Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt: The interaction between Greek and Egyptian traditions 9781841712215, 9781407352695

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgements
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Previous Scholarship
Chapter 1: The Greek Tradition
Chapter 2: Egyptian-Style representations of the pharaoh
Chapter 3: The adoption of Greek features on Egyptian-style images of the pharaoh
Chapter 4: Ptolemaic royal women and the Egyptian tradition
Chapter 5: Representations of Isis, Egypt and the Ptolemaic Queens
Appendix 1: Greek-style Royal Representations
Appendix 2: Problem Pieces
Appendix 3: Examples of Greek-style royal portraits in hard stone?
Abbreviations
Bibliography
Catalogue
Tables

Citation preview

BAR S923 2001

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt ASHTON: PTOLEMAIC ROYAL SCULPTURE FROM EGYPT

The interaction between Greek and Egyptian traditions

Sally-Ann Ashton

BAR International Series 923 2001 B A R Ashton 923 cover.indd 1

14/08/2009 10:17:04

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt The interaction between Greek and Egyptian traditions

Sally-Ann Ashton

BAR International Series 923 2001

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 923 Ptolemaic Royal Sculpturefrom Egypt

© S A Ashton and the Publisher 2001 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712215 paperback ISBN 9781407352695 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712215 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2001. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Geoffrey Waywell and Dr Jane Rowlandson, King's College London for their comments on my original manuscript, which was submitted as my doctoral thesis in May 1999. I am also extremely grateful to Professor Bert Smith, Oxford for his constructive criticism and comments on my initial work, his advice has been invaluable. I would also like to thank Professor John Tait, Institute of Archaeology, University College London for his help with the Egyptian inscriptions and his academic support and Dr Stephen Quirke of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL for his advice and help with several of the inscriptions and for his many helpful comments. I would especially like to thank Dr Susan Walker, of the department of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the British Museum for all of her encouragement, advice and help, for reading through my manuscript and for the many discussions that I have enjoyed with her. I would also like to thank Dr Dyfri Williams of the department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, as well as Dr Peter Higgs for help with photographs of objects; Dr Andrew Burnett of the department of Coins and Medals and Dr Jeffrey Spencer and Mr Vivian Davies, of the department of Egyptian Antiquities for giving me permission to include photographs of the British Museum collections. I would also like to thank the following museums and individuals: Alexandria Greco-Roman Museum, where Dr Mervat Seif El-Din and Mr Ahmed Abd El Fattah have been of great help. I would also like to thank Dr Jean-Yves Empereur for information on several statues, which he salvaged from the Alexandrian harbour, and Mr Franck Goddio and Mr Georg Rosenbauer of Hilti Foundation for providing me with images of one of the pieces from their underwater explorations in Alexandria. Dr Ioannis Touratsoglou, Director of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens; Dr Ermanno Arslan, Museo Archeologico, Milan; Dr Ingebourg Muller of the Agyptisches Museum, Berlin; Dott. Nota Santi, Museo Barracco, Rome; Dr Cristiana Morigi Govi of the Museo Civico di Bologna; Mr Christopher Atkins for his help with the photographs from the Museum of Fine Arts Boston. Mr Richard Fazzini, Brooklyn Museum of Art for both permission to use images of their sculptures and for his help on the occasions of several visits to his department; Dr Marc Etienne, and the Departments of Egyptian and Greek, Roman and Etruscan Antiquities, Musee du Louvre. Cairo Egyptian Museum, especially the acting director, Madam Soheir, for her permission to reproduce images of the many objects included in this catalogue. Dr. Claudio Parisi-Presicce, Musei Capitolini for his help with the bibliography for their objects and for permission to use images of the queen. Dr Luc Limme at the Musees des Beaux Arts et Histoire, Brussels; Ms Julie Dawson of the department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Dott. Anna Maria Donadoni Roveri and the Museo Egizio Torino for permission to publish photographs of their sculpture; Dr Mogens J0rgensen of the Egyptian Department at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen; The Erlangen, Archaologisches Museum and Pro£ Dr Klaus Parlasca for the information which he kindly sent with regard to the provenance and bibliography for a sculpture in the museum collection. Ms Jacklyn Burns for her assistance with the photographs of objects from the J. Paul Getty Museum. Dr Eleni Vassilika, Director of the Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim for permission to use an image from the collection and for a helpful discussion on the material in chapters 4 and 5. Dr Hajime Inagaki of the Shinji Shumeikai Collection, Miho Museum, Kyoto for permission to use images of their statue and for providing additional information on the piece. Dr. Maarten J. Raven of the Egyptian department, at the Rijksmuseum Leiden; Dr Claire Derricks of the department of Antiquities of Egypt and the Near East at the Mariemont Museum; Dr Alfred Grimm of the Egyptian Museum, Munich; Ms Megan Doyon and Dr Susan Matheson of the Yale University Art Gallery and Mr Roger Colten of the Peabody Museum of Natural History for all of his help. Prof. William K. Simpson, New Haven. Dr Dorothea Arnold, Dr Marsha Hill and Dr James Allen of the Department of Egyptian Art, the Metropolitan Museum New York, for their help during several visits and for providing photographs of their objects. Mr Leonard Stem, New York. Ms Elisabeth Molle of the agence photographique de la reunion des musees nationaux for providing photographs and Dr Marc Etienne of the department of Egyptian Antiquities and Dr Alain Pasquier of the department of Greek, Roman and Etruscan Antiquities, Musee du Louvre. Ms Estelle Gow and Dr David Pinault of the Rosicrucian Museum, San Jose. Ms Bonnie Cullen of the Seattle Art Museum for arranging for a photograph of their object and also for her help with the history of the piece. Dr Claude Traunecker, Director of the Institute of Egyptology, Strasbourg not only for permission to reproduce an image of the bust in their collection but also for the additional information which he provided. Dr Andrey Bolshakov of the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg for his help and information which he has provided. Dr Margaret Homoth of the Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum Stuttgart; Dr Alison Easson and Ms Beth Knox for all of their help during my visit to the Royal Ontario Museum Toronto and for permission to reproduce images of their collection. Dr Francesco Buranelli of the Vatican Museums; Dr. Alfred Bernhard-Walcher of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; Dr Jadwiga Lipenska, the National Museum, Warsaw. I am extremely grateful to the above museums and institutions and their trustees for their permission to publish images of objects in their collections. I am indebted to Ian Blair for all of his help and unflinching moral support through both the writing of my thesis and its publication. Finally, I would like to thank my family for all of their support and encouragement, in particular my grandmother Evelyn Foster Ashton and my parents, Jacqui and Robin Ashton, to whom I would like to dedicate this publication.

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................................................................

1

INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP .....................................................................................................................................

5

CHAPTER 1: THE GREEK TRADITION .........................................................................................................................................................

8

1.1 TYPESOFGREEK-STYLE ROYALREPRESENTATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 1.2 EGYPTIAN ELEMENTS IN GREEK-STYLE ROYALREPRESENTATIONS ........................................................................................................... 1.3 GREEK-STYLEPORTRAITSMANUFACTUREDINEGYPTIANHARD STONES..................................................................................................

8 10 12

CHAPTER 2: EGYPTIAN-STYLE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PHARAOH ..........................................................................................

13

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

PRE-PTOLEMAIC EGYPTIAN-STYLE PORTRAITURE ..................................................................................................................................... THEHISTORICAL CONTEXT FORTHEDEVELOPMENT OFROYALPORTRAITURE ............................................................................................. ROYALCULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... EVIDENCE FOREGYPTIAN-STYLE PTOLEMAIC ROYALREPRESENTATIONS .................................................................................................. THIRDCENTURYBC MALERULERS......................................................................................................................................................... EGYPTIAN VERSIONSOFGREEK-STYLE PORTRAITS ................................................................................................................................... CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................................................

13 13 16 19 19 22 24

CHAPTER 3: THE ADOPTION OF GREEK FEATURES ON EGYPTIAN-STYLE IMAGES OF THE PHARAOH .................................. 25

3 .1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 .2 MODELSANDMETHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................. 3.3 EGYPTIAN-STYLE STATUESOFMALERULERSWITHGREEKPORTRAIT FEATURES..................................................................................... Copies of Greek-style portraits- Ptolemies V and VI................................................................................................................................ Ptolemies VIII, IX and X ........................................................................................................................................................................... First century BC princes ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 .4 FUNCTION ANDCONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................................................... Function .................................................................................................................................................................................................... Context ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.5 ARCHAISINGFEATURES ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................................................

25 26 26 26 28 30 32 32 34 35 36

CHAPTER 4: PTOLEMAIC ROYAL WOMEN AND THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION .................................................................................

37

4.1 PRE-PTOLEMAIC EGYPTIAN REPRESENTATIONS OFROYALWOMEN............................................................................................................ 4.2 STYLISTIC DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... Third century BC Queens ......................................................................................................................................................................... Second Century BC. .................................................................................................................................................................................. First Century BC Queens .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.3 ICONOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 EGYPTIAN-STYLE PORTRAITS OFPTOLEMAIC QUEENSWITHGREEKFEATURES.........................................................................................

37 37 37 38 38 40 43

CHAPTER 5: REPRESENTATIONS OF ISIS, EGYPT AND THE PTOLEMAIC QUEENS ........................................................................ 5.l 5.2 5.3 5.4

45

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................... CHRONOLOGY ANDIDENTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................................................... ORIGINS................................................................................................................................................................................................... FUNCTION OFTHEEGYPTIAN STATUES..................................................................................................................................................... 5 .5 HELLENISTIC ANDROMANISIS ................................................................................................................................................................. 5.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................................................

