alexandr-ia

12

5

0

3

4

15

39

Outside Egypt

3

3

0

1

0

0

7

Total

53

48

7

18

13

18

157

Table 1: The distribution of the different categories of royal statue throughout the regions of Egypt.

73

Abbreviations AfP Archiv für Payrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete AJA American Journal of Archaeology AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung AncSoc Ancient Society ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique BClevMus The Bulletin of Cleveland Museum of Art BdE Bibliothèque d’étude. Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale BJRylLib Bulleting of the John Rylands Libaray BMusLyon Bulletin des musées et monuments lyonnais BSAA Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie BSRAA Bulletin de la Société royale d’archéologique d’Alexandrie CdE Chronique d’Égypte Cleopatra’s Egypt Fazzini, R, A, and Bianchi, R, S. (eds). 1988 Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies (The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn) ESPL Bothmer, B. 1960, Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period (Brooklyn) EST Goddio, F. 2006 and 2008, Egypt’s Sunken Treasures EtTravÉtudes et travaux. Studia i prace. Travaux du Centre d’archéologie méditerranéene de l’Académie des sciences polonaise FIFAO Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale GM Göttinger Miszellen JARCE Journal of American Research in Egypt JdI Jahrbuch des Deutsche Archäologischen Instituts JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JHA Journal of Hellenic Studies JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology JRS Journal of Roman Studies LÄ Helck, W, and Westendorf, W. 1975-1992, Lexikon der Ägyptologie (Wiesbaden) MÄS Münchner Ägyptologische Studien MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo MIFAO Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale duCaire OEAE Redford, D, B. 2001, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt OGIS Dittenberger, W. 1903-1905 Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, vols 1-2 (Leipzig) PM I-VII Porter, B, and Moss, R, L, B. 1927-1981, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hierglyphic Texts, Statues, Reliefs and Paintings (Clarendon Press, Oxford) PM VIII Malek, J, Magee, D, and Miles, E. 1999, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hierglyphic Texts, Statues, Reliefs and Paintings (Clarendon Press, Oxford) RA Revue archéologique RdE Revue d’égyptologie RT Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes etassyriennes SAK Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur SASAE Supplément aux annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

74

Bibliography Adriani, A. 1940, Annuario del Museo greco-romano 19351939 (Alexandria) Adriani, A. 1947, ‘Nuovi ritratti di Arsinoe III’ Arti Figurative 3 (Rome) 51-61 Alston, R. 1995, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History (Routledge, London) Alston, R. 2002, The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt, (Routledge, London) Anderson, M. L. 1998 ‘Roman Portraits in Religious and Funerary Contexts’ in M. L. Anderson and L. Nista. (eds.) Roman Portraits in Context (De Licia, Rome) Arnold, D. 1999a, Temples of the Last Pharaohs (Oxford University Press, New York) Arnold, D. 1999b, ‘Old Kingdom Statues in their Architectural Setting’ in Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) 41-49 Ashton, S. A. 2001, Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt: the interaction between Greek and Egyptian Traditions (Archaeopress, Oxford) Ashton, S. A. 2004, Roman Egyptomania (Golden House, London) Assmann, J. 1996, ‘Preservation and the presentation of self in Ancient Egyptian Portraiture’ in P. Der Manuelian, (ed.) Studies in Honour of William Kelly Simpson (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) 55-81 Assmann, J. 2001, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Cornell, University Press, Ithaca) Athenaeus, The Deipnosphists, Trans. C. B. Gulick. 1948 (Loeb Classical Library, London) Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, Trans. S. D. Olson, 2006 (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, London) Ausführliches Verzeichnis der aegyptischen Altertümer und Gipsabgüsse (Königliche Museen, Berlin,1899) Austin, M. M. 1981, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Austin, M. M. 2006, The Hellenistic World From Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Azim, M. and Réveillac, G. 2004 Karnak dans l’objectif de Georges Legrain: catalogue raisonné des archives photographiques du premier directeur des travaux de Karnak de 1895 à 1917: 2 Volumes (Centre national de la recherché scientifique éditions, Paris) Badawy, A. M. 1975, ‘The Approach to the Egyptian temple in the Late and Graeco-Romanperiods’ Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 102, 79-90 Bagnall, R. S. 2000, ‘The Fayoum and its People’ in S, Walker. (ed.) Ancient Faces: MummyPortraits from Roman Egypt (Routledge, New York) 26-9 Bagnall, R. and Frier, B. 1994, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge) Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. 2004, The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford) Bagnall, R. S. and Rathbone, D, W. 2004, Egypt: From Alexander to the Copts, (British Museum Press, London) Bailey, D. M. 1990, ‘Classical Architecture in Roman Egypt’, in Henig. M. Architecture andArchitectural Sculpture in

75

the Roman Empire (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford) 121-137 Bailey, D. M. 1991, Hermopolis Magna: Buildings of the Roman Period (British Museum Press, London) Baines, J. 1991, ‘Society, Morality, and Religious Practice’ in B. E. Shafer. (ed.) Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice (Cornell University Press, London) 123-200 Baines, J. and Malek, J. 1980, Atlas of Ancient Egypt, (Phaidon, Oxford) Bastianini, G and Gallazzi, C. 1989, ‘Un’iscrizione inedita di Tebtynis per una statua controversa di Tolomeo XII’ Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica e antichità classiche 18, 201-209 Beard, M. North, J. and Price, S. 1998, Religions of Rome (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Ben Tor, D. 2001, In the Presence of the Gods: Statues of Mortals in Egyptian Temples (The IsraelMuseum, Jerusalem) Bernand, A. 1969, Les Inscriptions grecques de Philae (Centre national de la recherché scientifique, Paris) Bernand, A. 1970, Le Delta égyptien d’après les textes grecs, 3 Volumes (Mémoires publiés par lesmembres de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale) Bernand, A. 1992, La prose sur pierre dans l’Égypte hellénistique et romaine; 2 volumes (Editions du Centre nationale de la recherché scientifique, Paris) Bernand. É. 1975-1981, Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, 2 Volumes (Bibliothèque d’étude 79-80, Institut français d’archéological orientale, Brill, Leiden) Bernand, É. 1982, Inscriptions grecques d’Égypte et de Nubie: Répertoire bibliographique des OGIS (Belles Lettres, Paris) Bernand, É. 1998, ‘Epigraphical Documents and Caracalla in Egypt’ in F. Goddio. (ed.) Alexandria:the submerged Royal Quarters (Periplus, London) 143-167 Bernand, É. 1999, Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna et de sa Nécropole, (Bibliothèque d’étude 123, Institut français d’archéologiel orientale, Cairo) Bernand, É. 2001, Inscriptions grecques d’Alexandrie Ptolémaïque (Bibliothèque d’étude 133, Institut français d’archéological orientale, Cairo) Bergmann, M. 2007, ‘The Philosophers and Poets in the Serapieion at Memphis’ in P. Schultz and R.V.D. Hoff (eds.) Early Hellenistic Portraiture (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 246-263 Bianchi, R. 1976, The Striding Draped Male Figure of Ptolemaic Egypt (Doctoral Thesis, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University) Bianchi, R. S. 1978, ‘The Striding Draped Male Figure in Ptolemaic Egypt’ in H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka (eds.) Das Ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions, 27.-29 September in Berlin (Philip von Zabern, Mainz), 95-102 Bianchi, R. S. 1980, ‘Not the Isis knot’ Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 2, 9-31 Bianchi, R. S. 1988, ‘The Pharaonic Art of Ptolemaic Egypt’ in R, A, Fazzini and R, S, Bianchi (eds.)Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies (The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn) 55-80

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Bingen, J. 2002, ‘Le Décret Sacerdotal de Karnak’ Chronique d’Égypte 77, 295-302 Bingen, J. 2007, Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture (University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh) Bisson de la Roque, F. 1924, Rapport sur les fouilles d’Abou Roasch fouilles de 1922-1923 (l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo) Bissing, F, W. 1914, Denkmäler ägyptischer sculptur. 2 Volumes (F. Bruckmann, Munich) Blyth, E. 2006, Karnak: Evolution of a Temple (Routledge, London) Boatwright, M. T. 2000, ‘Just Window Dressing? Imperial Women as Architectural Sculpture’ in D. Kleiner and S. B. Matheson (eds) I Claudia II: Women in RomanArt and Society (Universityof Texas Press, Austin) 61-76 Bol, P. C. 1994, Forschungen zur Villa Albani: Katalog der antiken Bildwerke Vol 4 (Mann, Berlin) Bommas, M. 2005, Heiligtum und Mysterium: Griechenland und seine ägyptischen Gottheiten (Philip von Zabern, Mainz) Bommas, M. 2012, ‘The Iseum Campense as a Memory Site’ in M. Bommas, J. Harrison, and P. Ray (eds.) Memory and Urban Religion in the Ancient World (Bloomsbury, London) 177-201 Borchardt, L. 1930, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo (Reichsdruckerei, Berlin) Boschung, D. 1993, Die Bildnisse des Augustus (Mann, Berlin) Bosanquet, R. C. 1912, ‘On the Bronze Portrait Head’ Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology IV (Liverpool University Press, Liverpool) 66-71 Bothmer, B. V. 1959, ‘La tête égyptienne d’Auxerre’ La Revue des Arts 9, 98-108 Bothmer, B, V. et al, 1969, Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period 700-100 BC (Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn) Bothmer, B. V. 1996, ‘Hellenistic Elements in Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period’ in Alexandria and Alexandrianism (Paul Getty Museum, Brooklyn) 215-230 Botti, G. 1897, Fouilles à la Colonne Théodosienne (1896): mémoire présenté a la société(Imprimerie générale L. Carrière, Alexandria) Botti, G. 1897, Plan de quartier ‘Rhacotis’ das l’Alexandrie romaine (Imprimerie générale L.Carrière, Alexandria) Botti, G. 1898, Plan de la ville d’Alexandrie a l’époque Ptolémaique; monuments et localités del’ancienne Alexandrie d’apres les écrivains et les fouilles (Imprimerie générale L. Carrière, Alexandria) Botti, G. 1900, Catalogue des monuments exposés au Musée Gréco-Romain d’Alexandrie (Imprimerie générale A. Mourès and cie, Alexandria) Botti, G. 1902, ‘Bulletine épigraphique’ Bulletin de la Société royale d’archéologie d’Alexandrie 4, 85-107 Boulos, T. 1910, ‘A Report on some Antiquities found in the inspectorate of Minieh’ Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 10, 114-115 Bowman, A, K. 1986, Egypt after the Pharaohs, 332 BC – AD 642: from Alexander to the Arab Conquest (British Museum Publications, London) Bowman, A, K. 2001, ‘Urbanisation in Roman Egypt’ in E. Fentress (ed.) Romanization and the City:Creation, transformations and failures: papers of a conference held at the American Academyin Rome, 14-16th May 1998 (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 38, Portsmouth) 173-187

Bowman, A. K. et al. 2007, Oxyrhynchus: A City and its Texts, (Egyptian Exploration Society, London) Bulloch, W, A. 1993, Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World (University of California Press, London) Breccia, E. 1905, ‘Antiquités découvertes à Maamourah par S. A. le prince Omar Pacha Toussoun’Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie d’Alexandrie 8, 107-117 Breccia, E. 1905, ‘Cronaca del museo e degli scavi e ritrovamenti nel territorio di Alessandria’ Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie d’Alexandrie 8, 118-132 Breccia, E. 1907, ‘Les fouilles dans le Serapeum d’Alexandrie en 1905-6’ Annales du Service desantiquités de l’Égypte 8, 62-76 Breccia. E. 1911, Iscrizioni greche e latine (Cairo) Breccia, E. 1914, Alexandria ad Aegyptum: guide de la ville ancienne et moderne et du Musée Gréco-Romain (Istituto Italiano d’arti grafiche, Bergamo) Breccia, E. 1926, Le rovine e i monumenti di Canopo. Teadelfia e il tempio di Pneferôs (Officine dell’Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche, Bergamo) Breccia, E. 1932, Le Musée gréco-romain 1925-1931 (Instituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche, Bergamo) Breccia, E. 1933, Le Musée gréco-romain 1931-1932 (Instituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche, Bergamo) Bresciani, E. 1997, ‘L’Università di Pisa nel Fayum: tra Medinet Madi e Kom Khelua’ in Archaeologiae Papiri nel Fayyum. Storia della ricerca, Problemi e prospettive: atti del convegno internazionale, Siracusa, 24-25 Maggio 1996 (Instituto Internazionale del Papiro, Siracusa)57-68 Briant, P. 1999, ‘Inscriptions multilingues d’époque Achéménide: le lexte et l’image’ in D, Valbelleand J, Leclant (eds) Le Décret de Memphis (Foundation SingerPolignac, Paris) 91-115 Brissaud, P. and Zivie-Coche, C. 1998-2005, Tanis: Travaux récents sur le tell Sân el Hagar, 3Volumes (Noêsis, Paris) Brophy, E. 2014a, ‘Two-for-One: Looking at Imperial Statues with Roman Features in Egypt’, in Accetta, K. Fellinger, R. Gonçalves, P. L. Musselwhite, S. and Van Pelt, P. (eds) Current Research in Egyptology 2013: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge 2013 (Oxbow Books, Oxford) Brophy, E. 2014b, ‘Placing Pharaohs and Kings; Where were royal statues located in Ptolemaic Egypt?’ in Grieb, V. Nawotka, K. and Wojciechowska, A. (eds) Alexander and Egypt: History, Art, Tradition (Harrassowitz Verlag, Wroclaw), 347-356 Brophy, E. Forthcoming, ‘Distribution of Ptolemaic and Roman Statuary in Egypt’, in Chandrasekaran, S. Koureme, A. and Whiting, M. (eds) Continuity and Destruction in Alexander’s East;University of Oxford, 6-7th May 2011 (Archaeopress, Oxford) Camp, J, M. 1992, The Athenian Agora: Excavations at the Heart of Classical Athens (Thames and Hudson, London) Cauville, S. 1987, ‘Les statues cultelles de Dendera d’après les inscriptions pariétales’ Bulletin del’Institut français d’archéologie orientale de Caire 87, 73-117 Cauville, S. 1992, Dendera: guide de archéologique (Institut français d’archaéologie orientale,Cairo) Chaban, M. 1910, ‘Monuments recueillis pendant les inspections’ Annales du Service des Antiquitésde l’Égypte 10, 28-30 Chamoux, F. 2003, Hellenistic Civilization (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford)

76

Bibliography

Chaniotis, A. 2005, ‘The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers’ in A. Erskine (ed.) A Companion to theHellenistic World (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford) 431-445 Chassinat, É. 1897-1918, Temple d’Edfou I and II (Institut Français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo) Chassinat, É. 1934, Le Temple de Dendara II (Institut Français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo) Chevrier, H. 1939, ‘Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (19381939)’ Annales du Service desAntiquités de l’Égypte 39, 553-601 Clarysse, W. 1995 ‘Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt’ in S. P. Vleeming (ed) Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period (Brill, Leiden) 1-20 Clarysse, W. 1999 ‘Ptolémées et Temples’ in D, Valbelle and J. Leclant (eds.) Le Décret de Memphis (Foundation Singer-Polignac, Paris) 41-62 Clarysse, W. and Thompson, D. 2006, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Coles, R. A. 2007 ‘Oxyrhynchus: A City and its Texts’, in A. K. Bowman et al. (eds.)Oxyrhynchus: A City and its Texts (Egyptian Exploration Society, London) 3-17 Comstock, M. B. and Vermeule, C. 1976, Sculpture in Stone (Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) Coppens, F. 2007, The Wabet: Tradition and Innovation in Temples in Ptolemaic Egypt (Czech Institute of Egyptology, Oxford) Corteggiani, J. P. 1998, ‘Les Aegyptiaca de la fouille sousmarine de Qaitbay’ Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie 142, 25-40 Curto, S. 1985, Le sculpture egizie ed egittizzanti nelle Ville Torlonia in Roma (Brill, Leiden) D’Ambra, E. 1998, Roman Art (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998) Dabrowski, L. 1962, ‘La topographie d’Athribis à l’époque romaine’ Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 57, 19-31 Daumas, F. 1952, Les moyens d’expression du grec et de l’égyptien: Comparés dans les décrets de Canope et de Memphis (Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte Supplement 16) Derriks, C. and Delvaux, 2009, Antiquités égyptiennes au Musée royal de Mariemont (Musée royal de Mariemont, Belgium) Dittenberger, W. 1903-5, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig) Donadoni, S. 1989, ‘Images and Form: the Experience of Sculpture’ in Egyptian Civilisation: Monumental Art, (Museum of Turin, Milan) 98-185 Donadoni Roveri, A. M. Aisoa, S. and Minà, P. (eds.) (2003) Faraoni come dei, Tolemei come Faraoni, Atti del V Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano Torino, Archivio di Stato, 8-12 dicembre2001 (Museo Egizio di Torino, Torino) Dundas, G. S. 1993, Pharaoh, Basileus, Imperator: The Roman Imperial Cult in Egypt (UMI, Michigan) Edgar, C. C. 1909, ‘Greek Sculpture from Tell Timai’ in M. G. Maspero (ed.) Le Musée Égyptien vol 3 (Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo) 1-13 Edgar, C. C. 1913, ‘A Statue of a Hellenistic King’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 33, 50-52 Elkins, J. 2002, ‘The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing’ in S. B. Platt (ed.) Religion, Artand Visual Culture (Plagrave, Hampshire) 40-45

El-Fattah, A. and Gallo, P. 1998, ‘Aegyptiaca Alexandrina: Monuments pharaoniques decouvertsrécemment à Alexandrie’ in J. Y. Empereur. (ed.) Alexandrina Volume 1 (Institut françaisd’archéologie orientale, Cairo) 7-19 El-Sabban, S. 2000, Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Redwood Books) El-Sawi, A. 1979, Excavations at Tell Basta: Report of Seasons 1967-71 and Catalogue of Finds (Charles University, Prague) Emery, 1970, ‘Preliminary Reports on the Excavations at North Saqqara 1968-9’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 56, 5-11 Empereur, J. Y. 1995, ‘Alexandrie’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119, 743-760 Empereur, J. Y. 1996, ‘Alexandrie’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 120, 959-970 Empereur, J. Y. 1998a, Alexandria Rediscovered (George Braziller Purblishing, New York) Empereur, J. Y. et al, 1998b, La Gloire d’Alexandrie: 7 Mai – 26 Juillet 1998 (Paris Musées, Paris) Empereur, J. Y, Hesse, A, and Picard, O. 1994, ‘Alexandrie’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 118, 503-519 Englebach, R. 1924, ‘The Treasure of Athribis’ Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 24, 178-185 Faider-Feytmans, G. 1952, Les antiquités égyptiennes, grecques, étrusques, romaines et galloromaines du Musée de Mareimont (Édition de la Librairie encyclopédique, Brussles) Fairman, H, W. 1954, ‘Worship and Festivals in the Egyptian Temple’ in Bulletin of the JohnRylands Library 37.1, 165-203 Favard-Meeks, C. 1991, Le temple de Behbeit el-Hagara: essai de reconstitution etd’interpretation (H. Buske, Hamburg) Favard-Meeks, C. 1998, ‘Mise à jour des ouvrages de Flinders Petrie sur les fouilles de Tanis’ in P. Brissaud and C. ZivieCoche (eds.) Tanis: travaux récents sur le tell Sân Hagar. Missionfrançais des fouilles de Tanis 1987-1997 (Noesis, Paris) 101-178 Fazzini, R, A. and Bianchi, R, S. (eds.), 1988, Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies (The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn) 55-80 Fejfer, J. 2008, Roman Portraits in Context (Walter de Gruyter, New York) Finnestad, R. B. 1997, ‘Temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods: Ancient Traditions in NewContexts’ in B. E. Shafer (ed.) Temples of Ancient Egypt (Cornell University Press, NewYork) 185-237 Fishwick, D. 1989, ‘Statues taxes in Roman Egypt’ Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 38, 335-347 Fittschen, K. and Zanker, P. 1985, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom Bd. 1 Kaiserund Prinzenbildnisse (Phillip von Zabern, Mainz) Fragaki, H. 2009, ‘Une groupe de sculptures découvert dans le Quartier Royale d’Alexandrie’Alexandrina vol 3 (Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo) 63-104 Fraser, P. M. 1960, ‘Inscriptions from Ptolemaic Egypt’ Berytus 13, 123-161 Fraser, P. M. 1972, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Clarendon Press, Oxford) Galliano, G. and Gabolde, M. 2000, Coptos: L’Egypte antique aux portes du désert, (Réunion des Musée Nationaux, Paris)

77

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Gallo, P. 1990, ‘Quelques monuments royaux provenant de Behbeit el-Hagar’ Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale de Caire 90, 223-228 Gallo, P. 1997, Ostraka demotici e ieratici dall’archivio bilingue di Narmuthis (ETS, Pisa) Garstang, J. 1912, ‘Second Interim Report on the Excavations at Meroe in Ethiopia’ in Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology IV, (Liverpool University Press, Liverpool) 45-52 Gazda, E, K. 1978, Guardians of the Nile (Kelsey Museum, University of Michigan) Gazda, E, K, 2004, Karanis: An Egyptian Town in Roman times (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan) Gibson, C. 2007, ‘Alexander in the Tychaion: Ps-Libanius on the Statues’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 47, 431-454 Gibson, C. 2008, Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta) Goddio, F. 2006, Egypt’s Sunken Treasures (Prestel, London) Goddio, F. 2007, The Topography and Excavation of Heracleion-Thonis and East Canopus (1996-2006) (Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Goddio, F. 2008, Egypt’s Sunken Treasures (Prestel, London) Goddio, F. and Yoyotte, J, 1998, Alexandria: The Submerged Royal Quarters (Periplus, London) Goddio, F. and Bernand, A. 2004, Sunken Egypt: Alexandria (Periplus, London) Goebs, K. 2007, ‘Kingship’ in T. Wilkinson (ed.) The Egyptian World (Routledge, London) 275-295 Goyon, J. C. 1988, ‘Ptolemaic Egypt: Priests and the Traditional Religion’, in R, A, Fazzini. and R. S. Bianchi. (eds) Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies (Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn) 29-40 Goyon, J. C. et al, (eds.) 2004, Trésors d’Égypte: la ‘cachette’ de Karnak, 1904-2004, Exposition enhomage à Georges Legrain à l’occasion du IXe CongrèsInternational des Égyptologues,Musée Dauphinois, Grenoble, 4 Septembre 2004-5 Janvier 2005 (Conseil general de l’Isere,Grenoble) Goyon, J. C. and Gabolde, M. 1991, ‘Trois pièces de Basseépoque et d’Époque Ptolémaïque au Muséedes BeauxArts de Lyon’ Bulletin des Musées Lyonnais 3-4, 2-27 Graindor, P. 1937, Bustes et statues-portraits d’Égypte Romaine (Imprimerie P. Barbey, Cairo) Grenfell, B, P. and Hunt, A. S. 1914, Oxyhrynchus Papyri, Vol. X (Egypt Exploration Fund, London) Grenfell, B, P. and Hunt, A. S. 1916, Oxyhrynchus Papyri, Vol. XII (Egypt Exploration Fund, London) Griffith, F. Ll. 1890, ‘Tarraneh’ in E. Naville and F. Ll. Griffith (eds), The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias: Belbeis, Samanood, Abusir, Tukh el Karamus 1887 and the Antiquities of Tell El Yahudiyeh and Miscellaneous Work in Lower Egypt During the Years 1887-1888 (Egyptian Exploration Society 7, London) 60-64 Grimm, G. and Johannes, D. 1975, Kunst der Ptolemäer-und Römerzeit im Ägyptischen Museum Kairo (Phillip von Zabern, Mainz) Grimm, G. 1998, Alexandria: Die erst Königsstadt der hellenistischen Welt: Bilder aus der Nilmetropole von Alexander dem Grossen bis Kleopatra VII (Philip von Zabern, Mainz) Habachi, L. 1969, Features of the Deification of Rameses II (J.J.Augustin, Glückstadt)

Handler, S. 1971 ‘Architecture on the Roman Coins of Alexandria’ American Journal of Archaeology75, 57-74 Hartswick, K. J. 2004, The Gardens of Sallust: A Changing Landscape (University of Texas Press, Austin) Hastings, E. A. 1997, The Sculpture from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara 1964-1976 (Egypt Exploration Society, London) Haynes, D. E, L. 1983, ‘The Date of the Bronze Head of Augustus from Meroe’ in A. Adriani. N. Bonacasa, A. Di Vita and G. Barone (eds.) Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano: studi in onoredi Achille Adriani (L’Erma di Bretschneider, Rome) Hawass, Z. 1997 ‘A Statue of Caracalla found in the Nile by a Fisherman’ J. Phillips (ed) Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell vol 1 (Van Sicklen Books, San Antonio) 227-233 Helbig, W. 1963-1972, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom 4: Die Staatlichen Sammlungen (E. Wasmuth, Tübingen) Herklotz, F. 2007, Prinzeps und Pharao: der Kult des Augustus in Agypten (Doctoral Thesis Humboldt Universität, Berlin) Hill, M. 2007, Gifts for the Gods: Images from Egyptian Temples (Yale University Press, London) Hoepfner, W. 1971, Zwei Ptolemäerbauten: Das Ptolemäerweihgeschenk in Olympia und einBauvorhaben Alexandria (Mann, Berlin) Hoffman, F. Minas-Nerpel, M. and Pfeiffer, S. 2009, Die dreisprachige Stele des C. Cornelius Gallus: Übersetzung und Kommentar (De Gruyer, Berlin) Hölbl, G. 2000, Altägypten im Römischen Reich: Der römische Pharao und seine Tempel (Philip von Zabern, Mainz) Hölbl, G. 2001, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (trans Saavedra. T) (Routledge, London) Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. 1996, Oxford Classical Dictionary; Third Edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Hornung, E. 1982, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (trans. Baines. J) (Cornell University Press, New York) Hornung, E. 1992, Idea into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought, (trans Bredeck. E.) (Timken Publishing, New York) Huss, W. 1991, ‘Die in Ptolemäischer Zeit verfassten Synodal-Dekrete der äegyptischen Priester’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 88, 189-216 Hunt, A. S. 1911, Oxyhrynchus Papyri, Vol. VIII (Egypt Exploration Fund, London, 1911) Hunt, A. S. and Edgar, C, C. 1927, Select Papyri Volume II (Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London) IFAO, 2011, Karnak Cachette (Institut française d’archéologie orientale) http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/about Jombard, E. F. 1809, Description de l’Egypte, Volume 2 (Paris) Johnson, C, G. 1995, ‘Ptolemy V and the Rosetta Decree: The Egyptianisation of the Ptolemaic Kings’Ancient Society 26, 145-155 Johnson, J, H. 2001, The Demotic Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (The Oriental Institute, Chicago) http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ catalog/cdd/ Jong, de J. 2006, ‘Egyptian Papyri and ‘Divinity’ of the Roman Emperor’ L. de Bois, P. Funke, and J. Hahn, (eds.) The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual, and