45 45 50 51 52 53

APPENDIX 1: GREEK-STYLE ROY AL REPRESENTATIONS ...................................................................................................................

54

SCULPTURE .................................................................................................................................................................................................... Paris, Musee du Louvre MA 3532 [1.1] ................................................................................................................................................... Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 24092 [1.2). ..................................................................................................................................... Hildesheim, Roemer-Pelizaeus-Museum 2160 [1.3). ................................................................................................................................ Private Collection of W. Kelly Simpson [1.4) ........................................................................................................................................... Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 59.51 [1.5). ................................................................................................................................................ Malibu California, J.P. Getty Museum 83.AA.330 [1.6] .......................................................................................................................... Stuttgart, Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum SS 17 [ 1. 7] ....................................................................................................................... Malibu California, J.P. Getty Museum 83.AA.205 [1.8] .......................................................................................................................... Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 42891 [1.9) ................................................................................................................................................. Paris, Musee du Louvre MA 3449 [1.10] ................................................................................................................................................. PORTRAITS IN OTHERMEDIA........................................................................................................................................................................... BMC Ptolemy III 104164/8 [1.11) ...................................................................................................................................................

2

54 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58

59 59

BMC Ptolemy IV 34164/8 [1.12) ............................................................................................................................................................. Ptolemy V BMC Ptolemy V 62 164/12 [1.13) ........................................................................................................................................... Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra I 9.411978.10.21.1 [1.14] ............................................................................................................................ Ptolemy VIII New York, American Numismatic Society 1944.100.75452 [l.15). ..................................................................................... Toronto Royal Ontario Museum 906.12.83 Ptolemy IX/Xtype 1 [J.16). .................................................................................................. Toronto Royal Ontario Museum 906.12.99 Ptolemy IX/Xtype 1 [1.17). .................................................................................................. Toronto Royal Ontario Museum Ptolemy 906.12.132 IX/Xtype 2 [J.18). ................................................................................................ Toronto Royal Ontario Museum Ptolemy 906.12.133 /XIX type 2 [1.19). ................................................................................................ Toronto Royal Ontario Museum Ptolemy 906.12.125 IX/Xtype 2 [1.20). ................................................................................................ BMC Ptolemy XII 34 [1.21). ..................................................................................................................................................................... BMC Arsinoe II 21 [1.22). ........................................................................................................................................................................ BMC Cleopatra VII 3 Cyprus [1.23] ........................................................................................................................................................ London British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities 1923.4-1. 676 (Gem 3 085) ......................................................... Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 906.12.162 [1.25] ............................................................................................................................... Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum of Art 73.85 [J.26). ..................................................................................................................................... APPENDIX 2: PROBLEM PIECES .................................................................................................................................................................

59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 62 63

2.1 NEWHAVEN,BARRINGER COLLECTION .................................................................................................................................................... 2.2 KYOTO,SHINJISHUMEIKAI COLLECTION, MIHOMUSEUM........................................................................................................................ 2.3 PARIS,MUSEEDULOUVREMA 970 ......................................................................................................................................................... 2.4 SEATTLE ARTMUSEUM47.54 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2.5 MANTUA,PALAZZODUCALE, 98 .............................................................................................................................................................. 2.6 ALEXANDRIA 1015 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. 7 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON,PETRIEMUSEUMOFEGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY UC l 4521.. ...................................................................

63 64 65 65 66 66 67

APPENDIX 3: EXAMPLES OF GREEK-STYLE ROYAL PORTRAITS IN HARD STONE? ......................................................................

68

3 .1 BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN MUSEUMOFART70.91.3 ................................................................................................................................... 3.2 LONDON,PETRIEMUSEUMOFEGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY UC 49930 ........................................................................................................ 3 .3 LONDON,BRITISHMUSEUMGR 1926.4-15 .15 ......................................................................................................................................... 3.4 ALEXANDRIA, GRECO-ROMAN MUSEUM25264 ........................................................................................................................................

68 68 69 69

ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................................................................

72

CATALOGUE ..................................................................................................................................................................................................

82

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Alexandria, Sarapieion (West of pillar) ....................................................................................................................................... Alexandria Sarapieion (East of pillar) ......................................................................................................................................... Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum of Art 37.37E ................................................................................................................................. London, British Museum 941 ....................................................................................................................................................... Strasbourg, Universite de Strasbourg 1585 ................................................................................................................................ Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Egizio 27 ......................................................................................................................................... Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 12102 ............................................................................................................................................. Brussels, M Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire El 839 ........................................................................................................................... Paris, Musee du Louvre E8061 .................................................................................................................................................... Munich, Agyptische Sammlung 5339 ........................................................................................................................................... Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 22979 .................................................................................................................................. Cairo, Egyptian MuseumJE 12108 (CG 701)............................................................................................................................. Berlin, Agyptisches Museum, 14568 ............................................................................................................................................ Berlin, Agyptisches Museum J3457 ............................................................................................................................................. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, 3357................................................................................................................................... Athens, National Museum 108 ..................................................................................................................................................... Erlangen, Archiiologisches Museum (Kunstsammlung der Universitiit) .................................................................................... Temple of Sobek/Renenutet, Narmouthis ..................................................................................................................................... Alexandria, Korn El- Dikka 105................................................................................................................................................... Alexandria, Maritime Museum 1001 ........................................................................................................................................... Alexandria, Korn El-Dikka 121.................................................................................................................................................... Milan, Musei e Gallerie di Milano, E 193 ................................................................................................................................... Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 5787 .................................................................................................................................... Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum J2072 .................................................................................................................................. Berlin, Agyptisches Museum 14079 ............................................................................................................................................. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 294 ................................................................................................................................. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 3364 ................................................................................................................................... Athens, National Museum ANE 88 ............................................................................................................................................. New York, Private Collection L. Stern ........................................................................................................................................ Warsaw, National Museum 148171 ............................................................................................................................................ Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum of Art 54.117 ................................................................................................................................ Bologna, M Civico Archeologico KS 1803 ................................................................................................................................ Cairo CG J3/ll 5/3 ......................................................................................................................................................................

3

82 82 82 84 84 84 84 86 86 86 88 88 88 88 90 90 90 90 92 92 92 92 92 94 94 94 94 96 96 96 96 98 98

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 11275................................................................................................................................. 98 Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Egizio 25 ....................................................................................................................................... 98 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 38.10 ......................................................................................................................... 100 Leiden, Rijksmuseum F1938/7.20 ............................................................................................................................................. 100 Turin, Museo Egizio, 1385 ......................................................................................................................................................... 100 San Jose, Rosicrucian Museum 1582. ...................................................................................................................................... 102 Paris, Musee du Louvre, E 13102 .............................................................................................................................................. 102 Present location unknown ........................................................................................................................................................ 102 Mariemont, Musee de Mariemont E 49 .................................................................................................................................... 102 Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek I.N 586 ......................................................................................................................... 104 Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 1472 .............................................................................................................................. 104 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 21992 ................................................................................................................................ 104 Rome, Museo Barracco 42 ........................................................................................................................................................ 104 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 406 .................................................................................................................................... 106 Narmouthis, Temple ofSobek/Renenutet (present location unknown) ....................................................................................... 106 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 1990.314 ..................................................................................................................................... 106 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 11335 ................................................................................................................................ 106 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 31448 ................................................................................................................................ 106 Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 27472 .......................................................................................................................................... 108 Paris,LouvreE11197 ................................................................................................................................................................ 108 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 20.2.21 ....................................................................................................................... 108 New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery 1931.106 ................................................................................................................... 108 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum Maritime Museum (crown inv. 106) ................................................................................. 110 Alexandria, Korn El-Dikka inv. 1005 ......................................................................................................................................... 110 Ma 'amura. Present location unknown...................................................................................................................................... 112 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 31424 ................................................................................................................................ 112 Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum of Art 74.220 ............................................................................................................................... 112 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 3227 .................................................................................................................................. 114 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 344.................................................................................................................................... 114 St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum 3936 .................................................................................................................................. 114 Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum of Art 71.12 ................................................................................................................................. 116 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 89.2.660 ..................................................................................................................... 116 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 18370 ................................................................................................................................ 116 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum E27.1981 .............................................................................................................................. 118 Cairo, Egyptian Museum 27473 ................................................................................................................................................ 118 Alexandria Greco-Roman Museum 14941................................................................................................................................. 118 Rome, Musei Capitolini, Monte Martini 1154 ........................................................................................................................... 118

TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

4

120

Introduction and Previous Scholarship

have paralleled the significance of the Mouseion in literary history.

Although the Ptolemaic royal image has been the subject of many individual studies, there remains an imbalance in the extent of scholarly attention devoted to the different styles of imagery. The Greek-style representations have been studied and published in far greater detail than their Egyptian-style counterparts and generally the two styles of representation are treated independently, because of the separation between the disciplines of Egyptology and Greek art history. 1

More recently, scholars have tended to conclude that Alexandrian sculpture has much in common with that from other Hellenistic cities, that it was influenced by the fourth century classical schools, and that it did not follow its own unique course of development. 6 The question was most recently re-addressed by Bianchi and Stewart who once again dispelled the idea of an Alexandrian school of art. 7 Lawrence was also the first to attempt to divide the various categories of Ptolemaic portraiture, and was followed by Noshy, who was heavily influenced by his predecessor's work. 8 These divisions are important because they indicate that there was more than one type of royal portrait issued in Egypt by the Ptolemaic royal house. Lawrence's categories are as follows:

The Greek-style statuary has been the subject of considerable scholarship. By far the most comprehensive work on Ptolemaic royal portraits is Kyrieleis' study, which includes an extensive catalogue and discussion of the individual attributes and the portrait type of each ruler. 2 The work establishes a chronological sequence for Greekstyle royal representations and distinguishes the various iconographic attributes that were associated with each ruler, including several types of royal representation, although concentrating on sculpture. The Egyptian-style representations included in the catalogue are restricted to those with Greek-style portraits or attributes associated with the Hellenistic tradition. The work has, on the whole, found acceptance, although there have been subsequent reidentifications of several portraits. Kyrieleis suggests that in addition to a Greek influence on the Egyptian Ptolemaic royal image, there are elements of Egyptian portraiture found in Greek representations of rulers. 3 This view is also adopted by Bianchi, who, in contrast, dismisses the idea of a Hellenistic influence on the Egyptian material throughout his publications. 4

Unmixed Sculpture • Greek style free of Egyptian influences. • Egyptian style free of Greek influences. Sculpture with mixed elements • Sculpture in the Greek style but with Egyptian subjects, motives, material or techniques. • Sculpture in the Egyptian style with Greek subjects or motives. • Sculpture categorised by attempts at fusion of styles. These categories do not reveal the subtle differences in many of the surviving images; they also reveal a lack of understanding of the Egyptian material, hence the concept of the final category, which consists of "attempts at fusion of styles". More recently, Smith defined four groups in relation to "pharaonic" art; these divisions are more representative of the material than any previous attempts to categorise Ptolemaic sculpture.9 His categories are more sensitive to the material because he acknowledges that only the Egyptian sculpture is affected by an outside influence. Smith looks at Ptolemaic royal portraiture in the broader context of the Hellenistic world, concentrating on Greek-style representations in the main text. Whilst this perspective is essential for both the understanding of the Greek-style royal image and for the comparison with certain royal image types that recur in Egyptian contexts, there are many questions that remain unanswered: what significance did the Greek portrait features and attributes on the Egyptian-style statues have? 10 Why did Egyptian sculptors begin to produce more Hellenised versions of Egyptian statuary? Were these images intended for Greek or Egyptian audiences or were they testimony to the crosscultural climate in Egypt during the second and first centuries BC?

Initially, the study of Ptolemaic royal portraiture was dominated by the question of the existence of an 'Alexandrian' school of art.5 One of the reasons that Lawrence and later Noshy had given for the existence of an Alexandrian school was the Mouseion; they believed that if the royal house patronised scholarship, they would also support artistic schools. Lawrence argued that if there was a school of art and it reflected the ideals of the Mouseion, it might be expected to conserve the styles of the past whilst representing the cosmopolitan Greek community of Alexandria, a community which included temporary as well as permanent residents. According to Lawrence's reasoning, such an institution would have attracted artists from all over the Greek world and would

Lawrence (1925) 179-90 [Greek, Egyptian and 'mixed']; Noshy (1937) 83-142 [Greek, Egyptian and 'mixed']; Bothmer (1960b) [Egyptian and Egyptian with Greek features]; Bianchi ed. (1988) [Greek, Egyptian and the question of foreign influence]; Smith (1988) [Greek and Egyptian with Greek features]; Josephson (1997a) 1-20 and (1997b) [Egyptian]. See also conference papers that are concerned with Ptolemaic art such as Alexandria and Alexandrianism (1996). 2 Kyrieleis (1975). 3 Kyrieleis (1975) 40-41, 92 and 129. Smith (1988) 88, disputes the idea that there was any Egyptian influence on the Greek portrait types. The main problem with Kyrieleis' theory is, as Smith points out, that he fails to analyse the various categories of Ptolemaic portraiture. 4 Bianchi (1980) and Bianchi, ed. (1988), in particular 168, no. 64. 5 See Stewart (1996) for a general background to the debate. 1

Pollitt (1990) 251-53. See also Smith (1988). See Bianchi (1996) 191-202, especially 191-92; and Stewart (1996) 23146, on the idea of a Hellenistic Alexandrian school of art. 8 Lawrence (1925) 179-90 and Noshy (1937) 83-142. 9 Smith (1988) 87. 10 Smith (1996a) addressed the question of the use of Greek models by the Egyptian artists. For a further discussion see chapter 3 below. 6 7

5

Sally-Ann Ashton

Smith's divisions are as follows: • Purely pharaonic. • Pharaonic regalia but with "a face which is treated in a naturalistic Greek style". • Pharaonic regalia but with "a face which is treated in a naturalistic Greek style and the addition of an external and obviously Greek element, such as hair beneath the headdress". • Purely Greek.

bolt held by Philadelphos on the Tanis, now in the British Museum. 14 The most obvious examples of cross-cultural borrowing are the Egyptian-style statues with Greek portrait features and the images of queens with Greek attributes; it is on this particular group that this publication will concentrate. The existence of the so-called 'mixed school' of Ptolemaic art is particularly problematic and in many past studies there has been a tendency to over-simplify complicated and subtle iconographic evidence to support or reject an argument. The idea that there was a Hellenistic influence on Egyptian statuary of the Ptolemaic Period was first mooted by Maspero regarding the statue of Hor from Alexandria. 15 Maspero believed that it showed signs of non-Egyptian modelling on the hair and in particular the drapery. The concept of Hellenistic influence was accepted by Egyptologists and Hellenists alike and has remained the general focus of many subsequent works. 16

Other works have considered the Ptolemaic royal image in 'ideological' terms. 11 The term 'ideological' is not one that is commonly applied to art history, but has been used by historians to refer to symbolic meanings which can be transferred to cross-cultural or foreign ideas, usually of a religious nature; thus the term is useful within this context. There are also sites at which parallel dedications of images that remain true to their artistic convention appear with representations from another, so that the same message is conveyed via the two different artistic traditions. In some cases, such as the Alexandrian Sarapieion, it is possible to determine that certain rulers commissioned statues in both artistic styles; this phenomenon has wider ideological implications. 12

It is not only the question of cross-cultural influence on the two dominant artistic traditions in Ptolemaic Egypt that has caused controversy; the criteria used for dating have also led to conflicting views on the development of Greek and Egyptian-style Ptolemaic portraiture, and on the dating of individual pieces, such as appendix 2.1, Cat. 9 and Cat. 12. These discrepancies can be explained by the nature of the history of the study of Egyptian-style portraiture in the Ptolemaic period. In respect to the Egyptian statuary, there has been a tendency to select individual pieces and to date them without considering the wider chronological sequence. This is largely because exhibitions, such as the one held in 1960 at The Brooklyn Museum, have played an important role in the history of the discipline.

In his essay, 'The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure', Koenen discussed the question of syncretism, both artistic and ideological, comparing the languages in the various decrees and the royal titles that were used in both contexts. He also draws on evidence such as the use of an eagle on the reverse of Ptolemaic coinage, claiming that the symbol would have been equally relevant to an Egyptian as to a Greek and that the appearance of sceptres on coin portraits is a reference to the sceptre that appears on the Ptolemaic temple reliefs and on Egyptian stelae. 13 Although his work has major implications for the study of Ptolemaic kingship and draws on evidence from both Greek and Egyptian contexts, his classical background influenced Koenen's interpretation. To say that there is either Greek or Egyptian influence is to over-simplify a very complex artistic phenomenon and whilst the Egyptian artistic tradition in particular appears to have adopted Greek attributes and portrait types, the sculpture cannot really be said to be Hellenised since it remains essentially Egyptian. It was precisely this argument that Bianchi put forward with regard to the adoption of the cornucopia on Egyptianstyle representations of Ptolemaic queens and the lightning

Bothmer's exhibition catalogue remains an important contribution to the understanding of the pharaonic art of the Late Period and includes catalogue entries of the Ptolemaic Period, but is not confined to royal portraiture: key sculptures are used to illustrate the development of private and royal Egyptian sculpture from 700 BC to AD 100. However, since then many of the dates have been challenged. 17 Bothmer accepted the earlier views that many Ptolemaic statues showed signs of non-Egyptian influence. 18 In 1996, however, he revised his earlier thoughts concerning the influence of Hellenistic art on Egyptian sculpture from the early Ptolemaic Period in

For the use of the term 'ideological' see for example Koenen (1993). See Ashton in Hirst ed. (forthcoming) for the use of Egyptian sculpture in Alexandria, and chapter 2 below. 13 Koenen (1993) 25-27. Quaegebeur (1988) 44, fig. 16 also points to a similar use of a sceptre on a relief in Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum (inv. 976.63). In this instance Arsinoe II holds a sceptre in a nonEgyptian manner, behind her rather than in front. Compare Bianchi, ed. (1988) 103-4, no. 14 and Quaegebeur (1971) 239 on the Tanis relief in the British Museum (inv. EA 1956), where Philadelphos holds a thunderbolt, according to the Greek manner. Cheshire (1982) 105-11 argues that the sceptre on the coin portraits of Arsinoe ill is also adopted from the Egyptian tradition. Bianchi, ed. (1988) 168 rejects her hypothesis.