78

Bibliography

Religious Life in the Roman Empire (Brill, Leiden) 239252 Jong, de J. 2011, ‘Celebrating Supermen: Divine Honors for Roman Emperors in Greek Papyri from Egypt’ P. P. Iossif, A. S. Chankowski and C. C. Lorber (eds.) More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship (Studia Hellenistica 51, Peeters, Leuven) 619647 Josephson, J. 1995, ‘A Fragmentary Egyptian Head from Heliopolis’ Metropolitan Museum of ArtJournal 30, 5-15 Josephson, J. 1997, Egyptian Royal Sculpture of the Late Period 400-246BC (Verlag Philipp vonZabern, Mainz) Jouguet. P. 1939, ‘Note les inscriptions grecques découvertes à Karnak’ Annales du Service desAntiquités de l’Égypte 39, 603-605 Jucker, H. 1981, ‘Römische Herrscherbildnisse aus Ägypten’ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischenWelt 2.12.2, 667725 Kayser, F. 1994, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non funéraires) d’Alexandrie imperial(Ier-IIIer s. apr. J-C) (Institut français d’archéologie oriental, Cairo) Kiessling, E. 1971, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten X (O. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden) Kiss, Z. 1984, Etudes sur le portrait impérial Romain en Egypte (Editions scientifiques de Pologne,Varsovie) Kiss, Z. 1995, ‘Quelques portraits impériaux romains d’Égypte’ Études et travaux. 17, 53-71 Kiss, Z. 1998 ‘The Sculptures’ in F. Goddio. and J. Yoyotte. (eds.) Alexandria: The Submerged Royal Quarters (Periplus, London) Kjølby, A. 2007, New Kingdom Private Temple Statues: A Study of Agency, Decision Making, and Materiality (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen) Koenen, L. 1993, ‘The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure’ A. Bulloch (ed.) Images andIdeologies:Self-definition in the Hellenistic World (University of California Press, London) 25-115 Konrad, K. 2006, Architektur und Theologie: pharaonische Tempelterminologie unter Berücksichtigung königsideologischer Aspekte (Doctoral Thesis, Johannes Gutenberg Universität, Mainz) Krug, A. 1978, ‘Die Bildnisse Ptolemaios IX, X, und IX’ in H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka, (eds.) Das Ptolemaische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions, 27.-29 September in Berlin (Philip von Zabern, Mainz) 9-22 Krumeich, R. 2007, ‘Human Achievement and Divine Favour: The Religious Context of Early Hellenistic Portraiture’ in P. Schultz and R. V. D. Hoff. (eds.) Early Hellenistic Portraiture(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Kurth, D. 2004, The Temple of Edfu: A Guide by an Ancient Priest (The American University Press in Cairo, Cairo) Kyrieleis, H. 1975, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer (Mann, Berlin) Kyrieleis, H. 1980, ‘Ein Hellenistische Götter’ Stēlē: tomos eis mnēmēn NikolaouKontoleontos (Sōmateio Hoi Philoi tou Nikolaou Kontoleontos, Athens) 383-387 Lanciers, E. 1991, ‘Die Ägyptischen Priester des Ptolemäischen Konigskultes’ Revue d’égyptologie 42, 117-145 Łatjar, A. 2006, Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: A Study of an Egyptian temple based on Greek Sources (University of Warsaw, Warsaw) Laube, I. 2012, Expedition Ernst von Sieglin: Skulpturen des Hellenismus und der Kaiserzeit aus Ägypten (Hirmer Verlag, Munich)

Laubscher, H. P. 1991, ‘Ptolemäische Reiterbilder’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 106, 223-238 Lauer, J. P. and Picard, C. 1955, Les Statues Ptolémaïques du Sarapieion de Memphis (Publications de l’institut d’art et d’archéologie de l’Université de Paris, Paris) Lauffray, J. 1971, ‘Abords occidentaux du premier Pylône de Karnak en 1968-1970’ Kêmi 21, 77-144 Lawrence, A. W. 1925, ‘Greek Sculpture in Ptolemaic Egypt’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 11, 179-190 Lee, L. and Quirke, S. 2000 ‘Painting Materials’ in P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Material and Technology, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 104-120 Lembke, K. 1994, Das Iseum Campense in Rom: Studie über den Isiskult unter Domitian (Verlag Archäeologie und Geschichte, Heidelberg) Lembke, K. 2000 ‘Eine Ptolemaergalerie aus Thmuis/Tell Timai’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 115, 113-146 Leonard, A. 1997, Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt (American School of Oriental Research, Cambridge) Letronne, A. J. 1842, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Égypte (Impriemerie royale, Paris) Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M. 1999, Roman Civilization: Selected Readings Vol II (Columbia University Press, Oxford) Libanius, Descriptiones, text Foerster. R. Libanii Opera (B.G. Teubneri, Lipsaie, 1927) Libonati, E. S. 2010, Egyptian Statuary from Aboukir Bay: Ptolemaic and Roman finds from Herakleion and Canopus (Doctoral Thesis, University of Oxford) Lichtheim, M. 1976, Ancient Egyptian Literature Volume II: The New Kingdom (University of California Press, London) Lloyd, A. B. 2002, ‘The Egyptian Elite in the Early Ptolemaic Period. Some Hieroglyphic Evidence’, in D. Ogden (ed.) The Hellenistic World, New Perspectives, (Duckworth, Swansea) 117-136 Loeben, C. E. 2001, Beobachtungen zu Kontext und Funktion königlicher Statuen im Amun-Tempelvon Karnak, (DPhil Thesis, Humboldt University) Lorton, D. 1999 ‘The Theology of Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt’ in M. B. Dick (ed.) Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the cult image in the Ancient Near East (Eisenbrauns, Indiana) Ma, J. 2007, ‘Hellenistic Honorific Statue and their Inscriptions’, in Z. Newby and R. Leader-Newby, (eds.) Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge) 203-220 MacCoull, L. S. B. 1988, Discorus of Aphrodito: His Work and World (University of California Press, London) MacQuitty, W. 1976, Island of Isis: Philae, Temple of the Nile (Macdonald and Jane’s, London) Maehler, H. 1983, ‘Der griechische Schule im ptolemäischen Ägypten’ E. Van’t Dack, P. Van Dessel and W. Van Gucht (eds) Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24-26 May 1982 (Lovanii, Leuven) 191-203 Mahaffy, J. P. 1895, The Empire of the Ptolemies (Macmillan, London) Mariette, A. 1887, ‘Fragments et documents relatifs aux fouilles de Sân’ Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 9, 1-20

79

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Maspero, G. 1883, Correspondence in Revue Archéologique Mayer, E. 2010 ‘Propaganda, staged applause, or local politics? Public Monuments from Augustus to Septimius Severus’ in B. C. Ewald and C. F. Norena (eds.) The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation, and Ritual (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 111-134 McCann, A, M. 1968, The Portraits of Septimius Severus (AD193-211) (American Academy in Rome 30, Rome) McKenzie, J. 2007, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt c.300 BC to AD 700 (Yale University Press, Oxford) McKenzie, J, Gibson, S. and Reyes, A. T. 2004, ‘Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the Archaeological Evidence’ Journal of Roman Studies 94, 73-121 Meeks, D. and Favard-Meeks, C. 1996, Daily Life of the Egyptian Gods (trans. Goshgarian. G. M) (John Murray, London) Messīḥa, H. 1983, Finds from Kom Ichḳȃw, (Organisme général des imp. gouvernementales, Cairo) Meulenaere, H. 1976, ‘The Mendes Decree’ in MacKay, P. and H. de Meulenaere, (eds.) Mendes II (Aris and Phillips, Warminster) 174-177 Meulenaere, H. and MacKay, P. 1976, Mendes II (Aris and Phillips, Warminster) Michalowski, K. 1935, ‘Un portrait égyptien d’Auguste au Musée du Caire’ Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale de Caire 35, 73-88 Michalowski, K. 1962, ‘Les fouilles polonaises à Tell Atrib en 1960’ Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 57, 67-77 Miho Museum, South Wing, 1997 (Miho Museum, Shigaraki) Miln, J. G. 1971, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (Ashmolean Museum, London) Minas, M. 1998, ‘Die Kanephoros Aspekte des Ptolemäischen Dynastiekults’ in H. Melaerts (ed.) Le culte du Souverain dans l’Egypte ptolémaïque au IIIe siècle avant notre ère: actes du colloque international, Bruxelles, 10 mai 1995 (Studia Hellenistica 34, Peeters, Leuven) 43-60 Müller, W. M. 1920, The Bilingual Decrees of Philae (Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, Washington) Müller, H. W. 1957, ‘Ein weiterer Arbeitsbericht des ‘Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture’ Akten des 24th Internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses München, 28 August bis 4 September 1957 (Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden) 64-71 Müller, H. W. 1969, Der Isiskult im antiken Benevent und Katalog der Skulpturen aus den ägyptischen Heiligtumern im Museo del Sannio zu Benevent, (B. Hessling, Berlin) Müller, S. 2009, Das hellenistische Königspaar in der medialen Repräsentation: Ptolemaios II undArsinoe II (W. De Gruyter, New York). Mueller, K. 2006, Settlements of the Ptolemies (Peeters, Leuven) Murnane, W. J. 1995, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (Scholars Press, Atlanta) Mysliwiec, K. 1973, ‘A Contribution to the study of Ptolemaic Royal Portraiture’ Études et travaux 7, 41-51 Mysliwiec, K. 1992b, ‘Some Egyptian Aspects of Hellenistic Cults at Athribis’ 50 years of Polish Excavations in Egypt and the Bear East: Acts of the Symposium at Warsaw University, 1986(Warsaw) 260-265 Mysliwiec, K, and Herbich, T, 1988, ‘Polish Archaeological Activities at Tell Atrib in 1985’ TheArchaeology of the Nile Delta: Problems and Priorities (Netherlands Foundation for Researchin Egypt, Amsterdam) 177-203

Mysliwiec, K, et al 1988, ‘Remains of a Ptolemaic Villa at Athribis’ Mitteilungen des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 44, 183-197 Naville, E. 1903, The Store City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus (Egyptian ExplorationFoundation, London) Needler, W. 1949, ‘Some Ptolemaic Sculptures in the Yale University Art Gallery’ Berytus 9, 129-141 Nicole, G. and Darier, G. 1909, ‘Le sanctuaire des dieux orientaux au Janicule’ Mélangesd’archéologie et d’histoire: l’école français de Rome 29, 3-86 Niemeyer, H, G. 1968, Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser (Habilitationsschrift, Köln) Nock, A. 1972, ‘Sunnaoσ Qeoσ’ in A. Nock (ed.) Essays on Religion and the Ancient World(Clarendon Press, Oxford) 202-251 Noshy, I. 1937, The Arts in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Study of Greek and Egyptian influences in PtolemaicArchitecture and Scuplture (University of London, London) Ochsenschlager, E. 1980, ‘Tell Timai (South Kom)’ E. S. Hall and B. V. Bothmer, (ed.) Mendes I (American Research Centre in Egypt, Cairo) Onasch, C. 1976, ‘Zur Königsideologie der Ptolemäer in den Dekreten von Canopus und Memphis (Rosetta)’Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 24, 137-155 Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt Vols I-III, 2001, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Pagenstecher, R. 1923, Expedition E. v. Sieglin II I.A (Leipzig) Parlasca, K. 1967, ‘Ein verkanntes hellenistisches Herrscherbildnis’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 82, 167-194 Parlasca, K. 1978, ‘Probleme der späten Ptolemäerbildnisse’ in H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka, (eds.) Das Ptolemaische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions, 27.-29 September in Berlin (Philip von Zabern, Mainz) 25-30 Pausanias, Guide to Greece 1: Central Greece, (trans P. Levi) 1971 (Penguin Books, London) Petrie, W. M. F. 1885, Tanis 1 (Egyptian Exploration Society, London) Petrie, W. M. F. 1896, Koptos (Quaritch, London) Petrie, W. M. F. 1908, Athribis (School of Archaeology in Egypt, London) Petrie, W. M. F. 1909, Memphis (School of Archaeology in Egypt, London) Petrie, W. M. F. et al. 1915, Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar, and Shurafa, (School of Egyptology, London) Petrie, W. M. F. 2007, ‘Oxyrhynchus Revisited’ in Bowman. A. K. et al. Oxyrhynchus: A City and its Texts (Egyptian Exploration Society, London) 50-69 Pfeiffer, S. 2008, Herrscher-und Dynastiekult im Ptolemäerreich: Systematik und Einordnung der Kultformen (C.H. Beck, Munich) Pfeiffer, S. 2010, Der römische Kaiser und das Land am Nil: Kaiserverehrung und Kaiserkult in Alexandria und Ägypten von Augustus bis Caracalla (30 v.Chr-217 n.Chr.) (Franz SteinerVerlag, Stuttgart) Pfrommer, M. 1999, Alexandria: im Schatten der Pyramiden (Philipp von Zabern, Mainz) Philip, P. 1905, Antiquités égyptiennes, grecques et romaines appartenant à P. Philip et à divers amateurs: sculptures, peintures, bronzes, étoffes, faiences, figures de Tanagra, verres irises (Hôtel Drouot, Paris, 10th, 11th, and 12th April) Philo, Embassy to Gaius, (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker) 1962 (Loeb Classical Library,William Heinemann)

80

Bibliography

Pliny, Natural History, trans. J. F. Healy, 1971 (Penguin, London) Porter, B. and Moss, R. L. B. 1927-1981, Typographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings vols 1-7 (Clarendon Press, Oxford) Price, S. R. F. 1986, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Price, S. 1999 Religions of the Greeks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Quaegebeur, J. 1978, ‘Reines ptolémaïques et traditions égyptiennes’ in H. Maehler and V. M.Strocka, (eds.) Das Ptolemaische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions, 27.-29 September in Berlin (Philip von Zabern, Mainz) 245-262 Quaegebeur, J. 1989a, ‘The Egyptian clergy and the cult of the Ptolemies’ Ancient Society 20, 93-117 Quaegebeur, J. 1989b, ‘Cleopatra VII and the Cults of the Ptolemies’ in R. A. Fazzini and R. S. Bianchi (eds.) Cleopatra’s Egypt (Brooklyn Museum, New York) 41-54 Quaegebeur, J. 1998, ‘Documents égyptiens anciens et nouveaux relatifs à Arsinoé Philadelphe’ in H. Melaerts (ed.) Le culte du souverain dans l’egypt ptolémaïque au IIIesiècle avant notre ère: actes du colloque international, Bruxelles 10 mai 1995 (Studia Hellenistica 34, Peeters, Leuven) 73-108 Quirke, S. 1992, Ancient Egyptian Religion (British Museum Press, London) Quirke, S. and Andrews, C. 1988, The Rosetta Stone: A Facsimile Drawing (British Museum Publications, London) Redford, D. B. 2001, Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Rice, E. E. 1983, The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Riggs, C. 2012, The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Robins, G. 2001 Egyptian Statues (Shire, Princes Risborough) Robins, G. 2005, ‘Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt’ in N. H. Wall (ed.) Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East (American School of Oriental Research, Boston) 1-12 Rogge, E. 1999, Statuen der 30. Dynastie und der Ptolemäischrömischen Epoche (Philip von Zabern,Mainz) Romans and Barbarians, 1976 (Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) Rondot, V. 1997, ‘Le Temple de Soknebtynis à Tebtunis’ in Archeologia e Papiri nel Fayyum: Storia della ricerca, problemi e prospettive (Instituto Internazionale del Papiro, Siracusa) Rondot, V. 2004, Tebtynis II: Le Temple de Soknebtynis et son Dromos (Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo) Rose, C. B. 1997, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Roullet, J. 1972, The Egyptian and Egyptianising Monuments of Imperial Rome (Brill, Leiden) Rowe, A. 1946, Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria (Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte Supplement 2) Rowe, A. 1957, ‘A Contribution to the Archaeology of the Western Desert: IV. The Great Serapeum of Alexandria’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 39, 485-512

Rowlandson, J. 2005, ‘Town and Country in Ptolemaic Egypt’ in A. Erskine (ed.) Companion to the Hellenistic World (Blackwell, London) Rubensohn, O. 1902, ‘Griechisch-römische Funde in Ägypten’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 42-52 Rubensohn, O. 1906, ‘Äegypten’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 124-143 Rutherford, I. 2003, ‘Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman Egypt: New Perspectives on Graffiti from the Mennonion at Abydos’ in R. Matthews and C. Roemer (eds.) Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (UCL Press, London) Sabottka, M. 2008 Das Serapeum in Alexandria: Untersuchungen zur Architektur und Baugeschichte des Heiligtums von der frühen ptolemäischen Zeit bis zur Zerstötung 391 n.Chr (Institute français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo) Sadek, A, I. 1987, Popular Religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom (Gerstenberg Verlag, Hildesheim) Saint-Genis, 1818, Descriptions des Antiquités d’Alexandrie et de ses environs, in E. Jomard (ed.) Description de l’Égypte Antiquites V (Paris) Saleh, A. A. 1981, Excavations at Heliopolis: Ancient Egyptian Ounû (Cairo University, Cairo) Samuel, A. E. 1983 From Athens to Alexandria: Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt (Lovanii) Sauneron, A. 1960, ‘Un document égyptien relatif à la divinisation de la reine Arsinoe II’ Bulletin del’Institut français d’archéologie orientale de Caire 60, 83-109 Sauneron, S. 2000, The Priests of Ancient Egypt (Cornell University Press, London) Savvopoulos, K. 2011, Alexandria in Aegypto: The role of the Egyptian tradition in the Hellenisticand Roman periods; ideology, culture, identity, and public life (Doctoral Thesis, University of Leiden, Leiden) Savopoulos, K. and Bianchi, R. 2012, Alexandrian Sculpture in the Graeco-Roman Museum (Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Alexandria) Sayce, A. H. 1895, ‘Archaeological News: Egypt’ American Journal of Archaeology 10, 384-385 Schultz, P. 2009, ‘Divine Image and Royal Ideology in the Philippeion at Olympia’ in J. T. Jensen et al. (eds.) Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Context, Ritual, and Iconography (Aarhus University Press, Aarhus) 125-193 Shafter, B. E. 1997, ‘Temples, Priests and Rituals: An Overview’ in B. E. Shafter (ed.) Temples ofAncient Egypt (Cornell University Press, New York) Schmidt, S. 2013, ‘Ser Sturz des Serapis - Zur Bedeutung paganer Götterbilder in der spätantiken Gesellschaft Alexandrias’ in T. Georges, F. Albrecht and R. Feildmeier (eds.) Alexandria: Civitatum Orbis Mediterranei Studia I (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen) Schmitz, H. 1921, Die Hellenistische-römischen Stadtanlagen in Aegypten (Dissertation, Bonn) Simpson, R, S. 1996, Demotic Grammar in Ptolemaic Sacredotal Decrees (Griffith Institute, Oxford) Six, J. 1887 ‘Ein Porträt des Ptolemaios VI Philometor’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 12, 212-222 Smith, R. R. R. 1988, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Clarendon Press, Oxford) Smith, R. R. R. 1991, Hellenistic Sculpture (Thames and Hudson, London) Smith, R. R. R. 1996, ‘Ptolemaic Portraits: Alexandrian Types, Egyptian Versions’ in Alexandria andAlexandrianism (J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu)

81

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Spencer, P. 1984, The Egyptian Temple: A Lexicographical Study (Kegan Paul International, London) Spencer, A. J. 1989, Excavations at El-Ashmunein II: The Temple Area, (British Museum Press,London) Spencer, A. J. 1993, Excavations at El-Ashmunein III: The Town (British Museum Press, London) Spencer, A. J. and Bailey, D, M. 1984a, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt: Ashmunein (1983) (British Museum, London) Spencer, A. J. and Bailey, D, M. 1984b, Excavations at elAshmunein (British Museum, London) Spencer, A. J. and Bailey, D, M. 1986, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt: Ashmunein (1985) (British Museum, London) Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. D. 2011, Looking at Greek Art (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Stanwick, P. E. 1992, ‘A Royal Ptolemaic Bust in Alexandria’ Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt 29, 131-141 Stanwick, P. E. 2002, Portraits of the Ptolemies (University of Texas Press, Austin) Stewart, A. 1993, Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics (University of California Press, Oxford) Strabo, Geography, trans. H. L Jones (Loeb Classical Library, William Heineman, London, 1932) Strocka, V. M. 1980, ‘Augustus als Pharao’ R, A, Stucky and I. Jucker (eds.) Eikones: Studien zumgriechischen und römischen Bildnis: Festschrift Hans Jucker (Franke, Bern) 177-180 Sullivan, E. 2010, ‘Karnak: Development of the Temple of Amun-Ra’ UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (Department of Near Eastern Language and Cultures, UC Los Angeles) 1-34 Svenson, D. 1995, Darstellungen hellenistischer Könige mit Götterattributen (Archäologische Studien10, Frankfurt) Tanner, J. 2002, ‘Nature, Culture, and the body in Classical Greek Art’ in C. Gosden (ed). WorldA rchaeology: Archaeology and Aesthetics Vol 33.2 (Routledge Journals, Abingdon) Tefnin, R. 1969 ‘Un portrait de la reine Bérénice II. Trouvé en Égypte’ L’antiquité classique 38, 89-100 ‘2000 Year Old Ptolemaic Statue found in Egypt’ The Telegraph, 5th May, 2010 available at http://www. telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/ egypt/76776/2000-year-old-Ptolemaic-statue-found-inEgypt.html Thiers, C. 2002, ‘Deux statues des dieux Philométors à Karnak (Karnak Caracol R177 + CheikhLabib 94CL1421 ET Caire JE41218)’ Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientalede Caire 102, 389-404 Thissen, H. 1966, Studien zum Raphiadekret (Meisenheim an Glan) Thompson, D. J. 1973, Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience (Oxford) Thompson, D. J. 1988, Memphis Under the Ptolemies (Princeton University Press, Princeton) Tkaczow, B. 1993, Topography of Ancient Alexandria (An Archaeological Map) (Centre d’archéologie Méditerranéenne de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Varsovie) Tkaczow, B. 2008, Alexandrie VIII: Architectural styles of Ancient Alexandria: Elements of Architectural Decoration from the Polish Excavations at Kom el-Dikka (1960-1993) (Warsaw)

Torok, L. 1997, Meroe City, an Ancient African Capital: John Garstang’s Excavations in the Sudan (Egypt Exploration Society, London) Traunecker, C. 1999, Coptos: Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb, (Peeters, Leuven) Trillmich, W. 1978, Famielienpropaganda der Kaisar Caligula und Claudius (De Gruyter, Berlin) Turaev, B. 1911, ‘Objets égyptiens et égyptisants trouvés dans la russie méridionale’ Revuearchéologique 18, 20-35 Ubertini, C. 2005, Restitution architecturale à partir des blocs et fragments épars d’époqueptolémaïque et romaine (Philip von Zabern, Mainz) Uphill, E, P. 1988, Egyptian Towns and Cities (Shire Egyptology, Risborough) Van de Walle, B. 1952, ‘Antiquités Égyptiennes’ in G. FaiderFeytmans (ed.) Les antiquités égyptiennes, grecques, étrusques, romaines et gallo-romaines du Musée de Mareimont (Édition de la Librairie encyclopédique, Brussles) 15-61 Valbelle, D. 1999, ‘Les décrets Égyptiens et leur affichage dans les Temples’ in D. Valbelle and J. Leclant Le Décret de Memphis (Foundation Singer-Polignac, Paris) 67-90 Vandorpe, K. 1995, ‘City of Many a Gate, Harbour of Many a Rebel’ in S. P. Vleeming (eds.) Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco Roman Period (Brill, Leiden) 203-239 Venit, M. 2002, The Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: Theatre of the Dead (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Vermeule, C. C. 1959, ‘Hellenistic and Cuirassed Statues’ Berytus 13, 1-82 Vermeule, C. C. 1968, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (Belknap Press of HarvardUniveristy Press, Massachusetts) Verobovsek, A. 2007, ‘Befund oder Spekulation? Der Standort privater Statuen in Tempeln des Alten und Mittleren Reiches’ in B. Haring and A. Klug (eds) Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume (Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden) Vogliano, A. 1936, Primo rapporto degli scavi condotti dalla Missione archeologica d’Egitto della R. Università di Milano nella zona di Madinet Madi (L’institut français d’archéologie orientale, Milan) Vogliano, A. 1937, Secundo rapporto degli scavi condotti dalla Missione archeologica d’Egitto della R. Università di Milano nella zona di Madinet Madi (L’institut français d’archéologie orientale, Milano) Vogliano, A. 1942, Un’impresa archeologica milanese ai margini orientali del Deserto libico (Università Milano, Milano) Wagner, G. 1971, ‘Inscriptions Grecques du Temple de Karnak’ Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale de Caire 70, 1-38 Wallace, S. L. 1939, Taxation from Egypt: From Augustus to Diocletian (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Walker, S. 2000, Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt (Routledge, New York) Walker, S. and Burnett, A. 1981, The Image of Augustus (British Museum Publications, London) Walker, S. and Higgs, P. 2001, Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth (British Museum Press, London) Walters, H. B. 1915, British Museum. Select Bronzes Greek, Roman, and Etruscan, in thedepartmentsof antiquities (British Museum, London) Watzinger, C. 1927, Expedition E. v. Sieglin II I B (Leipzig)

82

Bibliography

Weber, G. 2010 ‘Ungleichheiten, Integration order Adaptation? Der Ptolemäische Herrscher-und Dynastiekult in griechisch-makedonischer Perspektive’ in G. Weber, Alexandreia und das Ptolemäische Ägypten kulturbegenungen in hellenisticher Zeit (Verlag Antike, Berlin) 55-77 Weigall, A. E. P. 1907, A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (Oxford, 1907) Weill, R. and Jouguet, P. 1934, ‘Horus-Apollon au Kôm elAhmar de Zawiét el-Maietin’ in Melanges Maspero II (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale 67, Cairo) 81-104 Wescher, C. 1864 ‘Rapport sur sa Mission en Égypte’ Revue Archéologique 17, 219-226 Wescher, C. 1866, Bullettino dell’instituto di corrispondenza archeologica 38, 199-201 Wilcken, U. 1899, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien (Gieseke and Devrient, Leipzig) Wildung, D. and Grimm, G. 1978, Götter-Pharaonen (Haus der Kunst, Mainz) Wilfong, T. 1999, ‘Fayoum: Graeco-Roman Sites’ in K. A. Bard (ed.) Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (Routledge, London) 308-312 Wilkinson, J. G. 1843, Modern Egypt and Thebes: being a description of Egypt including information required for travellers in that country (John Murray, London) Wilkinson, R. H. 2000 The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt (Thames and Hudson, London) Wilkinson, R. H. 2003, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (Thames and Hudson, London) Winter, E. 1979, ‘Der Herrscherkult in den Ägyptichen Ptolemaertempeln’ in H. V. Maehler and V. M. Strocka (eds) Das Ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des Internationalen Symposions, 27-29 September 1976 in Berlin (Philipp von Zabern, Mainz) Wilson, P. 1997, A Ptolemaic Lexikon: a lexicographical study of the texts in the Temple of Edfu (Uitgeverij Peeters en Deparment Oosterse Studies, Leuven) Wuyts, A. 4th May, 2010 ‘Ptolemaic Statue and Temple gate discovered at Taposiris Magna’ The Independant available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/history/ ptolemaic-statue-and-temple-gate-discovered-at-taposirismagna1961972.html Yoyotte, J. 1998, ‘Pharaonica’ in F. Goddio and J. Yoyotte. (eds.) Alexandria: The Submerged Royal Quarters (Periplus, London) Zivie-Coche, C. 2005, Tanis III: travaux récents sur le tell Sân el-Hagar (Editions Cybele, Paris)

83

Catalogue Contents and Site List Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������85 Lower Egypt���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 Site 1. Paraitonion (1)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 Site 2. Canopus (2-16) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 Site 3. Thonis-Herakleion (17-21) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 Site 4. Banub/Beheit el-Hagar (22) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������102 Site 5. Tanis (23-26) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������102 Site 6. Mendes (27)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������104 Site 7. Thmuis (28)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������105 Site 8. Pithom (29) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������108 Site 9. Bubastis (30-31) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������109 Site 10. Terenouthis (32) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������110 Site 11. Athribis (Banha) (33-34)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������110 Site 12. Heliopolis (35-37)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������111 Site 13. Abu Rawash (38)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������113 Site 14. Memphis (39) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������115 Site 15. Saqqara (40) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������116 The Fayoum ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117 Site 16. Karanis (41) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������117 Site 17. Medinet Madi (42-44) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������118 Site 18. Tebtunis (45-46) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������121 Upper Egypt������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 124 Site 19. Sheikh Fadl (47) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������124 Site 20. Zawiet el Amwat (48) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������125 Site 21. Hermopolis Magna (49-52) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������126 Site 22. Aphroditopolis (53-54) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129 Site 23. Athribis (Wannina) (55) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������130 Site 24. Koptos (56-60) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������130 Site 25. Karnak (61-66)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������133 Site 26. Philae (67-68) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������136 Site 27. Alexandria (69-95) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������139 Outside Egypt����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 Site 28. Meroe (96) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������161 Rome ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������162 Greece ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������162 Ukraine ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������163 Cyrene (103) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������163

84

Introduction This catalogue consists of 103 entries composed of 157 statuary items, including statues, statue heads, plinths and inscribed bases, that are identifiably royal, dating between 300 BC and AD 220 (Ptolemy I to Caracalla) and have an archaeological context, identified as a secure find spot or a recoverable provenance within Egypt. The catalogue is arranged geographically, divided by region (Lower Egypt, Fayoum, Upper Egypt, Alexandria) and arranged by site (north to south) and then arranged by date (fourth century BC to third century AD). The city of Alexandria is placed separately at the end due to the amount of material it contains and its position as a separate chapter in the main text. Each entry is numbered and has a unique title. The information for each entry includes the museum number, its fabric and dimensions, a bibliography, a description of the item’s context, and a description of the item. Each site has a separate site number and is accompanied by a brief description and site plan (where available). The find spots of the statuary items (where available) are identified on the plans; the red triangles give the approximate location and the red arrows the exact location. The sites of Canopus (site 2, cat no. 2-16) and Hermopolis Magna (site 21, cat no. 4952) have plans with the find spots of the material already in place. The entries labelled with an asterix (*) have been personally inspected.