Bianchi (1988) 64, see also Ashton in Riggs and Mcdonald eds. (2000), 1-10 for a full discussion. 15 Maspero (1887) 234-37, Cairo, Egyptian Museum inv. CG 697, Hor son of Hor. For bibliography and illustration see Rausch ed. (1998) 173, no. 120. 16 See also Lawrence (1925), Noshy (1937) and more recently Grimm and Johannes (1975) and Vandersleyen (1975). See also Bianchi (1988) 55 for discussion of the history of the development of the idea that Egyptian statuary was influenced by Hellenistic art. 17 In particular the dating of the Boston Green head and the Berlin Green head, which are now widely accepted to be fourth century BC in date. See Josephson (1997a) 18-20 and Bianchi, ed. (1988) 59-60, who dates them to the second and frrst century BC respectively. 18 Bothmer (1960b) 159-60 in particular, with reference to the costume on Cat. 54. 14

11

12

6

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt response to Bianchi's work. 19 He maintained that there is evidence for the influence of Greek art on Egyptian was sculpture, although he dismissed the pleated folded male costume, the serrated scarf with fringed borders; the pleated female costume, deviation of arms from the subject's sides, representation of apotheosis, a more shapely female body, receding hairline and exuberant torso modelling as Hellenistic

Institute of Fine Arts, New York entitled Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture. This work is concerned with both Greek and Egyptian-style sculpture. This present manuscript presents part of the author's doctoral thesis entitled Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt: The Greek and Egyptian traditions and their interaction, which was submitted to the University of London in May 1999. Other work by the author is included in the British Museum special exhibition catalogue Cleopatra Regina d'Egitto and the English version Cleopatra of Egypt: From history to myth both edited by S. Walker and P. Higgs (2000 and 2001 respectively). Issues arising from this exhibition will be addressed at an international conference to be held at the British Museum in June 2001, which will be published.

Bianchi dismissed the idea that there was any influence of Greek art on Ptolemaic Egyptian-style material, in the catalogue of another exhibition at The Brooklyn Museum, held in 1988, both in the individual catalogue entries and in an essay entitled 'Pharaonic art in Ptolemaic Egypt'. 20 More recently Josephson has written an article and a monograph on the subject of Late Period and early Ptolemaic Egyptian-style royal portraiture.21 Like Bothmer, he believes that there was a Hellenistic influence on Egyptian sculpture from the reign of Ptolemy I and even suggests that there was a degree of influence from the earlier Greek settlers in the fourth century BC, as expressed by the rounded fleshy appearance of the portrait heads and bodies of the subjects.

The aims of the present publication are to assess the interaction between the Greek and Egyptian Ptolemaic royal representations, and to establish a relative chronological sequence for developments in the presentation of the royal family, where possible identifying individual rulers. The material will be divided according to classification, and the various functions of the different types of royal image will also be considered, and the audience that it was intended to serve. The catalogue includes some purely Egyptian-style sculpture, but has been restricted to pieces with a distinctive iconography or provenance. Appendix 1 includes comparative Greek-style material for the Egyptian statues with naturalistic portraits.

The study of Ptolemaic royal sculpture has in the past two years been furthered by three doctoral theses: the first was written by S. Albersmeier at the University of Trier concerned with the images of Ptolemaic females. P.E. Stanwick submitted another in November 1999 to the

Bothmer (1996) 215-30. Bianchi (1988) 55-80. 21 Josephson (1997a) and (1997b) and Josephson and Fazzini in JARCE 31 (forthcoming, 2000). 19

20

7

offer an impression of a ruler's portrait type, although the coins need to be used with a degree of caution since many images are posthumous. Modem scholars have used coins as a reference with differing degrees of success. Kyrieleis relied heavily on coin images to identify portraits in the round, but seems to ignore the many posthumous coin portraits which were closer to the current ruler's image than of the subject's original portrait type. Similarly on the Edfu sealings rulers are shown with very specific headdresses, which do not survive on the stone portraits because they were attached separately. However, attributes of the sculpture and coin portraits do not always correspond. On the coin images of Ptolemy III the ruler is seen to associate himself with Helios, Poseidon and Zeus, and yet on the portraits in the round there is an overwhelming preference to associate the ruler with Dionysos. 25

Chapter 1: The Greek Tradition 1.1 Types of Greek-style Royal Representations Although this study will concentrate on the Egyptian-style royal images with Greek attributes, it is necessary to consider the purely Greek-style images and their context with respect to the possible use of Egyptian sculpture in a Hellenistic environment. The purely Egyptian material will be dealt with in chapters 2 and 4. The Greek-style portraits are in many respects the most frustrating group of royal representations from Ptolemaic Egypt. This is because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence: with few exceptions, only the portrait head is preserved, often without the attributes that were once attached to it in a different medium, and sometimes without the stucco details that finished the piece. Consequently the modem scholar has very little to help with the identification of individual pieces, particularly those without a context. The poor survival of the Greekstyle sculptures is also due to the nature of their design. Sculptors often produced only the head of an image in marble; the body of the statue and indeed any attributes would have been manufactured in a different material, such . as wood, precious metals, ivory or bronze. 22 Th.1s practice may have evolved because of a lack of good quality marble from Egypt, on the other hand it would seem that there would have been little difference in the cost of importing larger pieces of marble from Ptolemaic possessions or via trade rather than producing a statue in gold or ivory. 23

Such discrepancies lead to the question of how much control the royal house exercised over their image and the role of models in the reproduction of a standard image. If Rostovtzeffs view of a tightly controlled and ordered administrative system were upheld, one would expect that the control extended to important matters such as the portrayal of members of the royal house. 26 More recently Samuel questioned the organisation of the state under the Ptolemies and suggested that few could distinguish between public and private roles. 27 These interpretations have an important bearing on the role of the ruler in the presentation of the royal image. However, the royal and priestly interest in the dynastic cult and the promotion of the dynasty suggests that the responsibility was very much a royal concern, and if this did not involve the king himself, it was certainly the concern of his advisors. The uniformity of private and public dedications supports this idea.

The practice may also be linked to the deification of rulers and the dynastic cult, that it was seen to be more appropriate to portray the ruler in a combination of a recognisable marble portrait with the body in precious materials. The fashion may also have been influenced by the temporary art from the many festivals and processions that were held in Alexandria. Presumably the art that was manufactured for the processions, as described by Kallixeinos of Rhodes in Athenaeus' Deipnosophistai, would have been placed in public areas following the celebrations. 24 This action would serve as a lasting reminder of the lavish festivals that were held in the capital, and also perhaps as a display for those who had missed the event by way of offering an impression of the original festival. It is also possible that sculptures were dedicated at temples around the city following the festival.

The nature of sculptors' work must also be considered. Sculptors travelled to their assignments, and although the Ptolemaic rulers would have been able to afford to commission many representations, there would be no need for an institution dedicated to the production of royal images. It would seem more likely that the rulers used a specific artist or consultant and that this image was passed on in the form of models to other workshops outside Alexandria. 28 If, as Lawrence and Noshy presumed, the workshops in Alexandria were similar to the establishment at the Mouseion one would expect a range of artists in the capital would be commissioned on a temporary basis. Even if the Mouseion and workshops shared little in common, sculptors by the nature of their trade travelled to

Coinage and sealings are particularly useful with respect to missing attributes on the Greek-style sculptures because although only the bust is shown, the rulers are often adorned with various characteristics, often of a divine nature. The portraits in this medium, although stylised,

For the coin portraits see Appendix 1.11; compare Cairo JE 39520 from Tell Timai: Edgar (1915) 3, no. 2; Brunelle (1976) 47; Wildung et al (1979) no. 91; Queyrel (1988) 15, 22, no. 20 [Ptolemy III] and in Rausch ed. (1998) 205, no. 150 [Ptolemy III]. See also Bergmann (1998) 58-60. 26 Rostovtzeff (1941) on the administration of Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphos. 27 Samuel (1993) 178. Delia questions his ideas in a response, 192-204. 28 Smith (1996a) cites the higher quality Egyptian version of a Greek portrait as evidence for the existence of models for the royal portraits, 203-13. 25

Smith (1988) 15. On stones native to Egypt see Lucas (1962) 414-15. The only white marble is found in Gebel Rokham (east of Esna and two thirds of the way between the Nile and the Red Sea), although it is not known if the quarries were exploited in the Ptolemaic times. Pliny NH xxxvi. 67 mentions a marble called Memphites, after Memphis, although as Lucas points out this may not have been a true marble, but hard limestone. 24 Rice (1983). 22 23

8

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt commissions and so might spend a brief period at the royal court and then move on to new work. 29 Whilst no Greek equivalent to the Egyptian sculptors' models survive, the coinage was used as a means of promoting the current royal image. The obvious advantage of coin portraits to modem scholars is that they are often inscribed with the name of the ruler whose portrait they carry and so it is possible to establish portrait types for each king to compare with the sculpture in the round. Coins functioned not only as money in circulation, but also as Smith suggests, to remind the armies that the king paid their wages; this accounts for one particular function of the royal image. 3 Coins also provided a convenient way of familiarising the wealthy members of communities with the image adopted by a particular ruler, so that at least some of the population would recognise a ruler's portrait in religious or political contexts. It must also be remembered that the Greek images at least would have stood on inscribed bases, making recognition immediate for the literate. Royal seals also served an official purpose, representing the king's authority; thus the rulers needed an image that was easily recognisable and not of a general nature. 31

°

There are a surpnsmg number of small heads, of both Ptolemaic rulers and queens of an idealised nature. These heads are often without attributes and easily confused with representations of Greek deities. Whilst this in itself is instructive because it demonstrates a further link between the royal house and the gods, the heads are of such a general nature that it is impossible to distinguish between rulers and often necessary to simply label pieces either third or second century BC. 32 This type of dedication was probably made on behalf of the royal house and was no doubt associated with the faience cult vases, showing portraits of queens. The most comprehensive survey and the function of these vases was published in 1973 by D.B. Thompson. She attempted to build a chronological framework for the surviving pieces, using stylistic analysis and comparison of portrait types with the coin sequence. 33 The work is extremely useful in terms of understanding the function of a very specific type of royal image, but the portrait features are not of a sufficient quality to be of any real assistance with the identification of the sculptured portraits. The vases do, however, offer an interesting insight into the role of Ptolemaic queens in the presentation of the dynasty, from the third to the second centuries BC. They also give an impression of how some of the complete statues would have appeared.