85

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Lower Egypt

Canopus

Paraitonion

Site 2: The site of the town of Canopus is located on the eastern promontory of Aboukir Bay, at the head of the Canopic branch of the Nile. Greek literary sources identify the site as existing from the sixth century BC. Canopus is currently underwater and difficult to excavate. Much of the evidence is unclear. In the 1920s and 30s, Breccia identified a number of Ptolemaic and Roman structures, including a Serapeum, baths and a series of mosaics and basins, and recovered a number of artefacts. More recent work has been undertaken by Franck Goddio focused on East Canopus. Two sites were identified, labelled T to the east and TW to the west (see below).

Site 1: Paraitonion, modern Marsa Matruh, is located 290 km west of Alexandria. During the Hellenistic period it stood at the edge of Egypt, on the border between the Marmarica and Cyrenaica. Excavations in the early 20th century by Bates, and between 1985-89 by White, demonstrated a Bronze Age presence and episodes of trading. Little has been uncovered of the Hellenistic and Roman city, supposedly founded by Alexander the Great, as it is submerged. The city served as a major port throughout the period. 1. Bearded head of a king (Ptolemy IX or X) from Paraitonion, first century BC

Site T consisted of an expanse of ruins, approximately 150 metres long, and contained three separate areas. First, an eastwest running dump of material from which came red granite shafts, masonry blocks, and some fragments of statuary, this is labelled 1 in the map below. To the south of this dump stood a circular structure of limestone blocks sitting on a wooden platform dated by C14 to AD 280+40, labelled 2 in the map below. 35 metres west of this structure was a manmade rectilinear trench, filled with a layer of geological sand, beneath which was a dump of statue pieces, labelled 3 in the map below.

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 24.660. Marble. Height 38 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. Nose is missing. Cheeks, left eyebrow, and hair are all chipped. Adriani 1940, 159-161 (Hadrian); Krug 1978, 238-42 (Ptolemy IX); Smith 1988, no. 60, 97, 124 (Late Ptolemy). From Marsa Matrouh, ancient Paraitonion. Found in 1936 to the south-east of the city at Hakfet Abd el Razak Kraim. The head comes from a hypogeum tomb containing Roman material but dated to the Hellenistic period. Adriani described the tomb as having a staircase leading to a central chamber with three rooms surrounding it containing loculi. The exact find-spot of the head is not recorded.

The second site, TW, consisted of a range of structures dating from the pre-Ptolemaic to the Byzantine period. The most significant monument was TW4 consisting of a 101 metres limestone wall characteristic of a Pharaonic temple. 34 metres from the southern corner was a platform of flagstones, identified as the main entrance. The pottery fragments date this structure from fourth century BC to the fourth century AD.

A head with Greek-style hair, sideburns and a light beard. Grooves are present on top for attaching headgear, possibly a diadem. Identified as Ptolemy IX or X based on comparative studies using clay seals from the temple at Edfu.

Site 2. Plan of the identified and excavated areas of underwater Canopus (Goddio, 2007, fig 2.8, 33; Map Franck Goddio and Franck Goddio/IEASM)

86

Catalogue

was discovered in the area designated site T. This area contained a large concentration of limestone blocks, red granite column shafts, and a number of other architectural features, as well as Pharaonic, Ptolemaic, and Roman statuary. A dump of statuary was also found further to the south.

*2. Diorite head of a queen (Berenike II?), from Canopus, third century BC Alexandria, Great Library SCA204. Diorite. Height 13.7 cm, Width 11.4 cm. Preserved in one piece to the neck. The right side of the head and the nose is broken from a fall from a pedestal. The inlaid eyes are missing and the surface is slightly weathered.

An under life-size head of a queen. The head is tilted with eyes looking upwards. The hair is finely engraved, parted in the centre, and drawn back over the ears. The queen wears a flat diadem. There are no traces of a back pillar. Portrait features, especially the hairstyle, dates this to the third century BC. The head is most likely as Berenike II due to its similar physignomony with other portraits and

EST 2006, no.17, 160-1, 407; Goddio 2007, 33-50, fig. 2.26: EST 2008, no.17, 94, 294; Libonati 2010. Excavated by Franck Goddio’s underwater team in Aboukir Bay at the site of ancient Canopus. The head

2: Diorite head of queen (Berenike II?), from Canopus, third century BC. (Alexandria Library SCA204; Goddio EST 2006, no.17, 161; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

87

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

the distinctive hairstyle, as seen in catalogue numbers 49 and 75. *3. Statue of headless queen, from Canopus, third century BC Alexandria, Great Library SCA208. Granodiorite. Height 150 cm, Width 55 cm. Preserved in one piece from the bottom of the neck to the top of the ankles. The right arm is broken at the wrist, and the left arm at the elbow. EST 2006, no.18, 172-5, 407; Goddio 2007, 33-50, fig. 2.26; EST 2008, no.18, 124-129, 294; Libonati 2010. Excavated by Goddio’s underwater team in Aboukir Bay, the site of ancient Canopus. The statue was discovered in the rectilinear trench containing a high level of statuary, but no evidence of architectural features. Goddio suggested the area was a statuary dump for a workshop, but there is no evidence for this. More likely, it was the site for the disposal of sculpture at a later date. This is a traditional standing statue with the left leg forward. The statue wears a tight-fitting, transparent dress with a shawl tied in an ‘Isis knot’ above the left breast. There is no back pillar. The style of the dress dates this statue to third century BC. 4. Head of a Ptolemaic queen (Berenike II?), from Canopus, third-second century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 22199. Marble. Height 25 cm. Preserved in one piece from neck to top of head. Extremely weathered, nose and lips broken. Breccia 1932, no.5, 263; Kyrieleis 1975, K2, 99 (Berenike II?); Wildung and Grimm 1978, no.94. According to Breccia the head was discovered in the Temple of Isis at Canopus, Aboukir Bay. 5 was identified as coming from the same space. A round, extremely weathered head. The head has flowing hair drawn back over the ears and there are traces of a diadem. General stylistic features identify it as belonging to the third-second century BC. The hairstyle and round facial features suggest it is Berenike II, and the head looks similar to other heads of the queen including 2, 28D, 49, and 75. 5. Base dedicated to Arsinoe III - 221-204 BC, from Canopus (No Image) Currently in Alexandria? Granite. Height 31 cm, Width 98 cm. Preserved in one piece. 3: Statue of headless queen, from Canopus, third century BC (Alexandria Library SCA208; Goddio EST 2006, no.18, 173; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

Breccia 1932, 17; Bernand 1970, no.8, 237-238; Stanwick 2002, A19, 21, 38, 39, 101 (all authors Arsinoe III).

88

Catalogue

From the site of ancient Canopus. The base was discovered by Breccia during excavations between Aboukir Bay and Fort Teufik. It was found in the ruins of a structure Breccia identified as a temple of Isis. The base had been reused in the last step of a staircase that led to an underground chapel of Christian date. This appears to be the same area where 4 was found, and the form of the inscription is similar to 8. A Greek inscribed statue base for Arsinoe III. The statue style is indeterminate. There are four lines of Greek on the front of the base. The third line is unreadable. Βασίλισσαν Ἀρσινόην ᾿Θεὰν Φιλοπάτορα Θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν .................................... ... ὁ τοῦ Νείλου ἱερεύς ‘Queen Arsinoe, father-loving goddess, daughter of the benefactor gods ............…priest of the Nile.’457 6. Head of a king (Ptolemy IV), from Canopus, second-first century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 3364. Red Granite. Height 150 cm, Head Height 58 cm, Face Height 38.2 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of crown to top of the neck. The nose is broken, and lips and chin damaged. The inlaid eyes are missing, and the bottom of the nemes is a modern restoration.

6: Head of king (Ptolemy IV), from Canopus, first-second century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 3364; Stanwick 2002, D13, 195; © DAI Cairo)

no.72, 87, 93-4; Empereur et al 1998b, no.160, 215; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.19, 53-4; Stanwick 2002, B7, 57 (All authors except Breccia: Ptolemy VI).

Breccia 1926, no.13, 60 (Ptolemy IV); Kyrieleis 1975, D2, 46 (Ptolemy IV); Smith 1988, no.80, 87, 97 (Ptolemaic); Empereur et al 1998b, no.155, 208-212 (Ptolemy IV); Grimm 1998, 100, fig. 99 (Ptolemy IV); Stanwick 2002, D13, 76-77 (Ptolemy IX).

From Canopus, found in the Aboukir Bay area according to Breccia. No find spot is recorded.

From Canopus, the Aboukir Bay area according to Breccia. The find spot is not recorded. It was a gift to the museum from A. Ruffer.

A colossal head wearing a plain nemes and ureaus, with a hole on top for an additional attributefrom a statue. The head has Greek-style forehead hair and facial features. The back pillar comes to eye level. Attributed to Ptolemy VI due to similar portrait features as those of the ‘Aegina Ptolemy’, 101, notably the hairstyle.

A colossal head wearing the double crown, banded nemes, and ureaus. The head has Greek-style forehead hair, sideburns, and facial features. The back pillar ends in a triangle mid-way up the red crown. Attributed to Ptolemy IV due to comparisons with coin profiles and other images. Stanwick suggests that stylistically the image belongs to a later period and is associated with images of Ptolemy IX.

8. Statue base for Cleopatra III - 161-101 BC, from Canopus Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 20953. Red Granite. Height 27.6 cm, Width 81.9 cm. Preserved in one piece. Corner damaged.

7. Head of Ptolemy VI - 221-205 BC, from Canopus

Breccia 1926, no.7, 53; Bernand 1970, no.10, 239; Stanwick 2002, D1, 38-9 (all authors: Cleopatra III).

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 3357. Granite. Height 61cm, Head Height 52 cm, Face Height 31 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the head to the neck. Nose, lips, chin, and nemes wings were hacked off when the head was cut from th ebody. Inlaid eyes are missing.

The base was found by Breccia in the 1920s along the Maamurah beach. It was embedded in a square area decorated with mosaics, alongside a number of other granite blocks. The form of the inscription is similar to 5.

Breccia 1926, no.12, 59 (Ptolemy V, Nero, or Tiberius); ESLP 1960, 132; Kyrieleis 1975, F2, 60; Smith 1988,

A rectangular base for a Greek-style statue. The base has three round cavities on top: one in the left back corner, one in the front right corner, and one in the front left of

Stanwick 2002, 101 translates as: ‘(Statue of) Queen Arsinoe, fatherloving goddess, daughter of the benefactor gods (set up by).............priest of the Nile’.

457

89

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

8: Statue base for Cleopatra III - 161-101 BC, from Canopus (Graeco-Roman Museum 20953; Bernand 1970, pl 4.2 © Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria)

9: Colossal head of Ptolemy VIII - 170-163 and 145-116 BC, from Canopus - placed on Column to right of picture (Graeco-Roman Museum 18505; Breccia 1926, pl 21.2)

90

Catalogue

the centre. There are two lines of a Greek inscription on the front. The inscription describes the person responsible for setting up the base as ‘Dionysos, the exegetes’, this is a rare word used to refer to what might be termed a translator.

10. Head of late Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy VIII?), from Canopus Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 362. Yellow Quartzite. Height 57.5 cm, Head Height 40 cm, Face Height 24 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. Nose and right cheek have been smashed. The left nemes wing has been restored.

Βασίλισσαν Κλεοπάτραν Θεὰν Εὐε[ργηέτιν] Διονύσιος ὁ ἐξηγ̣ῃ[τής] ‘Queen Cleopatra, bene[factor] goddess, Dionysios, the exēgē[tēs].’458

Breccia 1926, no.7, 58; Vogliano 1937, 58, pl. 146 (Ptolemy VIII); Kyrieleis 1975, H4, 71 (Late Ptolemy?); Smith 1988, 87 n.3 (Ptolemy); Cleopatra’s Egypt 1989, 147 (incorrectly notes that the nemes tabs are not present); Josephson 1997, 20 n.148 (Late Ptolemy); Stanwick 2002, C13, 72-3 (Ptolemy VIII).

9. Colossal head of a late Ptolemy (Ptolemy VIII?), from Canopus (head on column in image) Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 18505. Light brown Quartzite. Height c.41 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the head to just below the nose. Hacked from the statue for reuse. Nose, nemes, wings and lower part of face broken off.

From Canopus, in the Aboukir Bay area according to Breccia. The exact findspot is not recorded. An over life-size head wearing a banded nemes and ureaus. Most likely to have come from a sphinx due to the angle of the pigtail at the back. Identified as a Late Ptolemy but closely associated with Ptolemy VIII due to distinctive portrait features, including a puffy face and protruding lips (similar to 9).

Breccia 1926, no.8, 58-59; Vogliano 1937, 58, pl. 146; Stanwick 2002, C14, 72 (latter two authors: Ptolemy VIII). From Canopus, the Aboukir Bay area according to Breccia. No find spot is recorded. It was presented as a gift to the museum from Omar Toussoun. A colossal head wearing a banded nemes and ureaus. The head may have come from a sphinx and is similar to 10. Attributed to Ptolemy VIII due to distinctive portrait features observed on coins and other portraits, including a puffy face and protruding lips that are similar to a number of other statues (including 10).

10: Head of late Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy VIII?), from Canopus (Graeco-Roman Museum 362; Stanwick 2002, C13, 185; © Centre d’Études Alexandrines)

Stanwick 2002, 117 translates as: ‘(Statue of) Queen Cleopatra, benefactor goddess, (set up by) Dionysos, the exegetos’.

458

91

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

11. Weathered head of a queen, from Canopus, second-first century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 28107. Dark Stone. Height 24.2 cm, Head Height 16.5 cm, Face Height 13.5 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of a tendon on the head to the neck. The nose is broken and the head is generally chipped and battered. Breccia 1932, 17-18 (second-first century BC); Kyrieleis 1975, M9, 119 (first century BC); Stanwick 2002, D6, 75 (Cleopatra III). From Canopus, in the Aboukir Bay and Fort Teufik area according to Breccia. No find spot is recorded. A near life-size head wearing a plain diadem with a single tier of corkscrew curls. There are the remains of a tendon or small modius on top of the head, and there are fat folds at the neck. There is no back pillar. Stylistically dated to the second to first century BC due to the hairstyle and fat folds. Stanwick suggests these features are similar to the forms used to represent a younger Cleopatra III. 12. Head of a queen wearing modius, from Canopus, secondfirst century BC

11: Weathered head of queen, from Canopus, second-first century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 28107; Stanwick 2002, D6, 192: © Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria)

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 18370. Granite. Height 16cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the modius to the neck where it is broken diagonally. Repaired with a modern base.

Higgs 2001, no.165, 166 (first century BC – Arsinoe II); Stanwick 2002, D7, 76 (Cleopatra III).

Breccia 1926, no.16, 60-61 (Berenike II); Kyrieleis 1975, M2, 118 (second-first century BC); Svenson 1995, no.115, 88, 232 (Cleopatra II or Arsinoe II); Walker and

From Canopus, the Aboukir Bay area according to Breccia. No find spot is recorded. It was a gift to the museum from Omar Toussoun.

12: Head of queen wearing modius, from Canopus, second-first century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 18370; Stanwick 2002, D7, 193: © DAI Cairo)

92

Catalogue

An under life-size head with a triple layer of corkscrew curls wearing a plain diadem, two ureai, and a modius with a shallow hole on top. There are fat folds on the right side of the neck. No back pillar remains. Stylistic features, such as the hairstyle and fat folds, date this to second to first century BC.

14. Head of a late Ptolemaic king, from Canopus, secondfirst century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 23844. Granite. Height 25.4 cm, Head Height 21.2 cm, Face Height 13.4 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the head to the neck, with part of the right shoulder at the back. The nose, left nemes wing, and left side of the back of the head are broken.

13. Head of Ptolemaic king, from Canopus, second century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 28103. Limestone. Height 20.1 cm, Face Height 10.1 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. Nemes wings cut from the statue. Nose, mouth, and chin hacked off.

Breccia 1932, 17-18 (second-first century BC); Needler 1949, 131 n.2, 132 n.3; Müller 1969, 61 (Roman sphinx); Stanwick 2002, D24, 78 (second-first century BC). From Canopus, the Aboukir Bay area according to Breccia. No find spot is recorded. It entered the museum collection in 1927.

Breccia 1932, no.10, 17-18 (second-first century BC); Needler 1949, 131 n.2 (Late Ptolemaic); Stanwick 2002, B22, 70.

A life-sized head wearing a plain nemes and ureaus. Most likely from a sphinx given the position of the right shoulder. Stylistically dated to the second to first century BC based on the fuller face.

From Canopus, the Aboukir Bay area according to Breccia. No find spot is recorded. An under life-size head wearing a plain nemes and ureaus. Most likely from a sphinx. Stanwick identifies the stylistic features, including the eyes and the lips, as belonging to the second century BC.

14: Head of late Ptolemaic king, from Canopus, second-first century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 23844; Stanwick 2002, D24, 201; © Centre d’Études Alexandrines)

13: Head of Ptolemaic king, from Canopus, second century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 28103; Stanwick 2002, B22, 175; © Centre d’Études Alexandrines)

93

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

15. Head of a late Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy XV?), from Canopus, first century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 28163. Granite. Height 17.5 cm, Head Height 14.7 cm, Face Height 8.9 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. Nose, lips, and chin damaged, and upper left side of head broken off. Breccia 1932, 17-18 (second-first century BC); Kyrieleis 1975, H20, 75 (Ptolemaic); Stanwick 2002, E19, 81 (Ptolemy XV). From Canopus, around the Aboukir Bay and Fort Teufik area according to Breccia. No find spot is recorded.

15: Head of late Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy XV?), from Canopus, first century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 28163; Stanwick 2002, E19, 209; © Centre d’Études Alexandrines)

An under life-size head wearing a plain nemes and ureaus with Greek-style forehead hair. No back pillar remains. Dated to second to first century BC due to the facial features. Stanwick suggests an identity of Ptolemy XV based on hairstyle.

B. Sphinx head Alexandria, National Museum SCA172. Red Granite. Height 27.5 cm, Width 18.5 cm. Preserved in one piece, from top of head to neck. The nose is broken, and it has suffered from general erosion.

*16. A collection of Ptolemaic era Sphinx heads, from Canopus, third-first century BC Red Granite and Diorite. Various Measurements: Max: Height 54 cm, Width 33 cm. Min: Height 27.5 cm, Width18 cm. Preserved from neck to top of head with varying degrees of weathering.

EST 2006, no.11, 150, 406; Goddio 2007, 33-50, fig. 2.26; EST 2008, no.11, 112, 293; Libonati 2010.

EST 2006; Goddio 2007; EST 2008; Libonati 2010.

C. Sphinx head

This is a group of seven sphinx heads uncovered by Goddio’s team during excavations of the Canopus region of Aboukir Bay. The group was spread throughout the area of the site designated T, which held a concentration of limestone blocks, red granite columns shafts, as well as Pharaonic, Ptolemaic, and Roman statuary. A number of sphinx bodies of the same material were found in the area but are not included in this catalogue.

Alexandria, National Museum SCA176. Red Granite. Height 26.5 cm, Width 31 cm. Preserved in one piece, from top of head to neck. Suffered from general erosion.

The head of a sphinx wearing a nemes and ureaus.

EST 2006, no.12, 152, 406; Goddio 2007, 33-50, fig. 2.26; EST 2008, no.12, 112, 293; Libonati 2010. The head of a sphinx wearing a nemes and ureaus. This is one of the best preserved examples.

The seven heads are identified as belonging to sphinxes due to the angle of the heads and necks, and that one still has part of the shoulder. The heads all wear a nemes and are dated to the Ptolemaic period based on the roundness of the faces and the other material from the excavation. The heads are too eroded to provide a clear date

D. Sphinx head Alexandria, National Museum SCA177. Red Granite. Height 30 cm, Width 2 2cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. The nemes wings are damaged and the nose is broken. The head has suffered from general erosion.

A. Sphinx head Alexandria, National Museum SCA174. Red Granite. Height 31 cm, Width 27 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. The left nemes wing and nose are broken, and it has suffered general erosion.

EST 2006, no.13, 150, 407; Goddio 2007, 33-50, fig. 2.26; EST 2008, no.13, 112, 293; Libonati 2010.

EST 2006, no.10, 151, 406; Goddio 2007, 33-50, fig. 2.26; EST 2008, no.10, 293; Libonati 2010.

E. Sphinx head

The head of a sphinx wearing a nemes and ureaus.

Alexandria, National Museum SCA175. Red Granite. Height 28 cm, Width 21 cm. Preserved in one piece, from

The head of a sphinx wearing a nemes and ureaus.

94

Catalogue

The head of a sphinx wearing a nemes and ureaus.

top of head to neck. The left wing of the nemes is missing, and the whole head is badly eroded.

G. Sphinx head

EST 2006, no.14, 151, 407; Goddio 2007, 33-50 fig. 2.26; EST 2008, no.14, 113, 293; Libonati 2010.

Alexandria, Maritime Museum SCA202. Diorite. Height 54 cm, Width 33 cm. Preserved in one piece, broken diagonally from the left nemes wing across the head then below the right nemes lappet. The nose is broken and the nemes wings chipped.

Head of a sphinx wearing a nemes and ureaus. F. Sphinx head Alexandria, National Museum SCA173. Red Granite. Height 27.5 cm, Width 26 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. The nose is broken and the head has suffered from general erosion.

EST 2006, no.16, 148, 407; Goddio 2007, 3-50; EST 2008, no.16, 111, 294; Libonati 2010. Head of a sphinx wearing a plain nemes and ureaus. The right shoulder shows decorative muscle modelling similar to other sphinxes found in the area.

EST 2006, no.15, 153, 407; Goddio 2007, 33-50 fig. 2.26; EST 2008, no.15, 294; Libonati 2010.

16. A: Sphinx head, from Canopus, third-first century BC (Alexandria National Museum SCA174; Goddio EST 2006, no.10, 174; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation) 16. B: Sphinx head, from Canopus, third-first century BC (Alexandria National Museum SCA172; Goddio EST 2006, no.11, 176; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

16. C: Sphinx head, from Canopus, third-first century BC (Alexandria National Museum SCA176; Goddio EST 2006, no.12, 176; © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, Photo: Christoph Gerigk) 16. D: Sphinx head, from Canopus, third-first century BC (Alexandria National Museum SCA177; Goddio EST 2006, no.13, 177; © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, Photo: Christoph Gerigk)

95

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

16. E: Sphinx head, from Canopus, third-first century BC (Alexandria National Museum SCA175; Goddio EST 2006, no.14, 175; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation) 16. F: Sphinx head, from Canopus, third-first century BC (Alexandria National Museum SCA173; Goddio EST 2006, no.15, 173; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

16. G: Sphinx head, from Canopus, third-first century BC) (Alexandria National Museum SCA202; Goddio EST 2006, no.16, 202; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

96

Catalogue

and inner structure. A naos from the site identified this structure as the temple of Amun-Gereb. The second site of significance is the northern region comprised of the area labelled H5 and H8. From the area between these sites the colossal stele of Ptolemy VIII was discovered. Evidence points to continuous occupation of the site from the seventh century BC to the eighth century AD. Finds spread along the seabed, including granite and limestone blocks, jewellery, and shipwrecks.

Thonis-Herakleion Site 3: The site of Herakleion-Thonis is located approximately 3.3 km east of Canopus. The site is referred to in Greek texts, but has only recently been discovered by Goddio. The excavations and survey show a town criss-crossed by canals, bordered by ports and lakes, and surrounded by imposing monuments and esplanades. The principal area of the site was labelled H1 and provided limestone wall remains characteristic of a temple temenos

Site 3.1. Plan of Herakleion-Thonis based on recent survey and excavations; all granite objects recovered are identified by pink dots (Goddio 2007, fig 3.37, 90; Map Franck Goddio and Franck Goddio/IEASM)

97

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Site 3.2. Area of temple of Amun Gereb with the locations of the fragments of the colossi labelled. (Goddio 2007, fig 3.107, 128; Map Franck Goddio and Franck Goddio/IEASM)

17. Colossal Ptolemaic king, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC

18. Colossal Ptolemaic queen, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC

Alexandria, Maritime Museum SCA279. Red Granite. Height 500 cm, Width 150 cm. Preserved in five pieces; top of crown, head with crown, from neck to knees, from knees to base, and the base. The nose is broken from a fall, but the statue is otherwise complete.

Alexandria, Maritime Museum SCA280. Red Granite. Height 490 cm, Width 120 cm. Preserved in three pieces; the crown, from the top of the head to the knees, and from the knees to the base. The right arm is completely missing, and the upper left calf and nose is broken.

EST 2006, no.106, 164-169; Goddio 2007, 88-92, 126 (Ptolemaic); EST 2008, no.105, 116-117; Libonati 2010.

EST 2006, 164-169, no.107; Goddio 2007, 88-92, 126 (Ptolemaic); EST 2008, 116-119, no.106; Libonati 2010.

Found by Goddio’s underwater team in Aboukir Bay at the site of Herakleion-Thonis. The statue was discovered at site H1, identified by Goddio as the temple of AmunGereb. The statue was located between the two walls thought to be the temenos and that of the temple proper (site. 3.2). The statue was not found whole. Fragments of the statue were spread over a wide area, but were still close together. The statue was found with two others, the colossi of the goddess Hapi and a Queen (18).

Found by Goddio’s underwater team in Aboukir Bay, at the site of Herakleion-Thonis. It was discovered at site H1, identified by Goddio as the temple of Amun-Gereb. The statue was located between two walls, the temenos wall and that of the temple proper (site 3.2). The statue fragments were separate from each other; two were found in the same area and the other two pieces were found with the other colossi, whose fragments were similarly distributed. The other colossi consisted of the goddess Hapi, and the colossal king (17).

A colossal statue wearing the double-crown, ureaus, and pleated shendyt. The statue stands in a traditional pose with the left leg forward and arms by his sides holding enigmatic objects. There is a back pillar. Dated to the Ptolemaic period due to stylistic features included the rounded face and the rendering of the fabric folds.

Colossal queen wearing a Hathoric crown, tripartite wig, and tight-fitting pleated dress. The statue stands with the left leg forward and arms by the sides, with the palm flat against the leg. The back pillar is present. The statue is identified as Ptolemaic due to stylistic features including the rendering of the dress.

98

Catalogue

17: Colossal Ptolemaic king, from HerakleionThonis, second-first century BC (Maritime Museum SCA279; Goddio, EST 2008, no.105, 117; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/ Hilti Foundation)

18: Colossal Ptolemaic queen, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC (Maritime Museum SCA280; Goddio, EST, 2006, no.106, 117; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

99

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

*19. Standing queen, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC Alexandria, National Museum SCA283. Black Granite. Height 220 cm. Preserved in four pieces from head to neck, neck to the top of the forearms, stomach to knees, and the feet with base. The lower forearms are missing as are the lower legs, the surface is scratched and the nose is broken. Goddio 2007, 118; EST 2008, no.112, 274-275; Libonati 2010. Found by Goddio underwater in Aboukir Bay at the site of Herakleion-Thonis. The statue was discovered to the north of the temple, in an area labelled H8, on a promontory overlooking the Grand Canal. A number of reshaped red granite blocks, limestone blocks, and sphinx fragments were also found there. An over life-size statue with corkscrew curls, wearing a ureaus and a close-fitting draping dress with a shawl tied in a so-called ‘Isis knot’ at the breast. The statue stands with the left leg forward and arms by her sides. In the left hand she holds an ankh. The back pillar reaches the top of her head. Dated to Ptolemaic period due to stylistic features, particularly the rendering of the dress and the presence of other Ptolemaic material in the area. 20. Sphinx A, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC Alexandria, Maritime Museum SCA461. Pink Granite. Height 139 cm, Width 36 cm, Length 68 cm. Preserved in two pieces, the head is broken from the body at the neck. The entire statue is severely eroded. Goddio 2007, 126; EST 2008, no.104; Libonati 2010. Discovered during the excavations of Herakleion-Thonis by Goddio. The exact find spot is not given, but there were fragments of sphinxes and statuary throughout the site, with concentrations at the temple of Amun-Gereb (site H1) and towards the north around site H8, both locations of other Ptolemaic statuary. A heavily weathered sphinx on a plinth with its tail curling over its right haunch. No facial features remain, but the shape of the head suggests it wore a nemes. The bulge on the forehead of the sphinx suggests the presence of a ureaus. Attributed to the Ptolemaic Period due to rendering of the tail and body, and the presence of other Ptolemaic material in the area.

19: Standing Queen (Cleopatra III?), from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC (Alexandria National Museum SCA283; Goddio, EST 2008, no.110, 123; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

21. Sphinx B, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC

fragments of sphinxes and statuary throughout the site, with concentrations on the temple of Amun-Gereb (site H1) and towards the north around site H8, both locations of other Ptolemaic statuary.

Alexandria, Maritime Museum SCA625. Pink Granite. Height Body 40.5 cm, Width 124 cm, Length 42.5 cm. Preserved in two pieces, the head is broken from the body at the neck. The entire statue is severely eroded.

A heavily weathered sphinx on a plinth. The shape of the head suggests it wore a nemes. No other features can be identified. Attributed to the Ptolemaic period due to the basic style and the presence of other Ptolemaic material in the area.

Goddio 2007, 126; EST 2008, no.105; Libonati 2010. Discovered during the excavations of Herakleion-Thonis by Goddio. The exact find spot is not given, but there were

100

Catalogue

20: Sphinx A, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC (Maritime Museum SCA461; Goddio EST 2006, no.104, 146; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

21: Sphinx B, from Herakleion-Thonis, second-first century BC (Maritime Museum SCA625; Goddio EST 2006, no.105, 146; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

101

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Banub/Beheit el-Hagar Site 4: Beheit el-Hagar is located on the Damietta branch of the Nile to the north of the site of Sebennytos (Samannud). It is home to one of the most important temples to Isis in Egypt. The granite temple was built under the 30th Dynasty and completed by the Ptolemies. Cartouches and reliefs identify Nectanebo I and II, and Ptolemies I, II, and III. The reliefs are considered some of the finest examples of the period. The site itself is now comprised of ruins, with blocks occupying a 80 metre by 50 metre area. A block from this temple has been identified in the Iseum in the Campus Martius in Rome. 22. Statue base for Ptolemy III - 246-221 BC, from Banub Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE41439. Black Granite. Height 10 cm, Width 29 cm. Preserved in one piece with minimal remains of feet and back pillar. Chaban 1910, no.4, 30 (a Ptolemy); Gallo 1990, 226-228; Favard-Meeks 1991, 8 n.53; Stanwick 2002, A17, 39, 45, 56 (all authors except Chaban: Ptolemy III). According to the Journal d’Entrée this base was found in Banub. The base most likely originates from the nearby temple of Isis at Behbeit el-Hagar (above) as the inscription specifically mentions ‘Isis mistress of Hebit’ and ‘Osiris Andjty of Hebit’. A statue base with hieroglyphic inscription. The feet remains are posed in a traditional stance with the left leg forward. There is one line of hieroglyphs on the front and two sides. There is also an inscription of two columns of hieroglyphs on top of the base that include Ptolemy III’s Birth and Throne names. 22: Statue base for Ptolemy III - 246-221 BC, from Banub (Cairo JE41439; Stanwick 2002, A17, 160; © Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Tanis

Opet. The evidence suggests that the temple of Amun Opet was abandoned at the end of the 30th Dynasty, but was in use again by the time of Ptolemy IV. Surrounding these temples were domestic houses from which come a variety of finds including coin hoards and furniture.

Site 5: Tanis, modern San el-Hagar, is located on the north-east side of the Delta. The site has been excavated periodically over the last 150 years, by Mariette (18604), Petrie (1883-6), Montet (1929-51), and most recently by a French team. Its principal feature is the Temple of Amun constructed by Psuennes I. The temple itself is not preserved, only the outline of the structure has been identified. The royal necropolis for the 21st and 22nd Dynasties is located in the south-western part of the original enclosure. Under the 30th Dynasty a new enclosure wall was built and the eastern gate was begun. Both of these were completed by the Ptolemies. During the Ptolemaic period focus moved away from the main temple. Along the dromos are the remains of a chapel identified as shrine to Ptolemaic ruler cult. Close by, a new temple to Mut and Khonsu was built under Ptolemy IV, and to the south are the remains of another temple dedicated to Horus Mesen. On the southern Tell is another temple to Amun

23. Seated king, from Tanis, fourth-third century BC Zagazig, Orabi Museum 282. Limestone. Height 49 cm. Preserved in one piece. Both forearms are broken, as are parts of the nemes, chin, nose, right leg, and back pillar. Mysliwiec 1973, 61 n.2, 73-78 (Ptolemaic?); Stanwick 2002, A28, 23, 67 (fourth-third century BC); Zivie-Coche 2005, 69 (Ptolemaic). Found in a trial pit by Prof F. Agoub and Dr. A. El-Khouly in 1961 made in connection with the construction of a new road. The pit was located near the western edge of Southern Tell, where the Temple of Amun Opet is located. The seated king was found with another statue (24).

102

Catalogue

An under life-size king seated on a square throne with a low back wearing a nemes, ureaus, and shendyt. The statue has its hands flat on its lap. Dated from the late fourth to third century BC due to the sculptural style which is closely associated with the 30th Dynasty. This is the only example of a seated Ptolemaic king in large scale sculpture.

25. Statuette of Ptolemy II - 285-246 BC, from Tanis London, British Museum EA1190. Limestone. Height 55 cm, Head Height 8.7 cm, Face Height 5.4 cm, Base: Height 2.4 cm, Width 12 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of the head through to attached base. Broken from left wrist along bottom of shendyt but repaired. The statue has deteriorated since discovery.

24. Head and upper torso of an early king, from Tanis, fourththird century BC

Petrie 1885, 31; Favard-Meeks 1998, 110; Stanwick 2002, A9, 55-56 ; Zivie-Coche 2005, 31-32 (all authors Ptolemy II).

Zagazig Orabi Museum 1411. Brown Quartzite. Height 52.5 cm, Head Height 20.8 cm, Face Height 13.2 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head through to most of ribcage.

Excavated by Flinders Petrie at Tanis. The statuette was found in front of a chapel or shrine on the north side of the temple’s western dromos. The statue was discovered with a number of other artefacts, including a relief of Ptolemy II holding a thunderbolt and facing Arsinoe II (BM 1056). The chapel itself was a brick built structure. Inside was a niche flanked by sphinxes containing a gilded stele of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III (BM 1054). Petrie concluded this was a chapel to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II and the royal cult.

Mysliwiec 1973, 61 n.2, 62-73 (Ptolemaic?); Hill 2000, 667-668 (Ptolemy II or III); Stanwick 2002, A35, 23, 68 (fourth-third century BC); Zivie-Coche 2005, 69 (Late Period). Found in a trial pit by Prof F. Agoub and Dr. A. El-Khouly in 1961 made in connection with the construction of a new road. The pit was located near the western edge of Southern Tell, where the Temple of Amun Opet is located. The torso was found with another statue (23).

An under life-size standing statue wearing double crown, banded nemes, ureaus, false beard, and shendyt. The statue stands in a striding pose with arms by its sides holding enigmatic objects. The back pillar reaches the top of the double crown. Attributed to Ptolemy II due to the identification of the chapel as a shrine to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II.

An under life-size fragment wearing a banded nemes, ureaus, and false beard. From the angle of the left elbow (just visible) it is possible to see that the statue’s arm was extended, most likely pro-offering. The statue could be reconstructed as kneeling. The back pillar continues to the nemes. Dated to the late fourth to third century BC due to the sculptural style which is closely associated with the 30th Dynasty.

25: Statuette of Ptolemy II - 285-246 BC, from Tanis (British Museum EA1190; Stanwick 2002, A9, 159; © Egyptian Exploration Society)

24: Torso of early king, from Tanis, fourththird century BC (Orabi Museum 1411; Myśliwiec 1973, pl II; © Karol Myślwiec)

103

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

26. Head of Caracalla - AD 198-217, from Tanis Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 3233. Grey Granite. Height 29.8 cm. Preserved in one piece from above forehead to below neck. The very top of the head and the attribute is lost and the nose is broken. Mariette 1887, 16 (Maximian); Wildung and Grimm 1978, no.172; Jucker 1981, 721-22; Kiss 1984, 81; Bernand 1998, 166-7; Stanwick 2002, G10, n.32, 139 (all authors except Mariette: Caracalla). Excavated by Mariette in the Temple of Amun at Tanis. The head is recorded in a list of finds but the exact find spot is not given. A life-size head with hair, beard, and pronounced forehead lines. There is a hole on top for an additional attribute. The back pillar runs up to the top of the head, and distorts it. Identified as Caracalla from the similarity of facial features with other statues (27, 32, 47, and 60), particularly the presence of a beard and furrowed brow.

26. Head of Caracalla - AD 198-217, from Tanis (Graeco-Roman Museum 3233; Bernand 1998, 166; © Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria)

Mendes Ram. The ruins of the temple were removed in the 19th century. The only substantial remains are the naos of Amasis, incomplete enclosure walls, and a cemetery of sacred Rams. The site continued into the Ptolemiac period, and was home to the ‘Mendes Decree’, but lost its importance to the nearby town of Thmuis.

Mendes Site 6: Mendes (Tell el-Rub’a) is located on the Damietta branch of the Nile. The site dates to the 4th Dynasty and was the capital of the 16th nome during the dynastic period. The site is home to the temple to Banebdjedet, the

Site 6. Photograph of the Shrine of King Amasis (Mendes II 1976, pl 5; and Brooklyn Museum)

104

Catalogue

27. Standing Caracalla as Pharaoh - AD 198-217 (Cairo CG702; Borchardt 1930, pl 130, 702; © Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

*27. Standing Caracalla as Pharaoh - AD 198-217, from Mendes Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities CG702. Quartzite. Height 142 cm, Head Height 29 cm, Face Height 18 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head through to thighs. Naville 1903, 16-18 (Apries re-cut for Caracalla); Borchardt 1930, pl. 130; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976, no.82, 201; Kiss 1984, figs 205-6; Bernand 1998, 167; Stanwick 2002, G11, 139, 89 (all authors: Caracalla). Excavated by Naville at Tell el-Rub’a, ancient Mendes, in the enclosure of the temple of Banebdjedet. The statue was found in a trench opened in front of the monolithic shrine of King Amasis in the south of the sanctuary (above). An over life-size statue wearing a plain nemes and shendyt with Roman-style forehead hair and beard. There is a hole on top for an additional attribute. The back pillar curves to the top of the nemes. The statue is unfinished. Identified as Caracalla from the similarity of facial features with other statues (27, 32, 48, and 60), particularly the presence of a beard and furrowed brow.

Thmuis Site 7: The site of Thmuis (Tell Timai) is located approximately 700 metres to the south of Mendes. The site gained importance during the Ptolemaic and Roman period, replacing Mendes as the nome capital. It contains extensive mud brick structures, and excavations in 1892/3 and 1906 produced carbonized rolls of papyrus dating to the second-third century AD. Most were destroyed due to handling. Little is known of Thmuis in general and the site has been spoiled by the sabbakhin.

Site 7. Plan of structures found at Thmuis (Edgar 1909, 1)

105

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

A. Head of Ptolemy III - 246-221 BC

*28. Group of marble heads, from Thmuis, third-second century BC

Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE39520. Marble. Height 20.5 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to below neck. The top and back of the head are broken, possibly due to the statue being pieced.

Marble, Various Measurements. Edgar 1909, 1-13; Lembke, JDI 115, 113-146. The group was found in Tell Timai, ancient Thmuis, in 1908 by a group of workmen, and then excavated by Edgar. The heads were found with a group of 45 marble pieces including hands and legs, in a building of baked mud brick with a central row of three columns (A - above). Most of the heads were found in a heap in the south-west corner of the structure, but three heads were located along the north wall with a hydra and several small altars. Other remains in the area included a Roman mud brick wall to the north and a small room to the east with a column nearby.

Edgar 1909, No.2 (Dionysos); Grimm 1978, 70, No.91 (Ptolemy III as Dionysos); Lembke JDI 115, No.2, fig. 5-7 (Ptolemy III); Walker and Higgs 2001, No.10, 48 (Ptolemy III). The head is turned slightly to the right, with a round, fleshy face and wavy hair partly covering his ears. There are two bulls horns and a low lying diadem. Identified as Ptolemy III from similarity to other portraits, including coins, as well as the presence of a statue identified as Berenike II in the group (28D). There is some suggestion it is Ptolemy III as Dionysos or another Dionysos.

A group of ten under life-size marble heads for statuettes, five are identified as representing Ptolemies; Ptolemy III, Berenike II, Ptolemy IV, Arsinoe III, and Arsinoe II. The other five represent a Greek-style Isis, Dionysos, Alexander the Great, and two Aphrodites. Due to the inclusion of the royal couples, the group is dated to the third-second centuries BC (for a number of similar heads from Egypt of both royals and divinities see Laube 2012). The presence of marble heads and limbs suggests that these statues were pieced, and that the torsos were made of another material that did not survive, most likely wood.

B. Head of Ptolemy IV - 221-205 BC Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE3922. Marble. Height 17.5 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to below neck. The back of head and neck is broken, possibly due to the statue being pieced. Edgar 1909, No.3 (Young god); Grimm 1998, 70 (Ptolemy III); Lembke JDI 115, No.3, fig. 8-10 (Ptolemy IV).

28. A: Head of Ptolemy III - 246-221 BC, from Thmuis (Cairo JE39502; Lembke 2002, no.2, 119; © DAI Cairo)

28. A: Head of Ptolemy III - 246-221 BC, from Thmuis (Cairo JE39502; Lembke 2002, no.2, 119; © DAI Cairo)

106

Catalogue

The head is turned to the left, with short styled hair and a groove for a diadem. Identified as Ptolemy IV due to similarity of hairstyle and portrait features with other portraits, such as the Serapeum Ptolemy (77) as well as a head identified as Arsinoe III (28C).

A female head with hair pulled in strands over the ears. There is also a faint groove on the left side indicating the presence of wore a diadem. Identified as Berenike II due to hairstyle and similarity of portrait features with other images, including 2, 4, and 49. Note that in Walker and Higgs no.11, a differenet head from the group is identified as Berenike II. The corkscrew curls and lean face suggest this head is actually a representation of Isis.

C. Head of Arsinoe III - 221-204 BC Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE39516. Marble. Height 16 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the head to the bottom of the neck. Top and back broken, possibly due to the statue being pieced. Edgar 1909, No.8 (A Ptolemaic Queen); Grimm 1998, 70 (Arsinoe III); Lembke JDI 115, No.8, fig. 26-27 (Arsinoe III). The head is turned slightly to the right, with a plump face, shallow eyes, and hair drawn back on each side partially over the ears. A groove on the right side of the head could indicates a diadem. Identified as Arsinoe III due to hairstyle and similarity of portrait features with other images including the Serapeum Queen (76) and a head from Bubastis (31). D. Head of Berenike II - 246-221 BC Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE39525. Marble. Height 13.5 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to below chin. The back of the head and right side are broken, possibly due to the statue being pieced. The nose and chin are chipped.

28. D: Head of Berenike II - 246-221 BC, from Thmuis (Cairo JE39525; Lembke 2000, no.9, 131; © DAI Cairo)

Edgar 1909, No.9; Lembke JDI 115, No.9, fig 28-30 (Berenike II).

28. C: Head of Arsinoe III - 221-204 BC, from Thmuis (Cairo JE39516; Lembke 2000, no.8, 130; DAI Cairo)

28. E: Head of Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, from Thmuis (Cairo JE39519; Lembke 2000, no.10, 132; © DAI Cairo)

107

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

E. Head of Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC

Pithom

Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE39519. Marble. Height 15.5 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to below neck. Back of the head has been sliced off, possibly due to the statue being pieced. The nose is broken.

Site 8: Located to the east of the Nile Delta, the site of Tell el-Maskhuta was excavated by Naville in 1883. He uncovered the remains of a fortress, a temple, and Roman housing. The fortress was restored and supplied with a new temple by Ptolemy II. Naville identified the site as that of Pithom, from the Book of Exodus, and the capital of the 8th nome of Lower Egypt.

Edgar 1909, No.10; Lembke JDI 115, No.10, fig 31-33. A female head with hair waved to either side over forehead. The head has pronounced cheekbones and a chin dimple. Identified as Arsinoe II due to the similarity of portrait features with other images, including coin portraits.

Site 8. Plan of Pithom (Naville 1903, pl 2; and Egyptian Exploration Society)

108

Catalogue

29. Statue base for Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, from Tell elMaskhuta (No Image. Only copy of Hieroglyphic text by Naville) Formerly in Boulaq Museum, Current location unknown – Cairo? Material and measurements unknown. Naville 1903; Quaegebeur 1998, no.2, 86; Stanwick 2002, A13, 39, 56 (all authors: Arsinoe II). Found by Naville during his excavations at Tell elMaskhuta, identified as ancient Pithom. The exact find spot is not recorded, but in his report Naville states that the excavations explored the south-eastern angle of the sacred enclosure, which was then extended northwards, as well as an area close to the canal. It is therefore likely that the base came from the temple enclosure. Fragmentary statue base. The hieroglyphic inscription, recorded by Naville, contains Arsinoe II’s Birth and Throne names. 29: Statue Base for Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, from Tell-Maskhuta (Naville 1903, pl 7.c; © Egyptian Exploration Society)

An over life-size statue wearing a nemes and pleated shendyt. Stands in a traditional pose with arms at the sides holding enigmatic objects. The back pillar reaches to the shoulder. There are three columns of hieroglyphs on the back pillar which include Ptolemy II’s Birth and Throne names.

Bubastis Site 9: The site of Bubastis is to the south of the modern town of Zaqaziq. It was home to the lioness goddess Bastet and was the capital of the 18th nome. Herodotus describes the site as situated on an island, between two water channels, and excavations have revealed this to be accurate. The main temple to Bastet was excavated by Naville in 1887 and 1889, but little could be identified beyond its basic divisions. The site also includes ka temples to Teti and Pepy I, sed chapels to Amenemhet III and Amenophis III, a temple to Amun by Osorkon II, a temple to Mihos by Osorkon III, and a temple dating to the Roman period. The site also contains extensive cemeteries of mummified cats, dating through to the late Roman period, and fiscal papyrus documents dating to AD 205-232.

31. Head of Arsinoe III - 221-204 BC, from Bubastis Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities 35334. Marble. Height 30 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to mid-point of chest, possibly due to the statue being pieced. The edges and cheek damaged, back of hair is missing. Adriani 1947, 51-60; Kyrieleis 1975, L2, 104-106; Wildung and Grimm 1978, no.95; Grimm 1998, 100 Abb100; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.13, 50 (all authors: Arsinoe III).

30. Statue of Ptolemy II - 285-246 BC, from Bubastis

Excavated in Bubastis in 1902. There were no formal excavations at the site between Naville in 1899 and Habachi in 1940. This head was either discovered through accident or in connection with the construction of the nearby railway. No find spot is recorded.

Rome, Villa Albani 558. Dark Stone. Height 280 cm without base. Broken into numerous pieces, especially along legs and across chest, but repaired and heavily restored. Now in one piece. ESLP, 1960, 62; Helbig, 1972, 336-337; Roullet, 1972, cat no.177, 108; Curto, 1985, no.7, 36-42; Mysliwiec, 1988, 86; Bol, 1994, no.547, 465-466; Stanwick, 2002, A11 (all authors: Ptolemy II).

Head and shoulders of a female statue, preserved in a V down the chest. The statue has a full oval face with a small down-turned mouth and a fleshy neck. The hair is pulled back in strand over her ears and the statue wears a diadem. The head was most likely part of a pieced statue, meaning its torso was of another material, most likely wood. Identified as Arsinoe III due to portrait features and

Found in Rome. The exact find spot is unknown. The statue is most likely from Bubastis as the Hieroglyphic inscription mentions the city.

109

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Found by a fisherman in the Rosetta branch of the Nile opposite Terenouthis. Hawass suggests it originated from Kom Abou Bellou, the necropolis of the town. An over life-size statue wearing a banded nemes and ureaus with Roman-style forehead hair and beard. Back pillar narrows as it reaches the head and contains a fragmentary single column of hieroglyphs. Facial features identify it as Caracalla, especially the furrowed brow. It is similar in style to statues 26, 27, 47, and 60.

31: Head of Arsinoe III - 221-204 BC, from Bubastis (Cairo 35334; Kyrieleis 1975, L2, pl 91; © DAI Cairo (D. Johannes))

hairstyle which are similar to other representations such as 28C and the Serapeum Queen (76).

32: Head and torso of Caracalla as Pharaoh - AD 198217, from the Nile Bank opposite Terenouthis (Giza Storeroom; Hawass 1997, pl 1 fig. 1)

Terenouthis Site 10: The ancient site of Terenouthis is located on the mound of Kom Abu Billo in the west of the Nile Delta. It consists of a temple to Hathor, blocks of which show the temple to have been constructed under Ptolemy I and II. The site also includes an extensive necropolis dating from the Old Kingdom to Late Antiquity. The temple was excavated by Griffith in 1887-8. The foundations were dug out and no plan was made (Griffith, 1890). Little is currently known about the site. Later excavations of the necropolis uncovered a number of grave stelae from the first-third centuries AD.

Athribis (Banha) Site 11: Located on the Damietta branch of the Nile, Athribis, modern Benha, was the capital of the 10th nome. The site was first recorded by Jomrad in 1799, and has since been excavated by Rowe, Michalowski, and a Polish team between 1985 and 1995. The site can be traced to the 4th Dynasty, though the earliest temple foundation deposits date to the reign of King Amasis. Excavations show a shift in emphasis away from the Pharaonic temple during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. From the Ptolemaic period there are a number of other structures st the site, including a villa with a shrine. The two cross-roads, first drawn by Jomrad, are the cardo and decumanus, and were lined with colonnades belonging to the second century AD. A classical temple, a tetrastylon, and a bath complex have also been identified at the site alongside a number of classical architectural features.

32. Head and torso of Caracalla as Pharaoh - AD 198-217, from the Nile Bank opposite Terenouthis Giza Antiquities Storeroom. Red Granite. Height 85 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head through most of torso. Attribute on top broken off and generally abraded. Hawass 1997; Stanwick 2002, G13, 89 (all authors: Caracalla).

110

Catalogue

33. Head of Ptolemy IX or X, from Athribis, second-first century BC

1978, no.56, 226; Romans and Barbarians no.28, 21-3; Kiss 1984, 58 (all authors: Hadrian).

Stuttgart, Würtembergisches Landesmuseum 17. Marble. Height 23.3 cm. Preserved on one piece from top of head to bottom of neck. Badly weathered and chipped.

Found at Athribis in 1919. The head was discovered in the north-west section of the site, located close to a number of structures and a collection of other finds including a triad of Ramesses II and the so-called Treasure of Athribis. Two other large scale heads are also said to be from Athribis, a colossal Augustus (Alexandria Library) and a head of Hadrian (Boston 1975.292).

Pagenstecher 1923, no.69 (priest?); Watzinger 1927, no.5 (Ptolemy X Alexander); Parlasca JDI 82 (Ptolemy IX-X); Kyrieleis 1975, H8, 72 (Ptolemy IX-X); Walker and Higgs 2001, no.28, 61; Laube 2012, no.50, 140-142 (first century BC).

Colossal head with stylised curled hair and beard, wearing an intense expression. Portrait features, including the beard and hairstyle, identify the head as Hadrian.