Fig. I Faience cult vase with an image of Arsinoe II (275-270 BC). The British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, K77. Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. The images show the queen in Hellenistic costume with Greek attributes such as a diadem or stephane; the left arm supports a cornucopia, symbolising the fruits of Egypt and their role as provider, in the other they pour a libation from a bowl. 34 Smith suggests that the small heads of queens were used in a similar way, in sanctuaries which were connected with the royal cult, possibly even by the second century BC representing the individual queen's own cult or that which was connected with the ruler. 35 There are other types of vessels, mostly made of metal, which are decorated with images of rulers, such as the Hildesheim portraits of Ptolemy 1.36 Further complete representations of Ptolemaic rulers in the Hellenistic style, most commonly in the form of bronze statuettes. Three examples, now in the British Museum, offer an idea of how the larger statues once looked. The first two are a pair, representing Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, as illustrated by the double cornucopia that the female

29 Smith (1988) 26 stresses the high status of Greek sculptors, which is paralleled by the native Egyptian sculptors over other craftsmen, see chapter 3 below. 30 Smith (1988) 14 and Koenen (1993) 29-30. 31 Thompson (1973) 80. 32 Smith (1988) 88-89, believes that they were votives. Kyrieleis pays more attention to this group, the majority are, however, impossible to distinguish. 33 Thompson (1973).

Although Boardman (1994) 164-65 comments on the rigid stance of the queens, the representations are, as he concluded entirely Greek. For the specific attributes see Thompson (1973) 23-32. 35 Smith (1988) 95. 36 Svenson (1995) 277, nos. 262-64, pl. 16, Rausch ed. (1998) 76, no. 31 and Bianchi ed. (1988) 146, no. 51. 34

9

Sally-Ann Ashton

holds. The queen's image is very similar to that on the faience cult vases; the male stands naked, with a club in his left hand associating him with Herakles and an elephant cap on his head, associating him with Alexander the Great. 37 The third is a bronze statuette of a ruler, probably Ptolemy III or IV. The ruler stands naked apart from a lion skin, which is flung over his left shoulder and holds a small cornucopia in his right hand. 38 Scholars' opinions on the development of Greek-style Ptolemaic portraiture have changed considerably over the years. Noshy and Lawrence, two of the earliest scholars to collect the Hellenistic representations, divided the evidence into four periods. Lawrence defined the first as a period of eclecticism, when the Alexandrian style evolved; followed by an intensity of expression, then naturalism and finally decline. 39 Of the fourth period Noshy wrote: "Under Ptolemy V one observes features of degeneration which develop to such an extent that after the days of Ptolemy VIII one hardly finds any sculpture worthy of the name". 40 The concept of a style declining is problematic, and subject to personal judgement. Ironically, the very decline to which both Lawrence and Noshy refer constitutes the emergence of a style of portrait which is, in its essence, exclusively Ptolemaic and not a product of the more general Hellenistic trends.

1.2 Egyptian Elements in Greek-style Royal Representations The Hellenistic portraits raise two main questions: firstly, whether individual pieces were intended for sanctuaries or public place: in other words, whether they served a political, decorative or religious purpose. This can be seen clearly on the gateway of Euergetes at Karnak, where the ruler makes offerings to the Theoi Adelphoi. The royal titles on stelae and papyri also name the Theoi Adelphoi as his parents. The ruler's real mother was Arsinoe I, Philadelphos' first wife. Secondly, whether the lost bodies of statues contained any Egyptian or egyptianising elements. Whilst it has been suggested that the Hellenistic sculptors may have been influenced by the Egyptian artistic tradition, there is little evidence to substantiate the claim.41 The head in question is a representation of Arsinoe II, now in Bonn, which is unusual because of the emphasis given to the frontal position of the head, which may indicate an early date for the portrait. The features are very angular; particularly the sharp lines of the nose and British Museum, inv. nos. EA 38442 and EA 38443. See Kyrieleis (1975) Bl and J2, pl. 9 for illustrations. Koenen (1993) 44 and Bergmann (1998) 32-33. 38 See Bailey (1990) 107-10, pl. 21 and Bailey and Craddock (1991) 18689. See also Higgs in Walker and Higgs eds. (2000) 70, 1.58. 39 Lawrence (1925) 179 and Noshy (1937) 83. 40 Noshy (1937) 95. 41 See the Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum der Universitiit B284, Arsinoe II. Kyrieleis (1975) 40-41 and 92, also Bianchi ed. (1988) 168, no. 64 for a discussion of the possible influences on the Greek tradition and Smith (1988) 88, who rejects the idea. Koenen (1993) 45-46 and footnote 50, who believes that Greek art would try to express an Egyptian idea in Greek pictures; see also for earlier literature on the subject. 37

deliberate curves of the mouth. Such characteristics, along with the high polish, which had been applied in antiquity, led Kyrieleis and later Bianchi to conclude that the piece was influenced by the Egyptian tradition. 42 Whilst it is tempting to suggest that the piece is a parallel for the Hellenistic features on Egyptian-style statuary, this example is an isolated case. Furthermore, the angular appearance may simply indicate an early date for the piece, perhaps even during Arsinoe's lifetime, before she was deified in her own right. The other portraits of the queen are quite different in appearance, and one would expect that there would be a greater number of posthumous portraits of the queen, simply because of the greater time span and the more ardent promotion of her cult by the royal house. In many ways Arsinoe II seems to have been the dynasty's most prominent female; this is illustrated by the number of posthumous representations throughout the period and also by Ptolemy Ill's adoption of Arsinoe as his mother. On the coin images of the Theoi Adelphoi, Arsinoe's portrait type is clearly based on that of her brother and it is the posthumous portraits of the deified queen that best illustrate the independence of the development of the female royal image.43 It is also possible that some of the portraits represent the sister of the rulers, Philoteira, whose cult was celebrated as a separate entity, and who must have been represented or even associated with the royal couple.44 The portraits of Arsinoe II potentially span a much greater period than those of Ptolemy II, and it is her posthumous image for which there is the most evidence, reflecting the interest and popularity of her cult.45 The evidence from sealings suggests that any Egyptian influence on the Greek royal portrait manifested itself in the form of attributes that were worn by the rulers rather than a visual influence on the style.46 Unfortunately there are few complete statues or portraits with their original attributes. Certainly the female royal portraits seem to have worn Hellenistic costume and headdresses; even where the original attributes are missing there are often traces of the veil for example.47 The complete statues do not share any features in common with the Egyptian images of the period. Similarly the images of queens on faience cult vases show Hellenistic matrons rather than Egyptian queens; and the bronze statuette of Arsinoe II, Kyrieleis (1975) 40-41 and 92, also Bianchi ed. (1988) 168, no. 64. Troxell (1983) 35-70. 44 On the cult of Philoteira see Thompson (1988) 127 and 131, also Fraser (1972) 229. 45 For a general account of Arsinoe II see Longega (1968). 46 ROM 906.12.27 and 906.12.28. 47 For example Alexandria Greco-Roman Museum 3252 [unpublished]; Cairo Egyptian Museum JE 39519 [Edgar (1915) 6-7, pl. 5]; Mariemont Museum 264 [Rubensohn (1902) 47 and (1906) 134; Antiquities Egyptiennes, Grecques et Romains appartenent aP. Philip, Vente Drouot 10-12. April 1905 no. 477; Collignon (1911) 296; Faider-Feytmans (1952) 78, no. G 33; Brunelle (1976) 30; Tefnin (1969) 89-100; Kyrieleis (1975) 99 f., 132, 135, no. KS. For examples of veils which are carved in the marble see Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 3274 [Breccia (1922) 181, no. 11; Brunelle (1976) 123, 147, n. 56; Prange (1990) 206] and 14941 [Adriani (1934) no. 100; Tkaczow (1990) 418-425; Tkaczow (1993) 189-90, no. 13]. 42 43

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt now in the British Museum, is Greek in style.48 It is therefore unlikely that the missing bodies of statues would have provided evidence for an Egyptian influence on the Greek representations of rulers.

the third century BC queen and wife of Ptolemy III: Berenike II. Like her predecessor, Arsinoe II, Berenike was posthumously deified and given her own cult and priestesses. Consequently, several representations have been identified as images of the queen; one of the finest is this head, now in Kassel, and it is this particular piece to which the Rome head is most often compared. Whilst initially the two heads appear to be of a similar appearance, there are distinct differences, particularly in the shape of the faces: the portrait ofBerenike has a squared lower jaw, which produces a more rounded appearance to the shape of the face, which is typical of third century portraits. This feature can also be found on the queen's coin images.

There is, however, an isolated example of a Hellenistic artist adopting Egyptian attributes for a Greek-style representation. The head (Cat. 70) was found in Rome, in 1887, along with fragments of representations of Egyptian gods, within the structure of a wall, close to the church of San Pietro e Marcellino, Via Labicana. The area housed a sanctuary to the Egyptian gods Isis and Sarapis, although the exact date of the foundation of the cults is not known. Not surprisingly in the early publications the head is identified as an image oflsis. 49 However, comparison with other early Roman and Greek representations of the goddess Isis, such as this cult statue from the Iseum at Pompeii, show that archaising statues of a non-Egyptian type were preferred, as demonstrated by the cult statues at Delos, Rhodes and Pompeii. Later catalogue entries for the Rome head noted the youthful appearance of the subject and suggested that it was a portrait of a Ptolemaic queen on account of the obvious Egyptian attributes and indeed the head compares well with such portraits from Egypt.