From Benha/Athribis. No find spot recorded. The head is turned slightly to the left, with Greek-style hair and beard. The head wears a broad flat diadem and has deep eyes and a pronounced forehead line. Sculptural style places it in the second to first century BC. The presence of a light beard and facial features similar to those identified on Edfu seals identify this statue as Ptolemy IX or X.

Heliopolis Site 12: Heliopolis, located north-west of modern elMatariya, was one of the most important sites for the ideology and economy of Egypt, and home to one of the principal sanctuaries to Re. Little remains of the site, only monuments exist dating from the 3rd Dynasty to the Ptolemaic period. Much of the material from the site has been removed, both in ancient and modern times.

34. Colossal head of Hadrian - AD 117-138, from Athribis Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 20335. Marble. Height 90 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to bottom of neck. Broken diagonally across bottom of neck. Cut square at top and back of head. Nose broken from a fall.

35. Ptolemaic facial fragment, from Heliopolis, fourth-third century BC New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 12.187.31. Greywacke. Height 17 cm, Face Height 13.3 cm. Preserved in one piece from forehead to below chin. The left eye is missing and the nose is broken.

Englebach ASAE 24, 18; Dabrowski ASAE 57, no.29; Vermeule 1968, no.20, 392; Comstock and Vermeule

Petrie et al 1915, 1-7 (26th Dynasty); PM IV 1934, 60; ESLP 1960, 59 (Apries); Josephson 1995, 5-15 (Royal; mid-third century BC); Josephson 1997, 44-45 (Ptolemy II?); Stanwick, 2002 A37, 68 (Late fourth-early third century BC). Found by Petrie at Heliopolis between 1910-11. The fragment was excavated in the field south-east of the Obelisk of Sesostris I, along with two other statue fragments from the Middle Kingdom. A life-size facial fragment of high/royal quality but with no royal attributes. Stylistically belongs to fourth to third century BC due to similarity of style with 30th Dynasty types. 36. Standing statue of Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, found in the Gardens of Sallust, probably from Heliopolis Rome, Vatican Museum 22682. Red Granite. Height 270 cm, Base: Height 19.7 cm, Width 42.4 cm, Depth 11.5 cm. Preserved from top of head through to base. Broken at the waist and feet but repaired. 34: Colossal head of Hadrian - AD 117-138, from Athribis (Graeco-Roman Museum 20335; Kiss 1984, fig 116-7; © DAI Cairo (D. Johannes))

111

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Roullet 1971, no.180, 48, 109-10; Arnold 1999, 342 n.72; Stanwick 2002, A4, 55-56, 66-67; Hartswick 2004, 130136; Walker and Higgs 2001, 150.

of Sallust, in Rome. The statue was found with other examples of Egyptian sculpture, including a Ptolemy II (37) with which it forms a pair, a colossal granite 19th Dynasty Queen, and another Late Period female, either the

Discovered around 1710 by Francesco Bianchini in the gardens of Verospi on the Pincio, part of the Gardens

37: Standing statue for Ptolemy II - 285-245 BC, found in the Gardens of Sallust, from Heliopolis (© Photo Vatican Museums; Vatican Museum 22681; Stanwick 2002, A3, 157)

36: Standing statue for Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, found in the Gardens of Sallust, from Heliopolis (© Photo Vatican Museums; Vatican Museum 22682; Stanwick 2002, A4, 158)

112

Catalogue

second sister of Ptolemy II (Philotera) or a Roman copy of this statue (Roullet, 1971, no.181). Another fragmentary male statue is recorded as coming from the area, but is lost. This statue most likely originated from Heliopolis as the inscription refers to the god Atum, whose home was Heliopolis. A range of material from Heliopolis was transported during the Imperial period. Arnold argues against this suggestion, claiming that Heliopolis was not in use during the Ptolemaic period and so a statue there would have been pointless.

Discovered around 1710 by Francesco Bianchini in the gardens of Verospi on the Pincio, part of the Gardens of Sallust, in Rome. The statue was found with other examples of Egyptian sculpture, including an Arsinoe II (36) with which it forms a pair, a colossal granite 19th Dynasty Queen, and another Late Period female, either the second sister of Ptolemy II (Philotera) or a Roman copy of this statue (Roullet, 1971, no.181). This statue most likely originated from Heliopolis as the inscription refers to the god Atum, whose home was Heliopolis. Arnold argues against this suggestion, claiming that Heliopolis was not in use during the Ptolemaic period and so a statue there would have been pointless.

An over life-size standing queen wearing a tight-fitting sheath dress, a striated, tripartite wig, and double ureai. Stands in a traditional pose with left arm across the chest clutching menat. There is a square tenon on top of the head for an additional attribute. The back pillar reaches the top of the head. A single column of Hieroglyphs on the back pillar and one line of text on top of the base both contain Arsinoe II’s Birth name and epithet.

An over life-size standing king wearing a banded nemes, ureaus, and shendyt. Stands in a traditional pose with arms at the sides holding enigmatic objects. A slightly depressed area on top of the head indicates an additional attribute. Back pillar reaches to the shoulders. A single column of Hieroglyphics on the back pillar and text on the belt both contain Ptolemy II’s Throne and Birth names.

37. Standing statue of Ptolemy II - 285-245 BC, found in the Gardens of Sallust, probably from Heliopolis

Abu Rawash

Rome, Vatican Museum 22681. Red Granite. Height 266 cm, Base: Height 24.2 cm, Width 42.5 cm, Depth 96.4 cm. Preserved from top of head through to base. Broken diagonally from left knee to back pillar but repaired.

Site 13: Abu Rawash is part of the collection of necropoleis that make up the sites of Memphis and Saqqara. Located to the north of this group, Abu Rawash served as the necropolis for an important administrative centre early in Egypt’s history. Its primary feature is the pyramid complex of Ra’djedef. To the north of the pyramids are a series of

Roullet 1971, no.153, 102; Arnold 1999, 342 no/72; Stanwick 2002, A3, 55-56, 66-67; Hartswick 2004, 130-136.

Site 13.1. Plan of the site of Abu Rawash (Bisson de la Roque, 1924, pl 1; and Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental, Photo: M. Lecomte Dunouy, Droits réservés)

113

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Site 13.2. Plan of the northern crocodile tomb of Abu Rawash. Triangle identifies the approximate find spot of no.41 (Bisson de la Roque 1924, pl 31; and Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental, Droits réservés)

later structures, including a crocodile tomb (circled in red, site. 13.1). 38. Head of early Ptolemaic queen (Arsinoe II?), from Abu Rawash, fourth-third century BC New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 38.10. Limestone. Height 11.8 cm, Head Height 8.4 cm, Face Height 4.7 cm. Preserved from top of head to neck. Nose and ureai damaged. Bisson de la Roque 1923, 65-66; ESLP 1960, no.98 (Arsinoe II); Cleopatra’s Egypt 1989, 66 (30th Dynasty?); Goyon and Gabolde 1991, 26-27 (30th Dynasty?); Quaegebeur 1998, no.80, 104 (30th Dynasty or Arsinoe II); Walker and Higgs 2001, no.6, 44 (Arsinoe II); Stanwick 2002, A44, 67 (third century BC).

Excavated by Bisson de la Roque at Abu Rawash in 192223. The head was found in a rock cut structure identified as a Crocodile tomb in the north of the site. The head was found in a late period fill in the cleared rooms and corridor near the entrance (see plan for approximate location). Other finds included stone blocks inscribed for Nectanebo and bronze crocodiles. A torso found at the time was associated with the head, but is now missing. An under life-size head of a queen wearing a striated, tripartite wig and double ureai. A tenon on top of the head indicates an additional attribute. No back pillar survives. Stylistically dates to fourth to third century BC due to similarity to 30th Dynasty types. Its resemblance to images such as the Vatican Arsinoe (37) suggest it represents Arsinoe II.

114

Catalogue

Memphis Site 14: The site of Memphis was one of the most important religious and administrative centres throughout Egyptian history. During the Ptolemaic period, it is identified as being the first resting place of Alexander and a second residence for the Ptolemies. The most extensive remains of the site are found at Mit Rahina, including structures of the temple of Ptah (only the western section has been systematically excavated) and the palace of Apries. A large amount of sculpture and blocks come from the site. 39. Fragment of standing statue (Ptolemy XII?), from Memphis, first century BC Berlin, Aegyptisches Museum 8810. Black Granite. Height 59 cm, Width 25.8 cm, Depth 36.2 cm. Preserved in one piece from upper thighs through to ankles. Ausführliches Verzeichnis der aegyptischen Altertümen und Gipsabgüsse 1899, 234; Bothmer 1959, 107 n.6 (Ptolemy XII); Bianchi 1976, 71-76 (Ptolemy IV); Cleopatra’s Egypt 67; Stanwick 2002, F1, 22 (Ptolemy XII?). Purchased in Giza in 1886. The fragment most likely originated from the temple of Ptah at Memphis due to its inscription which uses the Memphite form of Ptah ‘Ptahsouth-of-his-wall’. A life-size statue in traditional standing pose wearing a draped costume. Three columns of Hieroglyphs on the back pillar include the Birth name of a Ptolemaic king and reference to Ptah at Memphis. The style of the drapery is Ptolemaic, and the inscription suggests it is Ptolemy XII.

39: Fragment of standing statue (Ptolemy XII?), from Memphis, first century BC (Aegyptisches Museum 8810; Stanwick 2002, F1, 211; © Aegyptisches Museum)

Site 14. Plan of the site of Memphis (Thompson 1988, fig 2, 9; and Dorothy J. Thompson)

115

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Saqqara Site 15: The necropolis of Memphis, Saqqara is located on the eastern side of the Nile from the town. It is home to a number of pyramids, tombs, burials (both human and animal), and temples dating from the 1st Dynasties through to the Roman period. The primary structures of the site are the Anoubieion, the Boubastieion, and the Serapeum. The latter sanctuary dates from the reigns of Nectanebo I and II, and was also endowed by the Ptolemies as Serapis (Osiris-Apis) became their principal deity. The temple was in traditional Egyptian style with a dromos decorated with Greek-style Dionysiac sculpture. *40. Bust of late king, from Saqqara, Ptolemaic Birmingham, Museums and Art Gallery B.67’71. Plaster. Height 23.6 cm. Preserved in one piece. Nose, lips, and cheek damaged. Emery 1970, 10 (late period); Hastings 1997, 60, no.232 (Ptolemaic); Stanwick 2002, E9, 22 (Ptolemy XII). Found by Emery at Saqqara. The bust was discovered with a cache of other plaster objects in a clean sand deposit to the east of the enclosure wall of the 3rd Dynasty Mastaba tomb 3518 (see plan for approximate location). Other plaster items included a Greek-style female torso and Egyptian-style falcons, as well as four large red ware jars and a fragment of an amulet.

40: Bust of late king, from Saqqara, first century BC (Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery B.67’71; Stanwick 2002, E9, 205; © Birmingham Museums Trust)

Site 15. Plan of Saqqara (Hastings 1997, pl 24; and Egyptian Exploration Society)

116

Catalogue

An under life-size bust of a king wearing a double crown and ureaus. The bust is squared at the shoulders, and the details are not fully worked. The base is marked with irregular incisions and smoothing marks. The eyes are outlined in black, and there is a faint red vertical

line running down the crown. The bust is most likely a sculptor’s model. It sculptural style, and association with other Greek style material, identifies this as belonging to the Ptolemaic period.

The Fayoum

century AD. The primary features of the site include the southern temple to the crocodile gods Petesouchos and Pnepheros dedicated under Nero and the northern temple to an unknown deity erected in the early Imperial period. The most significant aspects of the site are the multistorey mudbrick houses that act as the primary source for understanding domestic architecture. A range of other material was also uncovered including papyri documents, furniture, and small scale sculpture.

Karanis Site 16: Karanis is the site of a Ptolemaic and Roman village on the edge of the Fayoum, approximately 75 km from Cairo. It was excavated by the University of Michigan between 1925-1935, which established 5 discrete layers of occupation dating from the third century BC to the fifth

Site 16. Aerial view of Karanis (Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, fig. 5.2.1, 136; and Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor)

117

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

41. Head of Ptolemaic king (Ptomey IV?), from Karanis, second-first century BC Ann Arbor, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology 8513. Limestone. Height 8.2 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to below neck. Entire surface worn, especially the hair and left side. Part of left ear, cheek, and nose broken from a fall. Gazda 1978, no.37, 43 (Ptolemaic; parallels bust of Ptolemy VI).

Discovered in 1924 during the University of Michigan excavations of the village site of Karanis. The head was found in House 84 room H (not shown in plan). It came from level C within the house, which dates broadly the first to third centuries AD. The head was placed in a shallow rectangular niche within the house wall. An under-life size head, tilted to the left with deeply recessed bulging eyes. The face and neck are round and fleshy. The hair is short and curly with sideburns. There is a double-banded diadem set high on the head with a dowel for an additional attribute. The rounded face and diadem identify this as a Ptolemy. Gazda compares it to images of Ptolemy VI.

41: Head of Ptolemaic king, from Karanis, second-first century BC (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology 8513; Gazda 1978, no.37; © Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor)

The dromos was monumentalised and the contra temple added. Inscriptions date these works to the early first century BC. The Roman period continued this trend by adding kiosks and deipneteria (dining rooms). The site was excavated by Achille Vogliano between 1935-9, who discovered an archive of Greek and Demotic ostraka. Since 1966 excavations and research have continued under the guidance of the University of Pisa.

Medinet Madi Site 17: Medinet Madi is a temple site located in the southern part of the Fayoum. It originated in the Middle Kingdom, when the temple was first erected to the goddess Renenutet and the god Sobek. During the Ptolemaic period the site came to be known by the Greek name Narmouthis, and experienced a long period of investment.

118

Catalogue

Site 17. Plan of Medinet Madi (Bagnall and Rathbone, 2004, fig 5.4.1, 144 and Bagnall and Rathbone (after Ferri 1989))

119

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Discovered by Vogliano during excavations of the temple of Renenutet at Medinet Madi in 1934-6. Excavated from a pile of debris in the entrance to the pharaonic temple (see plan for approximate location) (Vogliano, 1937, pl.7-8).

42. C.28 Sphinxes, from Medinet Madi, second century BC Medinet Madi. Limestone. Various measurements. c.28 Sphinxes, mostly intact, many abraded. Vogliano 1936, 17; Vogliano 1937, 538-540 (Ptolemy VIII); Voligano 1942, 18-19 (Ptolemy VIII); Kyrieleis 1975, H16, H17, M3, 17, 118-119, 177, 184 (Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra III); Bernand 1981, 62-66 (late Ptolemaic); Stanwick 2002, C3, 23-24, 59-60 (second century BC).

An under life-size head wearing a diadem tied at the back with two streamers down the neck. Wavy Greek-style hair covers the head, which has distinctive large almond-shaped eyes. Stylistic features suggests it is Ptolemaic. Similarity to a number of striding male statue heads suggests this might not be a royal representaion (for comparable material see Bianchi 1978, 95-102).

Discovered by Vogliano during excavations of the temple of Renenutet at Medinet Madi in 1934-5. The sphinxes were excavated in situ lining both sides of the processional way of the temple (see plan). A number of sphinxes, approximately 28, representing kings with Greek-style forehead hair. Accompanied by other types, including female headed ones. Some of the bases have Demotic inscriptions to Renenutet or Sobek. None use royal names. Dated stylistically to the second century BC. There are also a number of inscriptions from the area that date to the reign of Ptolemy VIII and is comparable to heads 9 and 10. 43. Head of Ptolemy VIII - 170-163 and 145-116 BC, from Medinet Madi Milan, Museo Archaeologico E.0.9.40012. Limestone. Height 50 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the head to the neck. This surface is abraded with nose and nemes wing damaged. Vogliano 1937, 57-58 (Ptolemaic); Vogliano 1942, pl. 19 (Ptolemy VIII); Smith 1988, no.82, 87, 97 (second-first century BC); Stanwick 2002, C4, 58 (Ptolemy VIII).

43: Head of Ptolemy VIII - 170-163 and 145116 BC, from Medinet Madi (Milan Museo Archaeologico E.0.9.40012; Stanwick 2002, C4, 180; © Paul Stanwick)

Discovered by Vogliano during excavations of the temple of Renenutet at Medinet Madi in 1934-5. Excavated from a pile of debris, with a number of other late period objects, in the area facing the entrance to the pharaonic temple (see plan for approximate location) (Vogliano, 1937, pl.7-8). An over life-size sphinx wearing a banded nemes, ureaus, with Greek-style forehead hair. Due to stylistic and facial features, including hairstyle, the head is identified as Ptolemy VIII. The area also produced a number of inscriptions dating to rule of Ptolemy VIII. 44. Diademed head (athlete?), from Medinet Madi, second century BC Milan, Museo Archaeologico E.0.9.4075. Limestone. Height 21 cm, Head Height 16.3 cm, Face Height 11.6 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to the neck. Nose broken due to fall. Vogliano 1936, 3 (mentioned as a fragment of a statue); Vogliano 1937, no.7 (king or athlete); Vogliano 1942, pl 20 (Ptolemaic prince); Smith 1988, residue catalogue no.13, 181 (Ptolemaic?): Stanwick 2002, D19, 78 (Ptolemay X).

44: Diademed head (royal?), from Medinet Madi, second century BC (Milan Museo Archaeologico E.09.4075; Stanwick 2002, D19, 199; © Paul Stanwick)

120

Catalogue

the first century BC by later Ptolemies and Augustus, who repaved the road, and added kiosks and deipneteria (dining rooms). The temple is surrounded by several identifiable structures, including a peristyle court, a bath house, and a tower house. The site was excavated in the 1930s by Anti and Bagnani, and the focus of each year is reflected in the plan. Work continues on the site led by a Franco-Italian team and on Anti’s extensive archive at the University of Padua.

Tebtunis Site 18: Tebtunis is a temple site in the southern part of the Fayoum, approximately 15 km from Medinet Madi. The site was in place by the fourth century BC, and the temple to Soknebtunis was a new construction under Ptolemy I. The temple follows the traditional layout of a Ptolemaic temple, except for the additions of a vestibule, a feature of the Fayoum. The dromos was monumentalised during

Site 18. Plan of Tebtunis (Rondot, 2004, fig 1; and Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental)

121

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

45. Standing late Ptolemy, from Tebtunis, second-first century BC

destroyed and the crown and nemes are both badly chipped and eroded. The left arm and knee are both missing.

Turin, Museum of Turin S.18176. Limestone, Height 164 cm, Base Width 31 cm, Depth 55.5 cm. Preserved in three pieces: from top of double crown to neck, from neck to knees, and from knees to base. The face is completely

CdE VII, 1932, 86; Rondot, 1997, 114 (Ptolemaic); Rondot, 2004, 136 (Ptolemaic). Discovered by Anti during excavations of the temple of Soknebtunis in 1931. Excavated in the vestibule of the temple (see plan). The location of the statue in situ is difficult to determine, but archive photographs place it within the vestibule at the south-east and south-west corners. The statue was found along with a number of other statues including another Ptolemy and a striding draped male. A standing king in a striding pose with the arms holding objects by the sides. The statue wears a shendyt with a belt, a striated nemes, and the double crown. There are traces of a collar around the neck indicating another garment and possibly a ureaus on front of the head. There are faint traces of hair indicating it was a statue with Greek-style features. Traces of red paint have been identified between the right arm and torso, and Rondot suggests the entire statue was painted in imitation of red granite. Sculptural style, presence of Greek-style forehead hair, and the Ptolemaic origin and decoration of Tebtunis dates this statue to the Ptolemaic period. 46. Striding Ptolemy XII and associated statue base - 15th April, 55 BC, from Tebtunis A. Striding Ptolemy XII Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 22979. Limestone. Height 211.4 cm, Head Height 30 cm, Face Height 19 cm, Base: Height 24 cm, Width 54 cm, Depth 78 cm. Preserved in once piece from top of head through to base. Broken at the neck, waist, and knees but repaired. Chest, arms, base, and back pillar are all damaged. ESLP 1960, 171; Parlasca 1978, 26; Bastianini and Gallazzi 1989; Stanwick 1992, 138-139; Stanwick 2002, E3, 23, 60, 79 (all authors: Ptolemy XII). Discovered by Anti during the excavations of the temple of Soknebtunis in 1931. Found in situ at the end of the sphinx-lined dromos of the temple (see plan). From early on it was associated with the inscribed base found nearby in front of the temple (see below). An over life-size standing statue wearing a banded nemes, ureaus, and pleated shendyt, with arms at the sides holding enigmatic objects. There is a rectangular hole on top of the head for an additional attribute. The back pillar ended at chest level. Identified as Ptolemy XII due to portrait features and association with statue base 46B (below).

45: Standing late Ptolemy, from Tebtunis, secondfirst century BC (Museum of Turin S.18176; Rondot 2004, no. 100, 274; Archives Anti © Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Padua Inv. No. 184, Photogr. No. 017)

122

Catalogue

46A: Striding Ptolemy XII - 15th April 55 BC, from Tebtunis (Graeco-Roman Museum 22979; Stanwick 2002, E3, 203, 275; © GraecoRoman Museum, Alexandria)

46B: Base inscribed for Ptolemy XII - 15th April 55 BC (Missing; Rondot 2004, no.107, 276; Archives Anti © Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Padua Inv. No. 289, Photogr. No. 001)

A square statue base with a Greek inscription on the front. Five lines of Greek reads

B. Base inscribed for Ptolemy XII Base now lost. Limestone. Approximate dimensions: Height 45 cm, Width 90 cm, Depth 45 cm.

Βασιλέα μέγαν Πτ̣ο-̣ λεμαῖον θεὸν Νέον Διόνυσον Φιλοπάτορα καὶ Φιλάδελφο̣ν. (ἔτους) κς φαρμο[ῦθι] ιβ

Bastianini and Gallazzi 1989; Stanwick 2002, E3, 23, 60, 79, 123. Discovered by Anti during the excavations of the temple of Soknebtunis in 1931. Found in the entrance vestibule of the temple. The base was found with a number of other inscriptions of Ptolemy XII. Anti associated the base with a royal statue found nearby, an idea supported by Bastianni and Gallazzi in their publication.

‘King Ptolemy, great Theos Neos Dionysos, Philopator and Philadelphus, (set up) year 16, 12(th day) Pharmouthis.’459 Stanwick 2002, 123 translates as: ‘(Statue of) King Ptolemy, great Theos Neos Dionysos, Philopator and Philadelphus, (set up) year 6, 12(th day) Pharmouthis’.

459

123

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Upper Egypt Sheikh Fadl Site 19: A large town located on the west bank of the Nile opposite Beni Mazar. There are no remains from this site. Wilkinson identified two temples nearby, one to the west of Maragha with the name of Ptolemy X on it, and, to the south of Maragha, a group of limestone blocks with a Ptolemy or Caesar offering to Khem and Isis. *47. Statue of Caracalla as Pharaoh - AD 198-217, from Sheikh Fadl Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities CG703 (= JE31621). Granite. Height 275 cm. Preserved in one piece through to ankles. Face weathered. Borchardt 1930, 44-45 (Roman); PM IV 1934, 126 (Roman); McCann 1968, no.3, 128 (Septimius Severus); Kiss 1984, 74-75 (Septimius Severus); Fittschen and Zanker 1985, no.38, 107 (Caracalla); Arnold 1999, 209 (concerning Sheikh Fadl – Ptolemaic and Roman); Hölbl 2000, 34 (Antoninus Pius or Septimius Severus); Stanwick 2002, G12, n.32 (second or early third century AD). From Sheikh Fadl. The statue was found in the village of Nazlet Sala near Beni Masar. The exact find spot is not recorded, and there are few remains in the area. Wilkinson recorded two small temples at Sheikh Fadl of Ptolemaic or Roman date, which were destroyed in 1854. A colossal statue wearing a double crown, nemes, ureaus, and plain shendyt, with Roman-style hair, moustache and beard. Stands with arms by the sides. The back pillar reaches two-thirds up the nemes. Facial features identify as Caracalla, and it is similar to statues 26, 27, 32, and 60.

47: Statue of Caracalla as Pharaoh - AD 198-217, from Sheikh Fadl (Cairo JE31621; Borchardt 1930, pl 130, 703; © Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

124

Catalogue

Zawiet el Amwat

48. Sphinx, from Zawiet el-Amwat, third century BC

Site 20: The capital of the 16th nome of Upper Egypt, Zaweit el-Amwat is best known for the remains of the 3rd Dynasty step pyramid. It was also home to a temple to Horus/Apollo whose dromos was recorded by Weil and Jouguet. Little now remains.

Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE53104. Limestone. Height 58.8 cm, Base: Height 10.5 cm, Width 34.3 cm, Depth 104.7 cm. Preserved in one piece. Severely abraded. Ureaus, nemes, chin, cheek, and nose are damaged. Weil and Jouguet 1934, 99 (Ptolemaic); Rogge 1999, 15; Stanwick 2002, A41, 68, 105 (third century BC). Excavated in situ by Weil and Jouguet on the dromos leading to the sacred enclosure at Zawiet el Amwat. An under life-size Egyptian sphinx wearing a plain nemes and ureaus. The tail curls around the right haunch. Stylistic features, such as the puffy face, and the lettering of the inscription, dates this to the third century BC. Has one line of Greek on the front of the base that reads: Πρῶτος Ἀπόλλωνι ‘Protos to Apollo.’460

Site 20. Photograph of the dromos of the temple of HorusApollo at Zaweit el-Amwat (Weil and Jouguet, 1934, pl 1.1; and Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental)

460

Stanwick 2002, 105 translates as: ‘(Set up by) Protos to Apollo’.

48: Sphinx, from Zawiet al Amwat, third century BC (Cairo JE53104; Stanwick 2002, A41, 167)

125

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

evidence for the Ptolemaic town centres on the surviving foundations, blocks, and inscription from the temple to the Theoi Adelphoi and Theoi Euergetai, set up by the local cavalry. The majority of the evidence comes from the Roman period. Excavations and papyri have identified a cardo and decumanus, tetrastylae, colonnades, a procession house (Komasterion), and a series of shops and temples.

Hermopolis Magna Site 21: Hermopolis Magna, modern El-Ashmunein, is located approximately 100 km south of Oxyrhynchus. From the dynastic period it was an important religious centre, home to a major temple to the god Thoth. During the Late Period, the Temple of Thoth was rebuilt, a project completed during the reign of Ptolemy I. The primary

Site 21. Plan of Hermopolis Magna (Bagnall and Rathbone, 2004, fig 6.3.1, 163 and Bagnall and Rathbone (after Bailey 1991)

126

Catalogue

hairstyle identify the head as Berenike II, it is similar to 2, 4, and 28D.

49. Head of Berenike II - 246-221 BC, from Hermopolis Magna Mariemont Museum B.264. Marble. Height 33 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the head to the base of the neck. The head is generally damaged and worn, with several pieces of the hair missing.

50. Fragmentary head of Pharaonic style Emperor, from Hermopolis Magna, second century AD Hermopolis Magna. Granite. Measurements not known; Bailey ‘colossal’. Preserved in one piece from below nose to mid-way across chest. Top of the head is missing, part of right side of chest and arm gone. Generally eroded.

Rubensohn 1902, 47; Antiquités Égyptiennes, Grecques et Romaines Appartenant à P. Philip et à divers Amateurs 1905, no.477, 74 (Venus); Rubensohn 1906, 134; FaiderFeytmans 1952, no.33, 78-9 (third century BC); Tefnin 1969, 89-100 (Berenike II); Kyrieleis 1975, K5, 99-100 (Berenike II); Antiquités Égyptiennes au Musée Royal de Mariemont 2009, 24 n.55 (Berenike II).

Bailey 1991, 57, pl. 110c (Hadrian); Stanwick 2002, G8, 24 (second century AD?). According to Bailey, this fragment stood outside the Ashmunein Antiquities Department storeroom for an unknown period of time. Most likely from the site but find spot and circumstances of discovery are not known.

The head was purchased by the Mariemont Museum from the collection of Philip displayed in Paris in 1905. Through careful reconstruction, Tefnin argued that this head was the one identified by Rubensohn in 1902 found in Hermopolis Magna the previous year. Tefnin quotes Rubensohn writing that ‘on trouve, dans le catalogue de vente de la collection Philip, Paris, 1905, no.477, une tres bonne réproduction d’une des têtes traitées par moi dans l’Anz 1902’ (Rubensohn, 1906, 134, n.1). Tefnin reasons that it is the same head, and therefore it is associated with Hermopolis Magna. Photographs and descriptions demonstrate this to be an accurate association.

A fragmentary head and shoulders of an imperial pharaonic statue. The fragment has the remains of nemes wings and a beard. Identified as Hadrian by Bailey due to beard and proximity of Antinoopolis but no cartouche remains. The presence of the beard suggests a second century AD Emperor. Existence of a back pillar or inscription is unknown. 51. Head of Antoninus Pius - AD 138-161, from Hermopolis Magna

A Greek-style female head with a full, rounded face positioned looking to the left. The hair has been added separately in stucco, and is pulled back over the ears. The face retains traces of polychromy. The pupils are defined, the hair is coloured, and the eyebrows can be seen. Possibly the head was part of a pieced statue, with the torso maed of another material, probably wood. Portrait features and

Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities 41650. Marble. Height 38 cm. Preserved in one piece from the top of the head to the base of the neck. The hair is worn and the nose is chipped.

50: Head of Pharaonic style Emperor, from Hermopolis Magna, second century AD (Hermopolis Magna?; Bailey HM IV 1991, pl 110c)

127

51: Head of Antoninus Pius - AD 138161, from Hermopolis Magna (Cairo 41650; Kiss 1984, fig 61; © DAI Cairo (D. Johannes))

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Boulos 1922, 115; Graindor 1937, no.13, 53; Grimm and Johannes 1975, no.22, 20, pl. 37; Kiss 1984, 61 (all authors: Antoninus Pius).

large partial Corinthian capital and part of a column drum. Bailey associates the capital and column with the inscription, due to the proximity of the find and the dates ascribed to the capital (second century AD) based upon comparison with other architectural features, principally the Komasterion. The three features combined provide one column of the Great Tetrasylon of Hermopolis Magna. The structure most likely held statues of the individuals it honoured. Bailey notes that ‘the statues placed on the Hermopolis tetrastylon must have been colossal’.

Discovered during the removal of sebakh at Ashmunein. Its exact find spot is not recorded, but it was found together with a Hermes in black granite (Cairo 41649). An over-life-size head of a male with a slightly bulbous forehead. The head has stylised curly hair and a beard leading to identification as Antoninus Pius.

The lower half of the Corinthian capital and the column drum are both of limestone. Both the capital and the drum have lewis holes on their upper surfaces, approximately 19-20 cm long widening to a dovetail of 24-26 cm. The capital has acanthus leaves in the same style as those on the Komasterion building.

52. Dedicatory inscription to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus and remains of the Great Tetrastylon at Hermopolis Magna, AD 176-179 Inscription: Missing - approximately 400 x 250 cm. Partial Corinthian Capital: Limestone ? 180 cm lower side, 192 cm upper side, Height 110 cm. Partial Column Drum: Limestone ? Height 194 cm, Width 191 cm.

Sketches by Letronne show the inscription to be on a twostepped rectangular base with 9 lines on one side. The name of Commodus had been erased and the end of the inscription is worn away. The base was dedicated by the Prefect of Egypt T. Pactueius Magnus which provides a date between AD 176-179.

Jombard 1809, ch XIV, 6; Letronne 1842, no.46, 437-441; Schmitz 1921, 46-66; Spencer and Bailey 1984, 45-46; Spencer and Bailey 1986, 236; Bailey 1990, 128-133; Bailey 1991, 29-31; Bernand 1999, no.12, 80-2.

Ἀγαθῆι Τύχηι Ὑπὲρ αὐτοκρατόρων Καισάρων [Μάρ]κου Αὺρηλίου Ἀντωνίνου [κα]ὶ [Λουκίου Αὺρηλίου Κομμόδου] Σεβασ[τῶν] [Ἀρμε]νιακῶν, Μηδικῶν, Παρθικῶν, [Γερ][μαν]ικῶν, Σαρ[μα]τικῶν μεγίστων [α]ἰ[ω] [νίο]υ διαμονῆ[ς] καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος [αὐτῶν οἴκου ἐπὶ Τ. Πα]κτουμηίου Μάγνου [ἐπάρχου Αἰγύπτου], ἐπιστρατηγοῦντ̣ο[̣ ς] ....

The inscription was first identified by Jomard in 1809. It consisted of a large limestone block with names of the Antonine emperors, located approximately 400 metres from the great temple to Thoth, around the centre of the city. The block was described in further detail by Letronne in 1842, who identified it as being the pedestal for a column holding a statue. The inscription disappeared around 1843, though the text is recorded. In 1921, Schmitz suggested this inscription formed the base of part of a tetrastylon on the crossing between Antinoe Street and The Dromos of Hermes in the centre of the town (see plan).

‘Good Fortune. For the eternal preservation of the Imperators Kaisar [Mar]cus Aurelius Antoninus [an]d [Lucius Aurelius Commodus] Augus[ti], Victors over the [Arme]nians, the Medes, the Parthians, the [German]s, Victors over the Sarmatians, the Great, for all their house, under T. Pactumeius Magnus, Prefect of Egypt, Epistrategos… (AD 176-179)’

Following excavations at Hermopolis Magna by the British Museum, directed by Bailey and Spencer, further artefacts were uncovered lying outside the west portico of the colonnade of the Basilica Church. These finds included a

52: Illustration of Dedicatory Inscription to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, remains of the Great Tetrastylon at Hermopolis Magna, AD 176-179 (Missing; Bernand 1999, no.12, pl 18; © Croquis Nestor l’Hôte)

128

Catalogue

Aphroditopolis Site 22: The site of Aphroditopolis (Aphrodito), modern Kom Ishgaw, lies 45 miles to the north of the town Sohag. The site has not been thoroughly excavated, though it was partially explored by Petrie who uncovered Ptolemaic and Roman tombs in 1915. Its primary finds are papyrus, many found accidentally. These point to a developed town in the later Coptic and Byzantine period. Aphroditopolis was an important site for early Christianity in Egypt. 53. Standing statue with chlamys, from Aphroditopolis, first century BC Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE42891. Limestone. Height 201 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to statue base. The face has been heavily damaged and eroded, both arms are missing from above the elbow, and restorations have been made to both legs using plaster. Edgar 1913, 50-52 (Hellenistic King); Kyrieleis 1975, H3, 70-71 (Ptolemy X/Mark Antony); Krug 1976, 9-24 (Ptolemy XI); Maehler 1983, 8-10 (Ptolemy IX); Smith 1988, no.61, 30, 84, 97, 124 (Ptolemaic king second-first century BC). The statue was discovered accidentally through local digging in 1911 in the village of Atif, ancient Aphroditopolis. The exact find spot is not recorded, but the ruins of the ancient town lie underneath the modern village. A complete standing male nude statue. The head is a portrait head, turned slightly to the right. The statue has one arm by its side and the other raised, a chlamys decorated with a gorgon is draped over it. The statue most likely once held a sceptre or spear. The statue stands on a base with the right leg bent, and is supported at the left by a tree stump. Portrait features of the head are similar to the head from Paraitonion (1) and identify it as Ptolemy IX.

53: Standing statue with chlamys, from Aphroditopolis, first century BC (Cairo JE42891; Smith 1988, pl 41; © Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

54. Head of Vespasian - AD 69-79, from Aphroditopolis Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities 672414. Marble. Height 32 cm. Preserved in one piece. The top of the head has been cut off diagonally across the forehead, and has been broken at the neck. Surface, particularly the back, is extremely weathered and the nose is broken. Grimm and Johannes 1975, no.21, 8, 20, pl. 36; Kiss 1984, 51 (all authors: Vespasian). Found around 1924 during local digging in the village of Atif, ancient Aphroditopolis. Find spot not recorded. An over-life-size male head with a round face that looks straight ahead. What remains of the hair appears stylised and thin. There are the remains of a furrowed brow and jowl lines. Identified as Vespasian due to portrait features.

54: Head of Vespasian - AD 69-79, from Aphroditopolis (Cairo JE67414; Kiss 1984, fig 94-5; DAI Cairo (D. Johannes))

129

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Excavated by Petrie in Athribis at the Triphis temple attributed to Ptolemy IX. The exact find spot not recorded.

Athribis (Wannina) Site 23: Located 10 km southwest of the site of Akhmin, Athribis is home to the sanctuary of Triphis. This complex has been poorly explored. There was a 26th Dynasty temple, set against the rock face, which was either replaced or embellished by Ptolemy IX, including the erection of two pylons at the site. Another later temple was erected by either Ptolemy XII or XV. Blocks from the site also point to the presence of a chapel to Alexander the Great.

The front half of a life-sized head, wearing a plain nemes and ureaus. Style and provenance provide a date of the second to first century BC and comparisons with clay sealings from Edfu suggest it represents Ptolemy IX. Koptos Site 24: The town of Koptos is located approximately 40 km north of Luxor. The site provides material from the earliest part of Egypt’s history to the modern day, and held a special place as an administrative, religious, and economic centre. Excavations by Petrie in 1893 and Weill Reinach in 1910-11 identified the temple of Min and Isis to the north of the site, made up of three double pylons and stairs. To the south stood a temple to Geb and one to Cleopatra and Augustus (not shown on plan). Reliefs from the site show investment throughout the Ptolemaic and Imperial period.

*55. Face of king, from Athribis, second-first century BC Manchester, Manchester Museum 4816. Limestone. Height 24.1 cm. Preserved front of head, from top of nemes to below the chin, including the whole face to the ears. It has been damaged further since discovery, with the right eye and frontlet missing. Petrie 1908; Petrie 1909, 14 (Ptolemy IX); Parlasca 1967, 179, n.38; Mysliwiec 1973, 43 (Ptolemy IX); Arnold 1999, plan 5, 206 (Triphis Temple); Stanwick 2002, D21, 59 (late second-early first century BC).

Site 23. Plan of Temple of Triphis (Arnold, 1999, pl 5, 10; and Oxford University Press, USA)

130

Catalogue

Site 24. Plan of Koptos (Petrie, 1892, pl 1)

56. Fragmentary statue of Ptolemy II - 285-246 BC, from Koptos Strasbourg, Université Marc Bloch, Collection de L’Institut d’Egyptologie 1585. Dark Stone. Height 34.9 cm, Face Height 8.7 cm. Preserved from top of face through to pectorals. Ureaus, nemes wings, and nose are missing due to a fall. ESLP, 121-122; Cleopatra’s Egypt, 1988, 82, 98; Josephson, 1997, 41, 44-45; Gabolde and Galliano, 2000, 76; Stanwick, 2002, A5, 55-56 (all authors: Ptolemy II). Purchased in Giza in 1905. The fragment is most likely from Koptos based on the phrase ‘words spoken by Osiris of Koptos’ written on the back pillar. An under life-size statue wearing a plains nemes. The back pillar has a triangular top and two columns of Hieroglyphs that mention Ptolemy II’s Horus names, Two Ladies names, and Golden Horus names. The inscription refers to Koptos. 56: Fragmentary statue of Ptolemy II - 285-246 BC, from Koptos (Strasbourg 1585; Stanwick 2002, A5, 158; © Institut d’égyptologie de l’Université de Strasbourg)

131

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

A standing statue wearing a plain shendyt. There is a fragmentary back pillar with one column of hieroglyphs containing Ptolemy III’s Birth names and Throne names.

57. Torso of Ptolemy II - 285-246 BC, from Koptos Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities CG686. Green Schist. Height 43.2 cm. Torso preserved from collarbone to the waist, arms missing.

*59. Queen’s headress (Cleopatra VII?), from Koptos, third century BC

Borchardt 1930, 29-30; Michalowski 1935, 76-77; Stanwick 2002, A12, 56 (all authors: Ptolemy II).

London, Petrie Museum of Egyptological Archaeology UCL14521. Limestone. Height 51.3 cm, Width 21.5 cm, Depth 18.7 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of feathers to break beneath the ureai. Superficial damage and base of horn and ureai are broken.

According to Borchardt, the torso was purchased from Datari in Cairo. The original context is most likely Kotpos, as Min, the principal god of the site, is mentioned in the inscription. The form of the king’s throne names in the inscriptions also parallels other examples from Koptos.

Petrie 1896, 21-22 (Arsinoe II); Quaegebeur 1998, no.79, 103 (uncertain); Gabolde and Galliano 2000, 77 (Ptolemaic); Walker and Higgs 2001, 171 (Cleopatra VII); Stanwick 2002, F3, 24, 25, 35, 37, 39 (Ptolemaic).

An under life-size torso wearing a plain nemes and shendyt belt. The back pillar is preserved and has two columns of Hieroglyphs with a portion of Ptolemy II’s Horus names. There is also a Hieroglyphic inscription on the belt containing Ptolemy II’s Throne name.

Discovered during the excavations of the site by Petrie in 1893-4. The headress was found between the second and third pylon of Isis of the temple of Min (see plan for approximate location).

58. Fragmentary standing statue of Ptolemy III - 246-222 BC, from Koptos

A headdress from a statue consisting of Hathor horns framing a sun-disk, with three uraei surmounted by two feathers. The back pillar reaches the feathers and has two columns of Hieroglyphics that use traditional titles for a Ptolemaic Queen. The sculptural style is Ptolemaic, and the headdress possibly belongs to a statue of Cleopatra VII who wore a similar type.

Manchester, Manchester Museum 1752. Limestone. Height 35 cm. Preserved in one piece from waist through to most of the right thigh and half of the left thigh. Arms are mostly missing. Petrie 1896, 22, pl 26.3A; Stanwick 2002, A16, 59 (all authors: Ptolemy III).

60. Head of Caracalla - AD 198-217, from Koptos

Discovered during the excavations of the site by Petrie in 1893-4. The statue is from the temple of Min and Isis. The exact find spot is not recorded.

Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Art and Archaeology E976. Granite. Height 51 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to neck. Nose damaged.

60: Head of Caracalla - AD 198-217, from Koptos (University of Pennsylvania Museum of Art and Archaeology E976; Cleopatra’s Egypt 1988, no.140; © Courtesy of Penn Museum no.E976)

57: Torso of Ptolemy II - 285-246 BC, from Koptos (Cairo CG686; Stanwick 2002, A12, 160)

132

Catalogue

Petrie 1896, 23; Graindor 1937, 145146, no.80; Cleopatra’s Egypt 1988, no.140, 254; Stanwick 2002, G14, n.32 (all authors: Caracalla). Discovered during excavations of the site by Petrie 1893-4. The head was found on the steps of the Temple of Min and Isis. Petrie suggested that the statue had been erected at the entrance to the temple (see plan for approximate location). A colossal head wearing a plain diadem with a ureaus. The head has Roman-style hair and a light beard. The iris and pupils are scored. The back pillar reached as far as the top of the head. Facial features identify it as Caracalla and it is similar to statues 26, 27, 32, and 47. Karnak Site 25: The temple of Karnak was, and remains, one of the most important and impressive in Egypt. From the time Thebes became the capital city, temples were built, enlarged and restored, activity that continued for 2000 years. The site itself is made up of three temple complexes, each enclosed by their own temenos. The precinct of Montu is to the north, the complex of Amun in the centre, and the precinct of Mut is to the south. The sanctuary of Amun is a trapezoidal enclosure orientated on two axes. From the Nile, an avenue of ram-headed sphinxes leads to the main entrance. Following on from this are the first six courts leading into the temple. Running on a north-south axis are courts seven to ten, from the end of which runs the sacred way connecting the precinct of Amun with that of Mut. In the southwest corner of the complex stands the Temple of Khonsu, associated in the Ptolemaic period with Herakles, and in front of this is the Gate of Euergetes, built by Ptolemy III, from which a dromos of sphinxes leads to the temple at Luxor. Though fully constructed and functioning during the later period, the Ptolemies and Emperors made their own contributions, including the temple of Opet and the Roman chapel in front of the first pylon. A range of material comes from Karnak, but most significant is the Karnak Cachette, a cache of sculpture and figurines from the 7th court dating from the dynastic period to the early Ptolemaic.

Site 25. Plan of the Temple complexes at Karnak, including the Temple of Amun, Temple of Mut, and Temple of Montu (Baines and Malek, 1980, 91; and John Baines and Jaromir Malek)

133

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

hold enigmatic objects. The back pillar has a triangular top that ends at the back of the head. Stylistically dated to fourth-third century BC and discovered with material from that date.

61. Standing Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy III?), from Karnak, fourth-third century BC Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE36708; now in National Museum, Port Said. Dark Stone. Height 100 cm, Head Height 17 cm, Face Height 11 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head through most of thighs. The face was deliberately mutilated in antiquity with the nose and mouth smashed, but has since been restored.

62. Statue base for Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, from Karnak Chicago, Oriental Institute Museum 10518. Black Basalt. Height 11 cm, Width 33.7 cm, Depth 56 cm. Preserved in one piece with remains of the statue feet.

Stanwick 2002, A36, 25, 86; IFAO Karnak Cachette Database CK71 (all fourth-third century BC).

Fraser 1960, no.2, 133-134; Cleopatra’s Egypt 1988, 47; Quaegebeur 1989b, 47; Quaegebeur 1998, no.3, 75, 86; Stanwick 2002, A14, 25 (all authors: Arsinoe II).

Part of the discovery made by Legrain in 1904 in the north-west section of the courtyard in front of the 7th pylon at Karnak. Excavations revealed over 7000 stone statues, from various periods, of royals and priests, as well as 17000 bronze pieces and numerous other artefacts (see plan). The corpus of finds is only partially known as Legrain’s diaries, which record the finds with K numbers, have never been recovered. According to the Cairo Museum Journal d’Entrée, this statue was K.84. In the IFAO Karnak Cachette Database it is recorded as CK71.

Purchased by James Henry Breasted from Yusuf Hassan in Luxor, 23rd January 1920. The exact find spot is unknown, but the base definitely came from the area as the inscription mentions Thebes. The base most likely came from the Temple of Karnak, as the inscription also refers to the gods Amun-Re, Mut, and Khons, the three gods of the site. A rectangular base for a life-size or smaller statue in a striding pose. The front is slightly convex. There are four columns of a Hieroglyphic inscription on top that mention Ptolemy II’s Throne and Birth names, and Arsinoe’s Birth names. There is one line of Greek inscription on the front.

An under-life size striding statue wearing a plain nemes and ureaus, and a pleated shendyt. There is a hole on top of the head for an additional attribute. The arms by the sides

Ἀρσινόης Φιλαδέλφου ‘Of Arsinoe Philadelphos.’ 63. Torso of Ptolemy VI - 180-145 BC, from Karnak Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities JE41218. Limestone. Height 122 cm. Preserved in one piece from right shoulder to mid-thigh. Stanwick 2002, B11, 24-25, 28, 39, 57; Thiers 2002, 392394 (all authors: Ptolemy VI). From Karnak according to the Cairo Museum Journal d’Entrée. The exact find spot unknown. An over life-size torso wearing a plain shendyt, with traces of a broad collar around the neck. Positioned in a traditional striding pose. The back pillar is preserved, and has a Hieroglyphic inscription with the cartouche of Ptolemy VI. 64. Fragments of standing queen (Cleopatra III?), from Karnak, second century BC Karnak 77 (Caracol R177). Limestone. Height 88 cm. Preserved from waist to thighs. The statue has been identified as belonging to a second fragment which is preserved from the head to the waist with the face missing (Cheikh Labib 94CL1421).

61: Standing Ptolemaic king, from Karnak, fourth-third century BC (Cairo JE36708; Stanwick 2002, A36, 166; © National Museum of Port Said)

Lauffray 1971, 71 (Cleopatra II); Bianchi 1980, 11 (usurped statue; Cleopatra II); Quaegebeur 1989a, 103 134

Catalogue

(Cleopatra); Stanwick 2002, B14, 60 (Cleopatra II); Thiers 2002, 389-392. Excavated by Lauffray et al in 1969. The statue fragment was found in a pit near the Roman chapel, south of the first pylon of the temple of Amun (see plan for approximate location). An over life-size statue in a traditional striding pose. Wears a close-fitting pleated garment with a fringe border, and two ribbon-like sashes running down the thighs. The back pillar has a single column of Hieroglyphs. The inscription contains names and titles which are associated with a number of Ptolemaic Queens, especially Cleopatra II. Second Fragment: Cheikh Labib 94CL2421: The fragment wears a tripartite wig, diadem and a broad collar, and has been associated with the Karnak fragment due to the similarity of the inscriptions both in epigraphy and content. No provenance. No image. *65. Augustus as Pharaoh - 30 BC - AD 14, from Karnak Cairo, Museum of Egyptian Antiquities CG701. Granite. Height 280 cm, Head Height 39 cm, Face Height 26 cm. Preserved in one piece. Broken through left shin and right knee but repaired. The ankles, feet, and base are restorations. Borchardt 1930, 44 (Ptolemy or later): Michalowski 1935, 75-76 (early Roman); PM II 1972, 283 (Alexander IV); Grimm and Johannes 1975, no.13, 3, 18-9, pl14-5 (secondfirst century BC); Kyrieleis 1975, E1, 571 (Ptolemy V); Strocka 1980, 177-180 (Augustus – Actium type); Kiss 1984, 42-43 (Tiberius); Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 2 n.7 (Augustus – Actium type); Smith 1988, 92 n.35 (Augustus); Hölbl, 2000, 12 (Augustus); Stanwick 2002, G2, 61, 88-89 (Augustus). Traditionally acknowledged as originating from Karnak. No find-spot is recorded. An over life-size statue standing in the traditional pose wearing a plain nemes, ureaus, and shendyt, with Romanstyle forehead hair and facial features. The statue is missing an additional attribute from the top of the head, which the back pillar would have reached. Actium type hairstyle identifies this as a statue of Augustus, not a Ptolemy. 66. Six inscribed bases for different Emperors, from Karnak, first century AD (No Image: see fig. 20) Unknown Material: Various measurements. preserved in one piece with weathering.

Each 65: Augustus as Pharaoh - 30 BC - AD 14, from Karnak (Cairo CG701; Stanwick 2002, G2, 213; © Paul Stanwick)

Chevrier ASAE 39, 1939-40; Jouguet ASAE 39, 1939, 603605; Lauffray 1971, 118-121 and 141-142; Pfeiffer 2010, 142-143.

135

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Excavated by Chevrier in 1939 and further by Lauffray in 1968-70, this is a group of six statue bases with inscriptions. The bases stood in the small Imperial Chapel located outside the first pylon on the dromos of Karnak. Fourteen bases have been identified lining the cella walls, but only six have inscriptions identifying their occupants. The chapel itself was a prostyle-tetrastyle temple with Corthinian capitals.

E Second base to Claudius, Centre against west cella wall Approx. Length 120 cm Width 70 cm. Lines: 3. Lauffray 1971, no.5, 142. This base is one of four to have remains the feet of statues Τιβέ[ρ]ιον Κλα̣ύδ̣ιο̣ ν̣ ̣ Καίσαρα Σεβαστον [Γερ]μ̣ανικον αὐτοκράτορα

The inscriptions are all written in Greek in red paint on the front of the bases, which were painted white. A number of bases retain the remains of feet, or outlines for the placing of statues

‘Tibe[r]ius Claudius Kaisar Augustus [Ger]manicus Imperator.’ F Third base to Claudius, northern corner of cella

A First base to Augustus as Zeus Eleutherios, on south side of cella

Approx. Length 110 cm Width 50 cm. Lines: 4. Lauffray 1971, no.6, 142. One of four bases to hold the remains of feet.

Approx. Length. 60 cm Width. 60 cm. Lines: 4. Jouguet 1939, no.1, 603-4.

[...]Τιβέριου Κ̣λαύδ[ιου] Καίσαρος Σεβάστου [...] αὐτο̣κρ̣ ά̣ τ̣ορ̣ ος μεχει[ρ] ἐπ̣ι̣ Λου̣[κι]ο̣υ...

Καίσαρα Αὐτοκράτ[ο]ρα θε[οῦ υἱὸν Δία Ἐλευθέ-] ριο[ν] Σεβαστὸν

‘…Tiberius Claud[ius] Kaisar Augustus [...] Imperator set up in the office of Lu[ci]us.’

‘(...set up) Imperat[o]r Kaisar, [son of a god] Augustus Eleutherios Zeus.’ B Second base to Augustus as Zeus Eleutherios, on north side of cella

Philae

Approx. Length 60 cm Width. 60 cm. Lines: 4. Jouguet 1939, no.2, 604.

Site 26: Philae is the island sanctuary of Isis located near Aswan. Throughout the 19th century the sanctuary was submerged by annual floods, and was completely submerged with the construction of the High Dam. The structures were all rescued in 1980, and erected on the nearby island of Agilkia on their original alignment. The material on the site dates from the fourth century BC, but Philae is primarily a Ptolemaic creation. It was under Ptolemy II that the main temple building to Isis was constructed, and then continued with additions by later kings. The island was also an important cult centre for the Nubians, who erected a temple to Arsenuphis. There are constructions by the southern rival pharaohs to the Ptolemies, Hurgonaphor and Channophris. Construction continued into the Imperial period. Other constructions on the island include a temple to Hathor, a Kiosk, two classically inspired colonnades, a temple to Augustus, and two gates of Hadrian and Diocletian. The Temple of Isis was one of the last temples to be closed by Justinian around AD 535.

Καίσαρα Αὐτοκράτορα θεοῦ υἱὸν Δία Ἐλευθέριον Σεβαστὸν ‘(...set up) Imperator Kaisar, son of a god, Augustus Eleutherios Zeus.’ C Base to Titus, on south side of cella Approx. Length 80 cm Width 80 cm. Lines: 2. Jouguet 1939, no.3, 605. Θεοῦ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ υἱὸν θεὸν Τίτον ‘Theos Titus, son of Theos Vespasianus’ D First base to Claudius, on southern corner of cella Approx. Length 110 cm Width 50 cm. Lines: 3. Lauffray 1971, no.4, 142. Κα̣ίσ[αρος] Αὐτο̣[κράτορος] ἐπὶ [Λο̣υκιου] ‘(image/statue?) of Auto[krator] Kais[ar] in (the office of) [Lucius].’