Most recently, it has been suggested that the Rome queen is later in date and is in fact a representation of an early Cleopatra, thus dating to the second rather than the third century BC. However, a comparison with the harsh images that were produced during this period such as the portrait of either Cleopatra II or III in the Louvre offer a striking difference to the soft modelling that has been noted on the Rome head. 50 An even greater contrast can be found on the Egyptian version of the Greek portrait type, which closely imitate the corpulent images used to represent the male rulers in this period and the use of archaising curls on the hair (see Cat. 47).

Although there are examples of Egyptian sculpture executed in marble, this head can be classified as egyptianising because it is without the usual dorsal support found on statues of this period. However, the carving of the wig convincingly imitates Egyptian originals, and together with the use of inlaid eyes this feature might suggest that the sculptor was familiar if not trained in the Egyptian tradition.

This type of softer modelling is, however, found on some of the Egyptian-style representations and along with the careful rendering of the Egyptian wig, may be further evidence of an Egyptian workshop or at least a sculptor who was familiar with Egyptian modelling and portrait types. The Turin queen (Cat. 38) offers the closest parallel, and also demonstrates the difference between the stylised rendering of the vulture on the Egyptian statue when compared to the much more realistic carving on the Rome head.

A seal impression (appendix 1.25) gives an impression of how the head would have originally appeared. There are two shallow holes on the stone portrait: one at the front to support a vulture head and the other at the top of the head, originally to support a crown. Because of the depth of the top hole the crown could not have met with Egyptian artistic cannons and must have been egyptianising as seen on the seal impression.

Perhaps the most interesting parallel is that of an already accepted portrait of Cleopatra VII, now in the Vatican Museum. 51 The heads share the same youthful image, only Cat. 70 is executed according to Hellenistic cannons but with a strong Egyptian influence: namely the iconography, the modelling of the Egyptian wig and the inlaid eyes. If the portrait does represent Cleopatra VII the association with Isis may have been deliberate and it has to be considered whether the head may have been dedicated by or on behalf of the queen during her two year stay in Rome (46-44 BC). 52

If this head is a portrait of a Ptolemaic queen, as the iconography suggests, it is unique, because it is the only evidence for a Greek sculptor borrowing attributes from the Egyptian tradition. Did then the subject of the portrait deliberately intend the association with Isis or did the head, like many other Egyptian sculptures, simply find its way to Rome and once there, was seen to be a suitable decoration for an Egyptian sanctuary? The answer really lies in the dating of the piece. Several scholars have noted the youthful appearance of the portrait and soft modelling of the facial features, which they compare to the portraits of

Paris, Louvre MA 3546: Richter (1965) 267 [Cleopatra II-III]; Charbonneaux et al (1973) 311 [Cleopatra II]; Kyrieleis (1975) 120-21, M12; Brunelle (1976) 80-81 [Cleopatra III]; R. Smith (1998) 94-94 and 166-67, no. 56 [Cleopatra I-III]; Hamiaux (1998) 87, no. 89 [Cleopatra IIIII]. 51 Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Profano 38511; see Higgs in Walker and Higgs eds. (2000) 157, III.2 for bibliography and discussion. 52 See Walker and Higgs eds. (200 I) where it is also suggested that the Berlin and Vatican Cleopatras were manufactured and dedicated in Rome during this period. 50

EA 3 8443. This statuette indicates how the complete bronze statues of third century rulers might have looked. 49 Mustilli (1939) considered the statue to be Alexandrian and suggests that it originally served as a representation of Berenike II, thus dating the piece to the third century BC. Ensoli in Arslan ed. (1997) 396 dates the sculpture to the second century BC on stylistic grounds. 48

11

Sally-Ann Ashton

conforms to a standard portrait type. A second head with the same diadem now in the Petrie Museum (appendix 3.2) shares similar but not identical features and shows a youthful portrait type with the hair styled in a similar manner. The only parallel for the twisted diadem can be found on the Bologna Caesarion (Cat. 32). Outside the royal repertoire, athletes wear the same diadem. 55 If the heads are royal, and the similarity of the attribute of the Bologna Caesarion would suggest that this is a possibility, the representations were probably used as votives. The two small heads (appendix 3.1 and 3.2) do not show any indication of a back pillar, although their scale may not have required there to be one, particularly if they were inserted into a statue of a different material. This observation leads to the question of the ethnicity of the sculptor, who may have been Egyptian.

1.3 Greek-style Portraits Manufactured in Egyptian Hard Stones There is very little evidence for the production of Greekstyle royal representations in hard stone; carved according to Greek practice, with Hellenistic coiffures and attributes such as the diadem rather than Egyptian crown. Of native deposits, only limestone would have been a medium familiar to the Greek artists. It was also the most easily available stone since it forms the hills of the Nile valley. Why then did the Greek sculptors on occasion use less familiar, hard stones? The Greek artists are unlikely to have used hard stones for reasons of economy (to avoid importing marble), since the phenomenon first appears in the third century BC, when Egypt and its rulers were still enjoying relative prosperity. It is possible that artists experimented with different stones for aesthetic or cultural reasons. Some of the finer-grained Egyptian stones are not dissimilar in appearance to the patinated bronzes that would once have decorated the public and religious areas in cities and towns and it is possible they were used as a substitute.

Two other heads, which display more characteristic Egyptian traits in their frontality, (appendix 3.3 and 3.4) both represent royal women. The queen or princess in the British Museum is similar in style to the larger limestone head of a Cleopatra (Cat. 45) and the angle at which the back has been removed would suggest that there had once been a dorsal support. Similarly the sizeable hole at the top of the head of appendix 3 .4, the Alexandrian sculpture, suggests a sizeable crown was worn, according to the Egyptian cannons.

Alternatively the use of the hard stones may have invoked the Ptolemaic rulers' role of pharaoh. The usual portrait features were probably maintained so that the Greek audience was able to identify the specific ruler. On all of these pieces, the artist has attempted to reproduce the standard portrait type for each monarch and in some instances has clearly struggled, with a rather stylised result. It would be tempting to label these pieces as Egyptian attempts to copy a foreign portrait type, but this would be unjustified particularly when the characteristics of Egyptian-style statues are taken into consideration. 53

These representations are likely to have been the result of artists, either Greek or Egyptian, producing popular images of the royal house that were made for the dynastic cult with a general portrait type in an available stone. It must be remembered, however, that such images were the exception rather than the rule in the Ptolemaic Period and it is not until the later annexation of Egypt by Rome that such portraits become increasingly common. The two royal heads, if indeed they do date to the first century BC, like their Egyptian counterpart may be amongst the earliest examples of this phenomenon.

All examples are small scale, and the images are of a general nature rather than individualised. 54 The small head of a ruler, now in the Brooklyn Museum of Art (appendix 3.1) has an unusually elaborate, twisted diadem and

See Smith (1996a) 206-07 who comments that the Egyptian-style statue of Ptolemy VI (Cat. 15) is more carefully carved than its Hellenistic equivalent. 54 Smith (1988) 88-89 questions the possibility of identifying such heads and suggests that they were probably used as votives. 53

I would like to than Professor Bert Smith for pointing this out during a discussion of the Petrie head. 55

12

subjects. However, the Nineteenth Dynasty mummified profile of Ramesses II compares well with the large nose on his portraits in the round and in paintings and relief. The similarity between the Ramesside portraits and their subject's actual appearance is perhaps closer to the practice found on Ptolemaic representations, particularly in the second century BC, where a corpulent image is used by Ptolemies VIII-X. With regard to the Ptolemaic examples, it is, however, possible that the Egyptian sculptors were simply reproducing the Greek image, which was then responsible for the introduction of a portrait which remained faithful to the subjects' true appearance.

Chapter 2: Egyptian-Style representations of the pharaoh 2.1 Pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian-style Portraiture It is important to establish whether the Hellenistic artistic traditions and the promotion of the Greek-style image influenced the production of naturalistic portrait types on Egyptian statuary during the Ptolemaic Period. Greeks had settled in Egypt since the Twenty-sixth Dynasty but the Ptolemies were the first rulers to promote the style actively. Although naturalism in Egyptian portraiture is sometimes said to have been introduced as a direct result of Greek influence, its acceptance was a completely indigenous response. 56 References to a few specific instances of various dates are sufficient to illustrate that the so-called 'naturalistic' style is well documented in Egypt prior to the arrival of the first Greeks.