136

Catalogue

Site 26. Plan of the Island of Philae (Bagnall and Rathbone, 2004, fig 8.10.2, 245; and Griffith Institute, Oxford)

137

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

67. Statue base for Ptolemy VI - 180-146 BC, from Philae

*68. Statue base for Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra II, and Son - 180146 BC, from Philae

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 2. Black Granite. Height 12.8 cm, Width 28.1 cm, Depth 40.4 cm. Preserved in one piece with remains of the left foot and right toes. Back broken off.

Philae, Isis Temple. Granite. Height 55 cm, Width 120 cm, Depth 68 cm; statue supports holes, left to right, 60 x 30 cm, 40 x 20 cm, 50 x 28 cm. Preserved in one piece.

Maspero Revue Archaeologique, 1883, 176; Bernand 1969, no.10, 113-115 (before Ptolemy VI’s marriage to Cleopatra II); Bernand 1982, 30 (before Ptolemy VI’s marriage to Cleopatra II); Stanwick 2002, B12, 26 (Ptolemy VI).

Sayce 1895; Weigall 1907, 56; Bernand 1969, no.12, 121-126; Bernand 1982, 30; Stanwick, 2002 B13, 36, 47 (all authors: Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II). Discovered by Sayce and Lord Amherst of Hackney in 1895 at the north end of the island of el-Hesa where it was used as an altar support in a Coptic Sanctuary. A number of other Ptolemaic artefacts were recovered from the island, including a naos of Ptolemy IX and some Greek and Demotic texts. Sayce suggested that the base belonged to a temple on elHesa, but subsequent investigation found no traces of such a structure. The base is most likely from the temple of Isis on Philae to the north. The inscription on the base mentions the chief deities of the island (Isis and Horus). It is similar to another base associated with the island, 67.

Purchased by Maspero in Aswan on March 10th 1883. The base was being used as the back of a bench for a boutique. The base most likely originated from Philae because the inscription mentions the two chief deities of the temple (Isis and Horus). It is also similar to another base associated with the island 68. Front part of a rectangular base for an approximately lifesize statue. There are two lines of a Greek inscription on the front. The third line is blank. The inscription is recessed lower than the surface level of the base, suggesting was recarved. A base for a statue of Ptolemy VI.

In the late 19th century the base was moved to Philae, and stands in front of a small entrance to the west of the hypostyle hall.

Βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον, θεὸν Φιλομήτορα, Ἶσις καὶ Ὧρος

A rectangular base with three rectangular holes for approximately life-size statues. Given the difference in the size of the holes, Bernand suggests they held (from left to right) Ptolemy VI, the child, and Cleopatra II. There are three lines of Greek and two of Demotic on the front. Because of its depth, it appears that the third line of the Greek inscription is a later addition. Statue group for Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra II, and their son, (Ptolemy Eupator?)

‘To King Ptolemy, mother-loving god, (in honour of) Isis and Horus.’461

Βασιλέα Πτολέμαῖον καὶ Βασίλισσαν Κλεοπάτραν θεοὺς Φιλομήτορας, καὶ Πτολεμαῖον τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῶν Ἶσις καὶ Ὧρος ‘King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra, mother-loving gods, and Ptolemy their son, (in honour of) Isis and Horus.’462

462 Stanwick 2002, 108-109 translates as: ‘(Statue of) King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra, mother-loving gods, and Ptolemy their son, (set up by) Isis and Horus’.

Stanwick 2002,108 translates as: ‘(Statue of) King Ptolemy, motherloving god, (set up by) Isis and Horus’.

461

138

Catalogue

67: Statue base for Ptolemy VI - 180-146 BC, from Philae (Graeco-Roman Museum 2; Bernand 1969, no.10, pl 33)

68: Statue base for Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra II, and Son -180-146 BC, from Philae (Philae; Bernand 1969, no.12, pl 33)

and Lageion, the late Roman site of Kom el-Dikka, the Heptastadion, numerous necropoleis, and many standalone finds (some of the major sites are labelled on the map below). Recent excavation by Goddio has also allowed a fuller understanding of the ancient coastline and structures that occupied the area around Cape Lochias and the Great Harbour. Literary sources have also provided a picture of Alexandria, and refer to a large Gymnasium, Caesareum, the Pharos Lighthouse, and a variety of temples.

Alexandria Site 27: Alexandria is located on the Mediterraean coast of Egypt, 15 km west of Canopus. Traditionally, its foundation is dated to 331 BC by Alexander the Great. The city was the capital of Egypt throughout the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods. Areas of the city have been excavated throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, producing a road plan of the city and a number of sites, including the Serapeum

139

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

Site 28.1: A map of the street layout of Alexandria in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. Labelled with the find spots of the Ptolemaic material (Bagnall and Rathbone, 2004, fig 2.1.1, 52; and Judith McKenzie)

Site 28.2: A map of the street layout of Alexandria in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. Labelled with the find spots of the Roman material (Bagnall and Rathbone, 2004, fig 2.1.1, 52; and Judith McKenzie)

140

Catalogue

69 A: West Serapeum Sphinx, from Alexandria, early fourth-late third century BC (Serapeum, Alexandria; ©Author)

69 B: East Serapeum Sphinx, from Alexandria, early fourth-late third century BC (Serapeum, Alexandria; ©Author)

*69. Serapeum Sphinxes (West and East), from Alexandria, early fourth-late third century BC

from top of head to base of neck. Nose and nemes wings broken from fall.

Alexandria, The Serapeum. Pink Granite. East Sphinx: Height 2.20 cm, Base Height 32.5 cm. West Sphinx: Height 2.22 cm, Base Height 33 cm. Both preserved in one piece with broken noses, and damaged nemes, ureaus, and front feet.

Breccia 1932, 20 (New Kingdom); Tkaczow 1993, no.152, 242 (19th Dynasty); El-Fattah and Gallo 1998, 13 n.18 (Ptolemaic); Stanwick 2002, A34, 68 (Ptolemaic).

Breccia 1907, 72-74; Rowe 1957, 493, 508 (Pharaonic); ESLP 1960, 147, 148 (Ptolemy VI); Tkaczow 1993, no.11, 188-189 (Ptolemaic); Stanwick 2002, A33, 16-17, 68; Savvopoulos 2011, no.1, 107, 295 (late fourth-early third century BC).

Found in the Eastern suburb of Abu Nawatir in 1910 during the digging of the foundations of the residence of

Excavated by Breccia in 1906 in Abu Mandur St which runs along the south side of the Serapeum. The sphinxes were found lying on the same side, parallel to each other, but with the East Sphinx 1 metre deeper. They were found with a number of artefacts including a second century BC Greek inscription and the marble heads of the Serapeum Queen (77) and Serapis. Both Sphinxes are sculpted in a similar style. The West Sphinx wears a plain nemes and its tail curls around the left haunch. The East Sphinx wears a banded nemes and its tail curls around the right haunch. They represent two different kings. The sphinxes are dated stylistically to the late fourth/early third century BC. 70. Colossal head of king, from Alexandria, fourth-third century BC

70: Colossal head of king, from Alexandria, fourththird century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 23048; Tkaczow 1993, no.152; ©Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria)

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 23048 and 23049 = G.534. Red granite. Height 90 cm. Preserved in one piece

141

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

the British Ambassador. The Museum Journal d’Entree states the head was found in Moustapha Pasha. Further exploration of the surrounding area uncovered part of a necropolis and a number of objects from the second century AD.

The lower portion and base of an over-life size triad. Three pairs of feet remain, each equal distance from the edge. The left figure is preserved to mid-calf wearing an ankle-length pleated garment. A multicolumn Hieroglyphic inscription on the back and sides of the seat contain Ptolemy II’s name. The group is identified as representing Ptolemy II on the right, Arsinoe II on the left, and Amun in the centre.

A colossal head wearing a plain nemes and ureaus. Remains of pigtail suggest it came from a sphinx. The distinctive facial features, and close association with 30th Dynasty types, identifies this as belonging to the fourth to third century BC.

*72. Statue base dedicated to Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, from Alexandria Alexandria, The Serapeum. Granite (?). Height c.28 cm, Width c.87 cm, Depth unknown. Preserved in one piece. Much abrasion and cracking.

71. Statue base of Triad of Ptolemy II, Arsinoe II, and Amun, from Alexandria, third century BC

OGIS 32; Rowe 1957, 510; Bernand 1982, 32; Tkaczow 1993, no.37, 200 (third century BC); Bernand 2001, no.10, 38-40; Stanwick 2002, A15, 38, 39; Savvopoulos 2011, no.4, 108, 295 (all authors: Arsinoe II).

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 11261. Black Granite. Height 79 cm, Base Height 34.4 cm. Preserved in one piece. Broken diagonally from left to right. Botti 1902, 95; ESPL 1960, xxxvi, 122; Sauneron 1960, 83-109 (argues for Canopus as context); Tkaczow 1993, no.2, 183-184 (third century BC); Quaegebeur 1998, no.1, 75, 85 (270-264 BC); Stanwick 2002, A10, 18 (Ptolemy II); Savvopoulos 2011, no.3, 108, 298 (Ptolemy II); Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, no.28, 98-99 (Ptolemy II, Amun, and Arsinoe II).

Statue base visible in the substructure of Diocletian’s Column in the Serapeum. The base was most likely reused during its construction. A rectangular base. Style of statue is indeterminate. Two lines of Greek inscription on the front.

According to the Graeco-Roman Museum Journal d’Entree, the base originated in the Anfouchy District at Chader el-Nattikh on the Pharos island. This has been identified by Sauneron as Chader el Battikh, now El Saied Mohammed Koraiem St just above the Abbas Muris Mosque (Sauneron, 1960, 104-5). Sauneron also argues that the triad originated from Canopus.

Ἀ̣ρσ̣ ι̣ ν̣ ό̣ η̣ ν̣ ̣ Φιλάδελφον Θ̣έστωρ Σατύρου Ἀλεξανδρεύς ‘Arsinoe Philadelphos, Thestor son of Satyros, the Alexandrian’463

463 Bernand 2001, no.10, 38 translates as: ‘(Statue of) Arsinoe Philadelphos (set up by) Thestoe son of Satyros, the Alexandrian’.

71: Statue base of Triad Statue of Ptolemy II, Arsinoe II, and Amun, from Alexandria, third century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 11261; Stanwick 2002, A10, 159; ©Paul Stanwick)

142

Catalogue

72: Statue base dedicated to Arsinoe II - c.279-270 BC, from Alexandria (Serapeum, Alexandria; Bernand 2001, no.10, pl 4; ©Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental, facsimilé G. Lefebvre)

73. Statue base of female (Arsinoe II?), from Alexandria, third century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 14941. Granite. Height 110 cm. Preserved in one piece from knees through to base of statue. Surface worn. Botti 1897, 110 and 125; Botti 1900, 182 (Arsinoe II); Breccia 1914 186; Tkcazow 1993, no.7 (Ptolemaic); Savvopoulos 2011, no.5, 108-9, 295 (Arsinoe II); Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, no.32, 108-109 (third century BC). The Graeco-Roman museum register identifies this base as coming from Rhakotis. Botti, who discovered the base in 1896, specifies the Serapeum (which he mistakenly identifies as the Iseum) as the exact location. The find spot is not recorded. The bottom part of an Egyptian style statue with base. The statue is cut off at the knees and stands with the left leg forward in the traditional pose. The feet of the statue form one piece with the undecorated base. The statue is identified as female from the long thin robe, which has been compared to that of the triad of Ptolemy II, Arsinoe II, and Amun (72). Identified as Ptolemaic due to similarity to the traid and the statue of Arsinoe II in the Vatican (36).

73: Statue base of female (Arsinoe II?), from Alexandria, third century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 14941; Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2013, no.32 ©Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria) 143

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

74. Head of queen (Berenike II?), from Alexandria, third century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 3466. Marble. Height 34 cm. Head preserved in one piece from top of hair to base of neck. Has been broken diagonally across the head from left to right, but only on the face. General weathering. Breccia 1907, (Berenike II); Breccia 1914, 100 (Berenike II); Tkaczow 1993, no.8, 187 (third-second century BC). Found during excavations of the Serapeum by Breccia in 1905-6. Two locations are given for its find spot; first by Breccia in 1907, who identifies it as coming from the area around Diocletian’s Column; second in 1914, in the northeastern part of the complex at the bottom of a set of stairs. A life-size head with idealised features. The hair is loose and wavy and drawn around the ears to the base of the neck. The eyes are incised and may have traces of polychromy. The head is dated stylistically to the third to second century BC. It is identified by Breccia as Berenike II due to the hairstyle and the links of that Queen with the sanctuary.

74: Head of queen (Berenike II?), from Alexandria, third century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 3466; Tkaczow 1993, no.8 ©GraecoRoman Museum, Alexandria)

*75. Serapeum queen, Arsinoe III - 221-204 BC, from Alexandria Alexandria, National Museum 3908. Marble. Height 46 cm, Head Height 28 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to part of the bust, worked for insertion into a statue. The nose is broken. The right eyebrow and upper lip are chipped. Top and back of head are rough. Breccia 1907, 72; Breccia, 1914, 100; Lawrence JEA 11, 185; Kyrieleis 1980, 383-387 (Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III); Smith 1988, no.52, 89, 92 (third or second century); Tkaczow 1993, 188, no.10 (Ptolemaic); Empereur et al 1998b, 157; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.54, 75 (Berenike II?); Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, no.22, 78-79 (Berenike II?). Excavated by Breccia in 1905-6 in Abu Mandur St which runs along the south of the Serapeum. The head was found in the same trench as the Serapeum Sphinxes (70) and a head of Serapis. Through stylistic and technical features the head is identified as forming a group with the head of Serapis and that of a male king (77). Kyrieleis suggests the group was positioned King-God-Queen so that both the monarchs were both turned toward Serapis. The head of a female portrait statue. The head is tilted, with the eyes looking upwards, and wears a diadem. The hair is pulled back from the face, softly modelled in waves. There are traces of red-brown polychromy on the hair. Through style and portrait features, especially comparisons with other heads including 28C, the head is dated to thirdsecond centuries BC and identified as Arsinoe III.

75: Serapeum queen, Arsinoe III - 221-204 BC, from Alexandria (Alexandria Museum 3908; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.54, 61; ©National Museum of Alexandria)

144

Catalogue

Botti, 1902, 94-95; Tkaczow 1993, no.42, 203; Bernand 2001, no.26, 71-73; Stanwick 2002, B4, 36; Savvopoulos 2011, no.7, 109 (all authors: Ptolemy V).

76. Serapeum king, Ptolemy IV - 221-205 BC, no provenance Paris, Louvre MA3168. Marble. Height 45 cm, Head Height 30 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base of neck. Chin and nose have been removed.

Found in 1902 in the structure of the Arab walls near the Rosetta gate on the North side of Horeya Street.

Kyrieleis 1980, 383-387 (Ptolemy IV); Smith 1988, no.51, 92; Empereur et al 1998, 156; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.53, 75 (Ptolemy III?).

A rectangular base dedicated to Ptolemy V and his parents. Botti identified the base as belonging to an Egyptian triad group. There is no evidence of a hieroglyphic inscription and the style is indeterminate. Dated to the second century BC and dedicated to Ptolemy V, Ptolemy IV, and Arsinoe III. Contains seven lines of a Greek inscription on the shorter side.

No provenance. The head has been associated stylistically by Kyrieleis and Smith with the Serapeum Queen and the Head of Serapis, both discovered by Breccia at the Alexandrian Serapeum in 1905-6. The head of the king forms part of a royal and divine group, as illustrated by Kyrieleis.

[Βασιλέα Π]τολεμαῖον Θεὸν Ἑπιφανῆ καὶ Εὐχάριστο[ν] [καὶ τοὺ]ς τούτου γονεῖς βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον καὶ [βασίλ]ισσαν Ἀρσινόην, θεοὺς Φιλοπάτορας ...ώτης Ὥρου καὶ Τεαρόως ἀδελφὸς λαάρχαι κ̣αὶ̣ ἡγεμόνες τῶν περὶ αὐ(λ)ὴν ἐπιλέκτων μαχίμων, εὐεργεσίασ ἕνεκεν τῆς εἰς αὑτοὺς καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους

The head of a king. The head is tilted, with the eyes looking upwards to the left, and wears a diadem. The hair is modelled. The head is dated stylistically, from portrait features, and association with the Serapeum Queen, to the third to second century BC. It most likely represents Ptolemy IV due to the relationship of that king with the Serapeum.

‘[King Pt]olemy god manifest and of good grace [and his] parents King Ptolemy and [Queen] Arsinoe, father-loving gods (set up by)…ōtes, son of Hōros, and his brother Tearoōs, laarchi and commanders of the select indigenous soldiers of the court, for their benefactions to them and their relatives’

77. Base dedicated to Ptolemy V and his parents - 204-181 BC, from Alexandria (No Image) Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 54. Red Granite. Height 42 cm, Width 75 cm, Depth 108 cm. Preserved in one piece. Top left-hand corner destroyed. Has undergone much weathering and abrasion.

77: Base and illustration of base dedicated to Ptolemy V and his parents - 204-181 BC, from Alexandria (Graeco-Roman Museum 54; Bernand 2001, no.26, pl 11; ©Institut Français d’Archéologie Oriental)

145

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

A. Standing queen

*78. Pharos colossi group, from Alexandria, second-first century BC

Alexandria, Maritime Museum. Granite. Head/Torso Height 288 cm, Hips/Legs Height 368 cm, Hathor Headdress Height 190 cm.

Granite: Various Measurements: Max: Height 455 cm. Min: 70 cm. Preserved in a number of fragments, which can be identified as five/six statues. All have severe weathering.

Tkaczow 1993, no.1, 183; Empereur 1998a, 76-77; Walker and Higgs 2001, 24b, 58; Stanwick 2002, C27, 73-74; Savvopoulos 2011, no.12, 111.

Empereur 1995, 756-757; 1996, 967-968; 1998a, 7677; Stanwick 2002, C21, 73-74; McKenzie 2007, 44; Savopoulos 2011, no.12-19, 111-114, 299.

Found in 1961 on the sea bed around the Eastern point of the Qait Bey Fort.

This is a group of five, more likely six, colossal statues and their bases. The group was found in situ east of the Qait Bey Fort, the eastern point of the Pharos Island. The statues were found alongside more than 3000 architectural fragments, including examples of dynastic statuary. Fragments of the statues remain underwater and represent three royal Ptolemaic couples. In his report, Empereur suggests these statues stood at the foot of the lighthouse to be seen by those entering Alexandria, though there is no evidence for this. The group is dated stylistically to the second century BC due to the best preserved male head identified as Ptolemy VIII and the presence of Greek-style forehead hair on two of the statue heads.

A colossal statue of a Queen broken into three pieces, head and torso (image), hips and legs, and a Hathor headdress (found in 1995-6 excavations). The atatue wears a headdress, with corkscrew curls, a diadem, and ureaus. She wears a draped costume with an ‘Isis knot’ between the breasts. The eyes were inlaid but are now msising. The hands hold unknown objects. B. Head of king Alexandria, Kom el-Dikka 1321. Granite. Height 80 cm. Empereur 1995, 756-757; 1996, 967-968; 1998a, 76-77; Stanwick 2002, C23, 73-74; Savvopoulos, 2011, no.18, 114. Found in 1995-6 in the harbour east of the Qait Bey Fort. A colossal head broken at the neck. The head is extremely weathered and few features remain. The head wears a

78A: Standing queen from Pharos colossi group, from Alexandria, second-first century BC (Maritime Museum; Stanwick 2002, C27, 190; and Centre d’Études Alexandrines)

78B: Head of king from Pharos colossi group, from Alexandria, second-first century BC (Kom el Dikka 1312; and Author) 146

Catalogue

nemes and has holes for an additional crown. It may also have had Greek-style forehead hair. The statue had inlaid eyes that are now missing. C. Standing king Outside the Alexandria Library (Kom el-Dikka 1001, 1999, and 3200), Alexandria. Granite. Height 455 cm (without head or crown). Empereur 1995, 756-757; 1996, 967-968; 1998a, 76-77; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.24a, 58; Stanwick 2002, C22, 73-74; Savvopoulos 2011, 17, 113. Found in 1995-6 in the harbour east of the Qait Bey Fort. A colossal king broken into four pieces: the double crown, head, left upper arm, and torso from the neck to the thighs. The front of the head is weathered. The statue stands in a traditional pose with the arms by the sides and the left leg forward. The statue wears the double crown, nemes, and shendyt, and has Greek-style forehead hair.

78D: Torso of queen from Pharos colossi group, from Alexandria, second-first century BC (Kom el Dikka 1005; © Author) D. Torso of queen Alexandria, Kom el-Dikka 1005. Granite. Height 125 cm. Empereur 1996, 967-968; 1998a, 77, 80-81; Stanwick 2002, C25, 73-74; Savvopoulos 2011, no.16, 112. Found in 1995-6 in the harbour east of the Qait Bey Fort. A colossal torso including shoulders through to abdomen. The torso is extremely weathered and wears a pleated garment with an ‘Isis knot’ between the breasts. E. Weathered head of king Alexandria, Kom el-Dikka 1314. Granite. Height 70 cm. Empereur 1996, 967-968; 1998a, 76-77; Stanwick 2002, C24, 73-74; Savvopoulos 2011, no.19. Found in 1995-6 in the harbour east of the Qait Bey Fort. A colossal head with almost no facial markings. The head wears a nemes. F. Hips/Thighs fragment Alexandria, Kom el-Dikka 1583. Granite. Height 110 cm. Empereur 1995, 756-757; 1996, 967-968; 1998a, 76-77; Stanwick 2002, C26, 73-74; Savvopoulos 2011, no.15, 112. Found in 1995-6 in the harbour east of the Qait Bey Fort. A colossal fragment of abdomen and upper thigh with remains of a broken back pillar. The figure is draped and it is difficult to determine the sex.

78C: Standing king from Pharos colossi group, from Alexandria, second-first century BC (Outside Alexandria Library Kom el Dikka 1001, 1999, 3200; © Author) 147

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

78E: Weathered head of king from Pharos colossi group, from Alexandria, second-first century BC (Kom el Dikka 1314; © Author)

78F: Hips/Thighs fragment from Pharos colossi group, from Alexandria, second-first century BC (Kom el Dikka 1583; © Author) in date. Other remains were also visible and the rock at the edge of the water were cut in such a way to indicate a great building of some kind.’ (Wilkinson, 1843, 169)

79. Dyad, from Alexandria, second-first century BC A) King: Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 11275. Granite. Height 130 cm, Face Height 61 cm. Perserved in numberous fragments. Most of crown and ureaus broken. Nose smashed. Right nemes wings partially restored. Left leg preserved. Generally abraded.

A colossal Standing Dyad with the king on the right and the queen on the left, clasping hands (fragment survives).

B) Queen: Mariemont Museum B.505. Granite. Height 300 cm, Head Height 90 cm. Preserved in one piece from partial Hathor headdress through to half of left upper arm. Nose broken. Generally abraded. (No Image) Wilkinson 1843, 169; PM IV, 3; Van de Walle 1952, 2931; Smith 1988, no.81, 87, 97; Tkaczow 1993, no.29, 196197; Walker and Higgs 2001, 153; Stanwick 2002, E1 and E2, 18, 60 (Ptolemy XII); Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, no.29, 100-103 (divine couple). Discovered in pieces by Harris in 1840. The dyad was found in the Hadra area near the Rosetta Gate in the ruins of a large, but poorly documented, Ptolemaic building. Wilkinson describes his and Pococke’s view of the structure: ‘saw here a few columns, 3 feet in diameter, there shattered sphinxes of yellow marble, a female statue of red granite 12 feet high with a fragment of a colossal male figure. Nearby there were remains of what was evidently a portico and a little to the south, a great number of granite columns which, if judged by their position, belonged to a round temple. For the most part, the columns were fluted, had a 3 feet diameter and were, of course, Ptolemaic and Roman

79A: Dyad king, from Alexandria, second-first century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum 11275; Stanwick 2002, E1, 202; ©DAI Cairo) 148

Catalogue

A) The king wears a hm-hm crown, nemes, and ureaus. The statue has Greek-style forehead hair. Dated stylistically to the second to first century BC.

81. Fragment of Statue base of a Cleopatra (Cleopatra VII?), from Alexandria, second-first century BC (No Image) Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 44. Marble. Height 10 cm, Width 13 cm. Preserved in one piece?

B) The queen wears a tripartite wig, ureaus modius, and vulture cap. The statue is purely pharaonic. (No Image).

Botti 1902, 95-6 (Cleopatra IV); Breccia 1911, no.43 (Cleopatra II); Tkaczow 1993, no.47 A, 205 (second-first century BC); Bernand 2001, no.39, 111-112 (second-first century BC; Cleopatra III or IV?).

80. Fragmentary statue of Ptolemy IX/X, from Alexandria, first century BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum P.12072. Granite. Height 65 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to below chest. The ears, nose, and lips are damaged. The right arm is broken at biceps and the left at the shoulder.

Found during the excavations of Botti between 1900-1902 at Hatt en-Nar, part of the Hadra Necropolis. The fragment of a marble base. The base has four lines of a Greek inscription identifying the queen as a Cleopatra. It is dated to the second to first century BC and there is debate as to which Cleopatra it is (Cleopatra II to Cleopatra VII).

Smith 1988, 96 n.65 (Ptolemy IX-X); Kiss 1995, 59 (Roman); Grimm 1998, 124 (Ptolemy X?); Walker and Higgs 2001, no.27, 60-1 (Ptolemy IX-X); Stanwick 2002, D20, 78 (Ptolemy X); Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, no.46, 144-147 (later Ptolemy).

[Βασίλισσαν Κλεο]πάτραν [τὴν ἐμ Βασιλέως] Πτολεμαίου [καὶ Βασιλίσσης Κλ]εοπάτρας [θεῶν...] Νουμήνιος

According to the Journal d-Entrée, the statue was found in the Sidi-Biche area, an eastern suburb of Alexandria. Walker and Higgs state that the statue was excavated from the Miami area of the city, found during the digging of foundations for a house on the intersection of Eskander Ibrahin Street and Hefney Nasef Street. The statue was found with several Hellenistic period ‘common wares’.

‘[Queen Cleo]patra, [daughter of King] Ptolemy [and Queen Cl]eopatra, [gods…] (dedicated by) Noumenios’ 82. Late Ptolemaic Sphinx, from Alexandria, first century BC

A life-size king with Greek-style forehead hair, a plain nemes, and a ureaus. The back pillar reaches the armpits. Attributed to Ptolemy IX or X due to facial features compared with clay seals from Edfu.

Alexandria, Maritime Museum SCA451. Diorite. Height 75 cm, Length 140 cm. Preserved in one piece. Weathered. Kiss 1998, 172; Goddio and Bernand 2004, 96; EST 2006, no.461; Savvopoulos 2011, no.20, 115, 299. Found in situ by Goddio et al on the south-west slope of the Antirhodos island along with another sphinx (84). The area had a large concentration of red granite columns and limestone paving. A statue of an Isis priest was also recovered from the area. A badly corroded Sphinx and base with the left foot broken. The sphinx wears a ureaus and nemes, and has a plait running along the back. The tail lies along the base to the right. Dated from the sculptural style, especially the tail, and the surrounding late period material as belonging to the second to first century BC. 83. Ptolemaic Sphinx (Ptolemy XII?), from Alexandria, first century BC Alexandria, Roman Theatre SAC457. Granite. Height 70 cm, Length 150 cm. Preserved in one piece. The front of the legs and base broken off. Weathered. Kiss 1998, 173; Goddio and Bernand 2004, 96; EST, 2006, cat no.462; Savvopoulos 2011, no.21, 115, 299.