The earlier representations of Sesostris III may indicate a different kind of naturalistic portrait. 'Realistic' portraits first appear under Sesostris II and are copied closely by Sesostris III; their reappearance, over a millennium later on portraits of private individuals in the Thirtieth Dynasty, suggests that 'realistic' or 'naturalistic' portraiture was a convention and that such images are no guide to the person's physical appearance. During the Late Period, a renewed interest in the non-idealising portrait type in private representations appears. The re-dating of the socalled Berlin and the Boston Green Heads by Josephson to the fourth century BC supports the idea that the Ptolemies were not responsible for the introduction of the style.60

A considerable difficulty arises in the definition of various portrait types, in particular with regard to the meaning of 'naturalistic' or 'individualistic'. Are such portraits really any closer to the subject's physical appearance than an idealising image? Assmann avoids the problem of defining the various types of portraiture by differentiating between sculptor and subject, thus concluding that the naturalistic images also represent how the subject wished to be seen rather than how the sculptor saw him. Because of the many social and religious constraints Egyptian sculptors were obliged to follow certain prescribed formulae, including naturalism. The artists' perceptions were consequently of no importance. 57 Although sporadic attempts at naturalism exist earlier, the Fourth Dynasty (2680-2565 BC) saw a regular production of this style.58 The famous bust of Ankh-haf, now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, shows that the sculptors of the Fourth Dynasty were attempting to produce non-idealised portrait types. The effect, however, is somewhat stylised and it is not possible to know whether the resulting sculptures were intended to be close representations of the subject.

Naturalistic portraiture clearly can be found in Egypt well before the Ptolemaic Period. Whether the style really does offer a realistic physical representation is of little consequence, the fact remains that this type of portraiture was not wholly a result of Hellenistic influence. Although these images were distinctive, the Thirtieth Dynasty and early Ptolemaic representations follow the long established tradition of associating the new ruler with his predecessor for political reasons.

2.2 The historical context for the development of royal portraiture

Very few royal representations, either Greek or Egyptian, have definitive contexts, and even when a provenance is known it is usually very general, giving a city rather than a specific location within it. For this reason it is necessary to consider the various contexts for the royal image and the background to the social and religious climate of the period. There was a long tradition in Egyptian art of representing royals in sculpture and relief. The most immediate precedents to this study are the representations of Persian rulers. Whilst there are numerous royal images dating to the first period of Persian control, none have been allocated to the second. 61 Nor are there any recognised statues of Alexander the Great, although the ruler appears in relief representation at the Shrine of the Bark at Luxor

The portraits of Twelfth Dynasty pharaoh Sesostris III are also considered to be naturalistic. However, the image adopted by Sesostris III and other Egyptian rulers, although naturalistic in appearance, also denoted a suitably contemplative and expressive image for a ruler. 59 It is not, therefore, possible to conclude that the artists were attempting to recreate the physical appearance of their 56 Bothmer (1960b) xxxviii states that only in the fourth century BC does naturalism occur in Egyptian portraiture. 57 Assmann (1996) 55 and Spane! (1988) 1-37, see also Ashton and Spane! (2000). 58 Smith (1998) 56-61 figs. 103-06 for the so-called Reserve heads; he distinguishes two separate schools for this period, both producing naturalistic portrait types. See also Tefnin (1991) 19 and for the most recent article on Ankh-hafsee Bolshakov (1991) 5-15. 59 Spane! (1988) 13-14 and 33. Assmann (1996) 74-75. See also Assmann's comments 79, on the formulae that express inner life in portraiture. For a more detailed study of the portraits of Sesostris III, see Polz (1995). For the idealisation ofSesostris Ill's portrait type see Baines (1994) 79-83.

°

Compare Bothmer (1960b) 138-39, who dates the Boston Green head to 220-180 BC, and Josephson (1997a) 18-19, who dates the Boston head to the middle of the fourth century BC. See also Bianchi ed. (1988) 130-42 nos. 35-47 for discussion; such non-idealising images are dated from the third to the first centuries BC. 61 See Josephson (1997b) I. 6

13

Sally-Ann Ashton

temple. In contrast the early Ptolemaic rulers follow the portrait style of the Thirtieth Dynasty, for whom there are many recognised representations. 62 Because of a lack of interest in the representation of women from the sixth century BC, there are very few images of royal or private women for the two centuries before Ptolemaic rule. 63

Philoteira. 66 However, there is only evidence for one female figure and Saunemon in his publication of the object in 1960 suggested that the central figure was in fact the god Amun, flanked by Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. 67 The statue is believed by some to have stylistic links with representations from the 19th Dynasty, because of the narrow form of the skirt which Arsinoe wears. On similar, although umelated triads, the ruler occupies a central position, flanked by two gods. The Alexandrian triad almost certainly dates from the reign of Ptolemy II, but it is more difficult to know whether it was manufactured during the lifetime of his queen. Arsinoe II reigned with her brother from 275 to 270 BC, she was deified following her death and her image appears in both Greek and Egyptian temples. At the temple of Isis on the island of Philae for example Arsinoe appears as a goddess, standing behind Isis and receiving offerings from the Pharaoh Ptolemy II (Figure 3).

The third century BC, particularly the reign of Philadelphos, is generally considered to be a period of prosperity when the Ptolemaic dynasty was at its most powerful. The rulers adopted a policy of supporting both the Greek and Egyptian traditions and religions in an attempt to establish their place in Egyptian culture whilst seemingly promoting their own Macedonian heritage to the Greek immigrants and the wider Greek world. The Greek and Egyptian-style dedications in the capital, Alexandria, show that the early rulers were keen to promote themselves as both Hellenistic dynast and Pharaoh. Material from as early as the reign of Ptolemy II indicates that the ruler attempted to portray himself according to both artistic traditions. Evidence from the Sarapieion and from around the harbour area of Fort Qait Bey has revealed that many of the royal representations were made according to the Egyptian tradition. 64

Figure 3 Temple of Isis, Philae If the triad was manufactured after her death it would perhaps be more appropriate for Ptolemy to occupy the central position flanked by Amun and the deified Arsinoe. The queen's association with the god is demonstrated by the inscription s?t 1mn (Daughter of Amun). 68 An Egyptian crown of Amun which was also found in the region of Anfushy, reused as a masonry in-fill, may be linked to the piece. 69 However, tempting though it is to suggest that there was a temple to Amun on the island, it is not possible to say for certain that these two pieces originated at the site. They, like some of the earlier material, may have been brought to the city from outside.

Figure 2 Alexandria, fragment of a statue of a basalt triad One of the earliest pieces of evidence of a pharaonic style representation from the Ptolemaic period was found on the Island of Pharos, in the Anfushy district. It is in the form of a fragmentary basalt triad, measuring 0.78m xl. 77m x 1.28m (Figure 2). Only the feet remain, but it is enough to show that at least one of the figures is female, since the skirt of a dress is visible above the ankles. The piece is exceptional and was described by Bothmer as 'absolutely unique'. 65 Fortunately the hieroglyphic cartouche of Ptolemy II is preserved on the right side of the throne. When the piece was discovered it was believed to represent Ptolemy II, his consort Arsinoe II and their sister

The triad is of considerable interest, not least of all because of its possible stylistic link with earlier Egyptian art. For the drapery is not typical of the Ptolemaic period where a more fluid style is often used, even by Egyptian artists. The possible association between this representation of

See Josephson (1997b) 1-32. Bothmer (1960b) 116 makes the same observation. 64 For a discussion of the new finds from around the harbour area in Alexandria see chapters 3 and 5, and for the purely Egyptian-style evidence see Ashton in Hirst ed. (forthcoming). 65 Saunernon (1960) 84.

Botti (1902) 95. Saunernon (1960) 85. 68 Saunernon (1960) 89. 69 Tkaczow (1993) 184-85, no. 3. The crown was found in the southern most part of the district whereas the statue was found in the northeastern area.

62

66

63

67

14

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

Ptolemy II as pharaoh, and earlier Egyptian art might suggest that there were remnants from this period to inspire the Egyptian craftsmen. It is somewhat of a contrast to the more usual link between Ptolemaic royal representations and those of the Late Period, although without the remainder of the statue it is impossible to tell for certain the form of and influences on the piece.

Delta, with temples also appearing in the Faiyum at Tebtunis and Bacchias. 71 Under Ptolemy II royal patronage extends to Upper Egypt with temples at Coptos, Hibis in the W estem desert, Karnak and Philae. Ptolemy III continued his father's policies and supported the temples at Aswan and Karnak, whilst starting a project at Edfu; he also patronised temples in the Faiyum and the Delta with a large building project at the Alexandrian Sarapieion. With such a conspicuous support of the temples and the Egyptian religion it would seem logical to expect that the Egyptian royal image would be promoted in a similar manner and that it would reflect the earlier representations of Pharaoh.

In order to fully understand the royal image it is necessary to look at the interaction between the Greek and Egyptian categories rather than treating each type separately. Outside the capital the rulers paid for the restoration or building of Egyptian temples and paid money to native cults. Soter paid for the burial of the Apis Bull of the cow Ta-nt-Aset, shortly after he took control of Egypt; this continued a tradition that had been favoured by the Twenty-sixth dynasty and other Late Period rulers. 70 There was also a concerted effort on behalf of the royal house to spread their patronage throughout the country. Under Ptolemy I the main area of concentration was the

The reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator has been seen as a turning point in the dynasty's fortunes. Whilst the ruler continued the building projects of his predecessors in Alexandria and beyond, the political climate and his foreign policies are believed to have upset the balance of power. 72 There had been unrest during the reign of

Figure 4 Detail of the Raphia stela

See Arnold (1999) 154-57 for temples patronised by Ptolemy I and 157-62, for Ptolemy II. 72 See Hiilbl (1994) 111-19 for details. 71

70

Thompson (1988) 114.