80: Fragmentary statue of Ptolemy IX/X, from Alexandria, first century BC (Graeco-Roman Museum P.12072; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.27, 60; ©Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria)

Found in situ by Goddio et al on the south-west slope of the Antirhodos island along with a second sphinx (83). The area had a large concentration of red granite columns and

149

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

limestone paving. A statue of Hermes and a priest was also recovered from the area.

with its tail curling around the left haunch. Dated from the sculptural style, especially the tail, and the surrounding late period material as belonging to the second to first century BC. Identified by excavators as possibly being Ptolemy XII.

A near complete sphinx with only the front of the paws and base missing. The sphinx wears a nemes and ureaus, with a plait running along its back. It is finely modelled

82: Late Ptolemaic Sphinx, from Alexandria, first century BC (Maritime Museum SCA451; Goddio EST 2006, no.461, 147; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

83: Late Ptolemaic Sphinx (Ptolemy XII?), from Alexandria, first century BC (Roman Theatre SCA 457; Goddio EST 2006, no.462, 52; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation) 150

Catalogue

84. Colossal late Ptolemaic head (Caesarion?), from Alexandria, first century BC Alexandria, Roman Theatre SCA88. Granite. Height 80 cm, Width 60 cm, Depth 50 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base of neck. Nose and ureaus broken. Weathered. Kiss 1998, 175-177; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.172, 174; Goddio and Bernand 2004, 118; EST 2006, cat no.463; Savvopoulos 2011, no.23, 116, 299. Excavated from the submerged coastline facing the Antirhodos island by Goddio et al. It was found with a number of other artefacts including a badly damaged sphinx. The head of a colossal statue. The head wears a nemes and ureaus, and has Greek-style forehead hair and facial features. Dated stylistically to the first century BC. Identified by Kiss and Goddio as Ptolemy XV Caesarion due to hairstyle and fleshiness of the face. 84: Colossal late Ptolemaic head (Caesarion?), from Alexandria, first century BC (Roman Theatre SCA 88; Goddio EST 2006, no.463, 55; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

85. Statue base to M. Antonius, from Alexandria, 28th December 34 BC Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum No.10. Granite. Height 28.5 cm, Length 75 cm, Depth 68.5 cm. Preserved in one piece. General erosion. Wescher 1866, 199-201; Botti 1900, no.10, 254; Breccia 1911, no.42; Tkaczow 1993, no.43, 203; Bernand 2001, no.36, 102-5; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.213, 232; Savvopolous 2011, no.26, 117 (all authors: Marc Anthony)

them as a specific structure. (Tkaczow, 1993, site no. 4951) A rectangular undecorated granite base with five lines of Greek inscription on the front and a foot holes on the upper surface. Identified as representing Marc Antony.

Found by Wescher in the area of the Caesareum in 1866, later clarified as next to the Ramleh tram station, east of the Obelisks. This entire area has produced a number of Imperial architectural fragments and remains of structures, though there is little evidence to securely identify any of

Ἀντώνιον μέγαν ἀμίμητον ἀφροδισίοις

85: Statue Base dedicated to M. Antoninus, from Alexandria, 28th December 34 BC (Graeco-Roman Museum no.10; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.213, 232; ©Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria)

151

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

*86. Head of Roman woman (Antonia Minor?), from Alexandria, first century BC - first century AD

Παράσιτος τὸν ἑαυτοῦ θεὸν[ε] κ̣αὶ εὐεργέτην ιδ τοῦ κ(αὶ) δ Χοιὰχ κθ

Alexandria, Alexandria Library SCA86. Marble. Height 35 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base of neck. Severely weathered.

‘Antony the Great, lover without peer, Parasitos (set this up) to his own god and benefactor, 29th day of Choiach, year 19’464

Kiss 1998, 186-7; Goddio and Bernand 2004, 135; EST 2006, cat no.465 (all authors: Antonia Minor).

Bernand 2001, no.36, 102-105 translates as: ‘(Statue of) Antony the Great, inimitable in love, (set up by) Parasitos to his god and benefactor, in the 19th year 4th month 29th Choiach’. 464

86: Head of Roman woman (Antonia Minor?), from Alexandria, first century AD (Alexandria Library SCA 86; Goddio EST 2006, no.465, 383; Photograph: Christoph Gerigk ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation) 152

Catalogue

Found by Goddio et al on the Peninsula, in the area identified as the Poseidoneion and Timonium.

89. Cuirassed statue of Marcus Aurelius - AD 161-180, from Alexandria

The head of a woman with a distinctive hairstyle parted in the middle and drawn round the sides over the ears to the base of the skull. Dated stylistically to first century BC/ first century AD. The distinctive hairstyle suggests the head represents Antonia Minor.

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 3250. Marble. Height 214 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base of statue. Weathered (broken at ankle?). Botti 1900, no.3, 484-5; Breccia 1914, 81-2; Graindor 1937, no.16, 56; Vermuele 1959, no.263, 65; Niemeyer 1968, no.60, 98-99; Kiss 1984, 65, fig. 147-9; Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, no.5, 38-40 (all authors: Marcus Aurelius).

87. Statue pedestal to Trajan - AD 98-117, from Alexandria (No Image) Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 15. Marble. Height 69 cm. Preserved in one piece.

Found in the foundations of the Zizinia Theatre in Alexandria in the 1880s. In the surrounding area were discovered the foundations and columns of a massive peristyle building, fragments of statues and bases, and a Hellenistic base re-used for a statue of the Emperor Valentinian. There are a number of Imperial architectural fragments and structures identifiable in this region, including the so-called Temple of Isis Plousia and a late Roman basilica (Tkaczow, 1993, site no.49-51, 103-4). The area has been identified as being close to, or part of, the Forum of Augustus and the Caesareum.

Botti 1900, no.15, 4; Breccia 1911, no.63, 47; Tkaczow 1993, no.233, 272-3; Kayser 1994, no.8, 35-6 (all authors: Trajan). Found in the entrance to the villa of Nubar Pasha in 1892 on Moharrem Bay near the Mahmudieh Canal. It was discovered with a number of Corinthian capitals and granite columns. Cube base for a statue dedicated to Trajan. There are five lines of Greek on the front side.

The statue portrays a colossal emperor in military dress. The figure stands with the weight on the right leg and the left at an angle. Though standing straight, the head is turned to the right. The statue is dressed in an ornate cuirass, with griffins and a gorgon on the front, and the tabs at the bottom are decorated with figures. The cloak is draped over the right arm. The head has tight curls and a beard. Acting as a support on the left is a cornucopia. The space below the cingulum on the cuirass has been altered with the addition of a christogram. Identified as Marcus Aurelius from the distinctive hairstyle and facial features.

Αὐτοκράτο[ρα Καίσαρα] θεοῦ Νέρου[α υἱὸν] Νέρουαν Τρ[αιανὸν] Σεβαστὸν Γέ[ρμανικὸν] Δακικὸν... ‘To the Imperat[or Kaisar], son of the [divine Nerva], Nerva Tr[ajan] Augustus, Victor of the Ge[rmans], Victor of the Dacians…’ 88. Statue base for Antoninus Pius, from Alexandria, dedicated AD 157 (No Image)

90. Togate statue of Marcus Aurelius - AD 161-180, from Alexandria

Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 25771. Marble. Height 88 cm, Depth 30 cm. Preserved in one piece.

London, British Museum 1906. Marble. Height 140 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base. Weathered.

Tkaczow 1993, Site no. 143, 174-5, no.235, 273.

Saint-Genis 1818, 45: Botti 1898, no.32, 128; Kiss 1984, 66; Tkaczow 1993, no.185, 254 (all authors: Marcus Aurelius).

Found at Moustapha Pasha in unknown circumstances in 1939. It was found in Camp Anglias, the British Barracks, which were located inside the castrum. This structure was variously described from the 16th-19th centuries, but was destroyed in 1871. A plan by Pococke shows it to be a typical late Roman castrum, and finds from the site suggest it dated to the second and third centuries AD, with later rebuilding.

Discovered in 1801 by the French around the Caesareum and Cape Lochias, near some ruins between the Obelisks and Silsileh. The statue was found with statue 92 of Septimius Severus. An over life-size marble statue of the emperor with tight curls and beard, wearing a toga. Identified through portrait features as Marcus Aurelius.

A large base or pedestal for a statue of an emperor. It is inscribed on three sides and traces of feet remain on top. The base records the erection of a statue of Antoninus Pius by the veterans of Legio III Traiana Fortis. Dedicated AD 157 to Antoninus Pius. The inscription is not published.

153

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

89: Cuirassed statue of Marcus Aurelius - AD 161-180, from Alexandria (Graeco-Roman Museum 3250; Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2013, no.5 ©Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria) Saint-Genis 1818, 45: Botti 1898, 128, no.34; Kiss 1984, 72; Tkaczow 1993, no.186, 254 (all authors: Septimius Severus).

91. Cuirassed statue of Septimius Severus - AD 194-211, from Alexandria Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 3608. Marble. Height 190 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base. General wear.

Discovered in 1801 by the French around the Caesareum and Cape Lochias, near some ruins between the Obelisks and Silsileh. The statue was found with statue 91 of Marcus Aurelius.

154

Catalogue

91: Cuirassed statue of Septimius Severus - AD 194-211, from Alexandria (Graeco-Roman Museum 3608; Tkaczow 1993, no.186; ©Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria)

An over life-size marble portrait in military dress. Identified through portrait features as Septimius Severus. 92. Pedestal for a statue to Julia Domna, from Alexandria, dedicated c.AD 210 (No Image) Missing? Marble. Wilkinson 1843, 167; Tkaczow 1993, no.216, 265 (all authors: Julia Domna). Discovered in the Gheneneh district of the city in 18412 in the gardens of the Latin Convent. The area includes a group of ruins including baths and a house, tentatively dated to the later Roman period. (Tkaczow, 1993, site no.19-21) Tkaczow states that this pedestal cannot be identified in the Graeco-Roman Museum, there is another similar base but the inscription is different. There is no translation of the text.

90: Togate Statue of Marcus Aurelius - AD 161-180, from Alexandria (British Museum 1906; Digital Image from British Museum, BM AN00391234_001; ©Trustees of the British Museum)

155

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

A white marble pedestal with 7 lines of inscription in Greek dedicated to Julia Domna around AD 210, reading:

The middle part of a statue base with three lines of a Greek inscription erecting a statue of Commodus by the city of Alexandria (similar to those found on the Antirhodos island - 95). There is evidence in the second line for the erasing of a previous inscription.

ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝΔΟΜΝΑΝΣΕΒΑΣΤΗΝ ΜΗΤΕΡΑΣΕΒΑΣΤΩΝΚΑΙΣΤΡΑΤΟΠΕΔΩΝ ΑΠΟΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΣ ΗΡΑΚΛΕΩΝΟΣΤΟΥΚΑΙΑΡΠΟΚΡΑΤΙΑΝΟΥ ΤΟΥΚΑΙΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥΚΑΙΑΡΕΙΑΣ ΤΗΣΚΑΙΣΑΡΑΠΙΑΔΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ. ΙΗ.ΦΑΡΜΟΥΘΙ.ΚΘ.

Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Μ. Αὐρήλιος Κόμμοδ[ος] ... τῇ π[όλει] ‘Imperator Kaisar M(arcus) Aurelius Commod[us]... by the c[ity]’

‘(Statue of) Julia Domna Augusta, mother of Augustus and the camps from the will of Herakleion, also called Harpokratianos and Alexandros, and Areira, also called Sarapias, in the 18th year, 29th Pharmouthis.’

94. A group of inscribed columnar statue bases to Commodus and Caracalla - AD 180-192 and AD 198-217, from Alexandria Alexandria, Roman Theatre. Red Granite. Various Dimensions: Max: Column Height 160 cm, Width 105 cm. Panel Height 107 cm. Min: Column Height 85 cm, Width 105 cm. Panel Height 100 cm. All preserved in one piece. Broken pieces of column.

93. Statue base to Commodus - AD 180-192, from Alexandria (No Image) Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 17516. Marble. Height 36 cm, Width 53 cm. Preserved in one piece. Incomplete.

Bernand 1998, 143-167; Goddio 2004, 91-2; EST, 2008 62-4, no.473-6.

Breccia 1905, 125; Breccia 1911, no.77, 56; Tkaczow 1993, no.225, 269; Keysar 1994, no.10 (all authors: Commodus).

During underwater excavations by Goddio et al in the Harbour of Alexandria, 8 column fragments with Greek inscriptions were discovered on a central paved esplanade of the site identified as the Antirhodos Island. Seven of these are identified as inscriptions dedicated to an emperor, with statues placed atop the columns. One has only a single

Found re-used in Arab fortifications around the Rosetta Gate. Breccia states the base was found ‘left of the gate’ with a range of other material including the statue of a gymnasiarch.

94A: Inscription to Commodus, from Alexandria, 1st-2nd January AD 198-190 (Roman Theatre; Bernand 1998, C116, 147; ©Franck Goddio/ Hilti Foundation, Photo: Christoph Gerigk) 156

Catalogue

word remaining and so is not included here (Bernand, 1998, no.2, 148: the word is ‘Lykopolis’). A number of other sculptures also came from the island, including two sphinxes 83 and 84. A Inscription to Commodus, 1st-2nd January AD 198-190 No.1 C116. Column: Height 137 cm, Diameter 105 cm. Panel: Width 107 cm. Lines 2. [Μ. Αὐρήλιον Κόμμοδον Ἀντωνῖνον Σεβαστὸν] ἐτ῾ Κΐντῳ Τινηίῳ Δημητρίῳ ἐπάρχῳ Αἰγύπτου...Τῦβι ς´ ‘[M(arcus) Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus] und Quintus Tinaeus Demetrius, prefect of Egypt…the 6th Tybi.’ B Inscription to Caracalla, 25th March AD 211-217? No.2 C308, SCA535. Column: Height 160 cm, Diameter 105 cm. Panel: Height 110 cm, Width 56 cm. Lines 9-10. Τὸν γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης καὶ τῆς ὅλης οἰκουμένης δεσπότην, κοσμοκράτορα καὶ φιλοσάραπιν ἀεὶ ζῶντα Μ. Αὐρ. Σεουῆρον Ἀντωνεῖνον Σεβαστόν. ... φαμεὼθ κθ ‘(In honour of) the master of Earth, Sea, and all the inhabited world, sovereign of the universe, adorer of Serapis, living eternally, M(arcus) Aur(elius) Severus Antoninus Augustus… the 25th Phamenoth.’ C Inscription to Caracalla, AD 211-217? No.4 C309, SCA534? Column: Height 85 cm, Diameter 105 cm. Panel: Height 100 cm, Width 95 cm. Lines 5. Τὸν γῆς (καὶ) θαλάσσης δεσπότην, κοσμοκράτορα, τὸν φιλοσάραπιν, ἀεὶ ζῶντα Μ. Αὐρ. Σεουῆρον Ἀντωνεῖνον θεὸν Σεβαστόν ‘(In honour of) the master of Earth and Sea, sovereign of the universe, adorer of Serapis, eternally living, M(arcus) Aur(elius) Severus Antoninus, god Augustus.’ D Inscription for Caracalla, AD 211-217? (No Image) No.5 C118, SCA536? Column: Height 100 cm, Diameter 105 cm. Panel: Height 100 cm, Width 95 cm. Lines 5. This has the same inscription, measurements, and disposition as that above.

94B: 1) Inscription to Caracalla, from Alexandria, 25th March AD 211-217 (Roman Theatre; Goddio EST 2006, no.473, 62; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, Photo: Christoph Gerigk) – SCA 535 2) Illustration of Inscription to Caracalla (Bernand 1998, C308, 148; Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

Τὸν γῆς (καὶ) θαλάσσης δεσπότην, κοσμοκράτορα, τὸν φιλοσάραπιν, ἀεὶ ζῶντα

157

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

94C: 1) Inscription to Caracalla - AD 211-217?, from Alexandria(Roman Theatre; Goddio EST 2006, no.474, 63; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, Photo: Christoph Gerigk) – SCA 576 2) Illustration of Inscription to Caracalla (Bernand 1998, C309, 148; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

Τὸν γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης δεσπότην καὶ φιλοσάραπιν ἀιὲ ζῶντα, Μᾶρκον Αὐρήλιον Σεουῆρον Ἀντωνεῖνον Εὐσεβ(ὴν) Σεβασ(τὸν) Ἀντωνεινιανοὶ... [ω]μαῖοι καὶ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς ἔθηκ̣αν ... εὐνοίας ἕν[εκεν]

Μ. Αὐρ. Σεουῆρον Ἀντωνεῖνον θεὸν Σεβαστόν ‘(In honour of) the master of Earth and Sea, sovereign of the universe, adorer of Serapis, eternally living, M(arcus) Aur(elius) Severus Antoninus, god Augustus.’ E Inscription for Caracalla, AD 211-217?

‘(In honour of) the master of Earth and Sea, adorer of Serapis, eternally living, Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus, Pious Augus(tus), the Antoninians…R[o]mans and Alexandrians, have dedicated (the statue) because of his devotion.’

No.6 C310, SCA537. Column: Height 155 cm, Diameter 105 cm. Panel: Height 95 cm. Lines 7. Five lines have been hammered flat.

158

Catalogue

94E: 1) Inscription to Caracalla - AD 211-217?, from Alexandria (Roman Theatre; Goddio EST 2006, no.476, 65; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, Photo: Christoph Gerigk) – SCA 547 2) Illustration of Inscription to Caracalla (Bernand 1998, C310, 150; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

94F: 1) Inscription for Caracalla - AD 211-217?, from Alexandria (Roman Theatre; Goddio EST 2006, no.475, 64; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, Photo: Christoph Gerigk) – SCA 537 2) Illustration of Inscription for Caracalla (Bernand 1998, C1174, 151; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation)

159

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

94G: Inscription and illustration of inscription for Caracalla - AD 211217?, from Alexandria (Roman Theatre; Bernand 1998, C347, 151; ©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation) ‘…the Romans and Alexandrians, in the year 20 [AD 213] of M(arcus) A[ur(elius) Severus Antoninus].’

F Inscription for Caracalla, AD 211-217? No.7 C1174, SCA534. Column: Height 135 cm, Diameter 105 cm. Panel: Height 113 cm. Lines 7. Part of line 4 has been hammered flat.

95. Inscribed slab for Caracalla - AD 198-217, from Alexandria (No Image) Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 204. Marble. Height 47 cm, Width 40 cm. Preserved in one piece. Incomplete.

Τὸν γῆς καὶ θαλάσσ[ης δεσπότην] τὸν φιλοσάραπιν ἀεὶ ζῶντα Μ. Αὐρ. Σεουῆρον Ἀντωνεῖνον Εὐσεβ(ὴν) Σεβαστ(όν) κατοικούντω[ν...] Ῥωηᾳῖοι καὶ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς ἔτοθς. [Αὐτοκράτρος Καίσαρος] Μ. Αὐρ[ηλίου Ἀντωνίνου]

Botti 1900, 578, no.441; Breccia 1911, no.84, 59; Tkaczow 1993, no.229, 271 (all authors: Caracalla). Found re-used in a Late Antique structure near the Ramleh Tram station, from the area of Caesareum. This site was located near the Tower of Romans (the castrum) and showed a large structure (possibly Ptolemaic) and a Late Roman or Byzantine Street.

‘(In honour of) the master of Earth and Sea, adorer of Serapis, eternally living, M(arcus) Aur(elius) Severus Antoninus, Pious Augustus, among the residents of…Romans and Alexandrians in the year (?) of the [Emperor Caesar] M(arcus) Aur[elius Antoninus].’

A marble slab with a dedication to an emperor in five lines of latin on one side.

G Inscription for Caracalla, AD 211-217?

[Imp(eratori) Caesari] M(arco) Aur(elio) S[evero Antonino] Aug(usto) Felici Parti[co Maximo] Britannico Maxim[o]…Max[imo]

No.8 C347. Column: Height 120 cm, Diameter 105 cm. Panel: Height 90 cm. Lines 1. Column shaft is broken in the upper register leaving only one line remaining.

‘To Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Serverus Antoninus Augustus Felix Parthicusm Maximus Britannicus, Maximus…Maximus’

ωμαῖοι καὶ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς ἔτοθσ κ´ Μ. Α[ὐρ. Σεουήρου Ἀντενίνου]

160

Catalogue

Outside Egypt

*96. Head of Augustus - 30 -25/24 BC, from Meroe

Meroe

London, British Museum AN20318. Bronze. Height 46.2 cm. Preserved in one piece from bottom of neck to top of head.

Site 28: Located approximately 200 km north of Khartoum, Meroe is in the Sudan. It was the capital city for the Meroitic Kingdom during the Ptolemaic and Imperial periods, but dates to at least the beginning of the 25th Dynasty. The site includes a number of pyramids, an extensive city, and necropoleis. Between 1909-14 Garstang excavated part of the city, focusing on the royal enclosure where he uncovered a range of buildings including chapels. The site has been periodically excavated throughout the 20th century.

Bosanquet 1912; Haynes 1983, 177-181; Boschung 1993, no.122, 160-161; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.323, 272273; Torok 1997 (all authors: Augustus). Discovered in 1911 by Bosanquet during excavations of the city of Meroe. The head was found in a layer of clean sand beneath the threshold to a chapel, identified from the friezes inside as a ‘victory’ chapel (see plan for

96: Head of Augustus - 30 BC - AD 14, from Meroe (British Museum 1911.0901; Digital Image from British Museum, AN00020318_001; ©Trustees of the British Museum) 161

Royal Statues in Egypt 300 BC-AD 220

approximate location). The head most likely originated in Upper Egypt, though exactly how it came to be in Meroe is debated.

Bissing 1914, 103-4; Roullet 1972, no.159, 104.

An over life-size head of Augustus, positioned looking to the right with the hair styled in the typical manner of Augustus. The head has inlaid eyes with tear ducts of coral pupils of glass, irises of calcite, and whites with plaster. The tear ducks are inlaid with coral. The eyebrows are also plastically rendered. Identified as an early Prima-Porta type head due to the hairstyle.

An under life-size head wearing nemes and ureaus. The head had Greek-style facial features and inlaid eyes.

Ptolemaic head found in the Tiber

100. Standing Ptolemaic king, from Rome, second century BC Rome, Museo Nationale 60921. Dark Stone. Height, 132.7 cm (with base), Head Height, 18 cm, Base Height 8 cm, Width, 23.2 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base due to repairs. Broken at neck, waist, knees, ankles, and left foot. Nose and right half of the face is missing.

Rome 97. Queen, from Rome, second century BC?

Nicole and Darier 1909, 14, 17-18, 45-48; PM IV 1951, 413-4; ESPL 1960, 142; Roullet 1972, no.158, 40, 104; Cleopatra’s Egypt 1988, 251; Stanwick 2002, B16, 46, 6970 (all authors: Ptolemaic).

Rome, Musei Capitolini No.1154. Marble; Height, 39.5 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base of neck. Missing attribute on top of head. Nose broken.

Discovered in situ by Nicole and Darier during excavations of the temple of the Syrian Triad on the Janiculum in 1909. The statue was discovered in pieces in the central apse of the temple.

Roullet 1972, no.182, 36, 110; Walker and Higgs 2001, no.194, 217. Discovered in 1887 in a wall near SS. Pietro e Marcellino. The head was found with a number of other fragments representing Egyptian gods. Identified as coming from the area of the Iseum in Regio III.

An under life-size statue standing in the traditional pose, with arms by the sides and hands clenched to hold objects of a different material. The statue wears a plain nemes, ureaus, and shendyt, and the square back pillar reaches the armpit. The moulding on top of the base in inconsistent with Egyptian style and is likely a latter addition.

A life-size head of a queen wearing a wig and vulture cap. Sculpturally reminiscent of Ptolemaic queens. Identified by Ashton as Cleopatra VII based on the hairstyle. 98. Head of Ptolemy VI - 180-145 BC, from Rome - in a private collection

Greece 101. Head of Ptolemy VI - 180-145 BC, from the sea near Aegina

Private Collection, Frankfurt. Dark Stone. Height 25.5 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base of neck. Right side of face, nose, back of head, and left nemes wings broken.

Athens, National Archaeological Museum ANE108. Granite. Height, 62.5 cm, Head Height 30 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of crown to top of neck. Nose and lips are gone, right nemes broken. Weathered.

Lembke 1994, no.46, 242 (Domitian); Stanwick 2002, B8, 57.

Six 1887; ESPL 1960, 132; Kyrieleis 1975, F1, 59-62; Smith 1988, no.71, 87, 93; Smith 1996, 205-6; Stanwick 2002, B6, 27 (all authors: Ptolemy VI).

From the Iseum of the Campus Martius in Rome. The head was found behind the Church of S. Maria sopra Minerva and purchased in Autumn 1970.

Discovered in the sea near Aegina, Greece.

A life-size head of a king wearing a plain nemes and ureaus, with Greek-style forehead hair. No back pillar remains. Physigonomy conforms to the forms identified in other statues of Ptolemy VI, seen in 101.

An over life-size head wearing a double crown, nemes, ureaus and Greek-style forehead hair. The back pillar reaches the top of double crown, with three columns of Hieroglyphs containing Ptolemy VI’s Horus name.

99. Head of Ptolemaic Pharaoh, from Rome, third-first century BC Rome, Museo Barracco 32. Granite. Height: 16 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to bottom of neck. Heavily abraded. Top of left side of nemes and left ear broken.

162

Catalogue

Ukraine 102. Head of Ptolemaic queen, from Panticapeion, second century BC (No Image) St Petersburg, Hermitage 3099. Dark Stone. Height 12.5 cm. Preserved in one piece. Ureaus, nose, and upper lip abraded. Turaev 1911, 27; PM VII 1951, 400; ESPL 1960, 135; Stanwick 2002, B30, 70 (all authors: Ptolemaic). A chance find in Panticapeion, modern-day Kerch, in the Ukraine. Formally part of the Novikoff collection. An under life-size head, wearing a tripartite echeloned wig, plain diadem, and ureaus. No remaining back pillar. Cyrene *103. Head of Ptolemy Apion - 150-96 BC, from Cyrene 103 Head of Ptolemy Apion - 150-96 BC, from Cyrene (British Museum BM1383; Smith 1988, no.64, pl 43.2)

London, British Museum BM1383. Marble. Height 33 cm. Preserved in one piece from top of head to base of neck. Nose broken and back of head is missing. Walker and Burnett 1981, no.130; Smith 1988, no.64, 97, 124. The head was found in the temple of Apollo in Cyrene, inserted into a pedestal with a dedicatory inscription honouring C. Cornelius Lentullus Marcellinus. A similar marble portrait of a diademed king was also recovered from the area (Walker and Higgs 2001, no.23, 57). A life-size head, with strong features and the presence of an Adams apple. The head has close curled hair covering the tops of the ears and wears a diadem. Identified from portrait features and location as Ptolemy Apion, ruler of Cyrene 150-96 BC.

163