15

Sally-Ann Ashton

Ptolemy III; however, under Philopator the upnsmg occurred when the dynasty was in a particularly weak position towards the end of his reign. 73 The battle of Raphia, when a large Egyptian contingent fought as part of the army for the first time was considered by ancient and many modem historians to have raised the expectations of the Egyptians, which consequently led to native uprisings. 74 In November of 217 BC there was a priestly synod at Memphis, and the king's achievements are celebrated on the Raphia stela (Figure 4). 75 At the top of the text is a traditional scene showing Ptolemy IV on horseback, accompanied by his wife, Arsinoe, standing before the Egyptian gods. Ptolemy wears a Macedonian battle-dress and not the traditional Egyptian kilt. This representation therefore, shows the pharaoh in a costume from his own culture, as had been seen previously on representations of Persians; there is, however, no evidence to suggest that the Ptolemaic rulers were commonly shown in Macedonian costume for Egyptian representations. 76

Hellenistic portraits because the Greek advisors and artists would have moved to Memphis. It is, however, possible that the Greek and Egyptian artists worked together in close quarters for the first time and that the native sculptors incorporated the familiar Greek portraits in their own work. It is also possible that the ruler's supporters used a Greek portrait for the Egyptian statuary in order to distinguish him from the rebel pharaoh. Rebellion, dynastic rivalry, civil war and Roman intervention from the time of Ptolemy VI to Ptolemy XII can be associated with an increasingly wider range of royal images, particularly in the Egyptian-style statuary.79 The developments in the dynastic cult may also have played an important role in the chosen royal image and it is important to consider the historical background to the royal cult in order to understand why developments and changes in the Ptolemaic royal image occurred. It is interesting that under Cleopatra VII when Egypt becomes more powerful, the queen reverts to the images that were common in the third century BC rather than continuing the styles in which her immediate predecessors had presented themselves.

The idea that Philopator had not been well informed and supportive of the Egyptian tradition has recently been radically revised. It is therefore, necessary to see the changes during and after the reign of Ptolemy IV not in terms of Egyptianisation resulting in weakness of the dynasty but rather as a different way of relating to Egyptian culture. Nor did the situation simply involve the rising of the Egyptians against the royal house; the native rebels attacked Egyptian temples, as the text of the Rosetta decree demonstrates. 77

2.3 Royal cults

Religion played an important role in the typology of the Ptolemaic royal image and it is necessary to look carefully at the various royal cults and at royal patronage of Greek and Egyptian cults if the functions for the various categories are to be determined, particularly with respect to the images of the Ptolemaic queens. The separate Greek and Egyptian traditions are also important in the understanding of any cross-cultural borrowing. There are five main aspects to the religious representations of the Ptolemaic royal image: • Ptolemy as Pharaoh: alive he was the embodiment of Horus, and dead he was Osiris, lord of the underworld. • Association or assimilation with an established deity. • Ruler cult. • Dynastic cult.

The problems continued under Ptolemy V, who was a minor at the time of his accession. In 206 BC, towards the end of Philopator's reign, the rebel pharaoh Hr-wn-nfr was crowned at Thebes and his successor, Ankh-wn-nfr 'ruled' until 186 BC. 78 Following an uprising in Alexandria, the royal court was moved to Memphis. This move may explain the introduction of Egyptian-style statues with Greek features and the cessation of parallel Greek and Egyptian dedications at sanctuaries such as the Sarapieion at Memphis and Alexandria. The fact that Ptolemy V's queen was a Seleucid princess seems also to be reflected in the scarcity of identifiable sculpture representing her. However, this may have represented a lack of interest in the Greek royal image. Although Alexandria was important for the development and promotion of the Hellenistic royal image, it is unlikely that the move to Memphis would have affected the production of

•

See McGing (1997) 274-77. See Polybios V. 34 and V. 107, where he writes the following "IltoA.Eµaiq> YE µEv Ef,0froi; i'mo 'tO'\l'tffiV't(l)V Katprov cr'UVE~atVE yiyvm0m ,;ov 1tpoi; wui; Aiyumioui; 1tOAEµov." Although Polybios explains that the Egyptians had gained confidence because of their success at the battle of Raphia, McGing (1997) 280-82, has recently questioned the date of the revolt by the Egyptians, and he suggests convincingly in n. 31 that Eii0Emapµo ( u8t) 1!3.

Great King, Ptolemy the god, New Dionysos, Fatherloving and Sibling-loving, year 26, 12th Pharmuthi (15th April 55 BC). The association of an Egyptian-style statue with a Greek inscription leads to the question of whether it was dedicated by a Greek or Egyptian. The context was that of a native temple: the statue was excavated at the Temple of Sobek in Tebtunis in the Faiyum and this is important for our understanding of the function served by this group of royal representation, since the combination of Greek inscription and Egyptian image echoes the bicultural society and personality of many members of the population from the second century BC.

The Tebtunis Auletes offers an important insight into the relationship between the Greek and Egyptian cultures and illustrates that by the later Ptolemaic Period the two traditions were not distinct. This particular statue retains the necessary elements to be understood by both communities: the attributes and traditional stance show it to be a representation of the pharaoh to Egyptians and the portrait features and inscription would identify the subject to Greeks. The statue was, therefore, bilingual. The use of Egyptian statuary in the Greek sanctuary of Sarapis in Alexandria, however, shows a very different treatment of the foreign tradition. It is unlikely that a non-Egyptian would recognise the subtleties of the sphinxes, or indeed be capable of interpreting the Egyptian iconography that distinguishes the images as royal. During the building of the Sarapieion under Ptolemies III and IV the sphinxes may have simply served to enhance the Egyptian ambience of the sanctuary. They are, nonetheless, important for our understanding of the use of royal sculpture in Ptolemaic Egypt.

2. 7 Conclusion

When the provenanced material is considered, the evidence for Egyptian-style Ptolemaic royal portraiture suggests that 142 Compare the re-cut marble head in Paris, Musee du Louvre inv. MA 3449. Richter (1965) 261 [Ptolemy II]; Strocka (1967) 126, no. 41; Kyrieleis (1975) 76-77, II [Ptolemy XII]; Smith (1986) 67; Bianchi ed. (1988) 154-55, no. 57 [Ptolemy XII]; Smith (1988) 97, 168, no. 62 [Ptolemy XII?]; Rausch ed. (1998) 274, no. 218 [Ptolemy XII?]; Hamiaux (1998) 81-82, no. 83 [Ptolemy XII]. 143 Bastiani and Gallazzi (1989) 202-03.

144

24

Bothmer (1960b) xxxviii.

Greek features to suggest that a change or development in the royal image had occurred.

Chapter 3: The adoption of Greek features on Egyptian-style images of the pharaoh

The questions of sculptural origin, place and number of workshops cannot easily be answered because many of the representations have no definite provenance. Smith's suggestion that the assimilation of styles began at Memphis seems more likely if the earlier examples are reattributed to the reign of Ptolemy V, since the ruler moved the royal court to the city from Alexandria. 146 At Memphis, the rulers promoted their Macedonian heritage, as illustrated by the Greek-style statues located close to the temple of Nectanebo and the burial chambers of the Apis bulls. 147 At both Memphis and Alexandria the rulers were portrayed in both Greek and Egyptian statuary, and it is easy to see how the parallel dedications at such sites could have resulted in artists borrowing features from the other tradition.

3.1 Introduction

The most common form of borrowing from the Greek tradition is found on statues that are made according to the Egyptian late period tradition, with a back pillar, in striding stance, but with attributes that are more commonly associated with Hellenistic sculpture. On the male statues this phenomenon manifests itself in the portrait features (which are copied from the Greek-style images) and the inclusion of hair beneath the headdress. On a smaller group of female representations, the hair is in a Hellenistic coiffure, although the portrait features generally remain stylised; this group will be dealt with in chapter 4. As noted, there is no evidence of a reciprocal cross-cultural borrowing on the Greek statues, with the exception of a handful of representations carved in a hard stone, of which some are probably Egyptian in terms of a back pillar.

The Delta is another obvious centre for individual workshops, if indeed the impetus for this type of representation came from native contexts, because there were established Egyptian temples in the area. There was also a large concentration of sizeable sanctuaries such as the Sarapieion at Alexandria and the temple of Osiris at Canopus, which were patronised by the royal house. In the Faiyum, all of the cultural ingredients were present, but the majority of the Ptolemaic shrines were dedicated by local people, as a way of demonstrating both their support for the royal house and their own personal wealth or the prosperity of the village.

In his catalogue on Egyptian sculpture of the Late Period, Bothmer discussed a particular Egyptian-style portrait of a ruler, now in New Haven, with features that are clearly outside the normal indigenous type for this period; he identified the sculpture as an image of Ptolemy III (appendix 2.1), writing the following: 'The identity of the king must remain at the present time a matter of conjecture. The entire field of Egyptian royal sculpture of the last three centuries has so long been neglected that even the available material has not been recorded, much less classified and analysed.' In its original publication as a third century ruler Needler cites Cat. 27 as a parallel, a rather stylised portrait of red granite from Canopus and now in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria. However, the hairline of the New Haven head is closer to the type of Roman hairstyle found under the Julio-Claudians, and its identification as a Ptolemaic ruler has recently been challenged. 145 The Canopus head is still generally dated to the third century BC.

In Upper Egypt the priests seem to have favoured the traditional representations of the pharaoh in the relief decorations on all of the temples, but there are two examples of sculptures in the round with Greek portrait features. Both are believed to have come from Karnak: the first is one of the earliest examples of cross-cultural borrowing: the colossal statue of Ptolemy V Epiphanes from the Karnak temple, now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (Cat. 12) shows a portrait type, which is very close to the Hellenistic image of this ruler. The Egyptian Museum in Cairo houses a second representation of this type: a statue that is often identified as Mark Antony, but which is more likely to represent a first century BC ruler (Cat. 33). Such information is extremely important in determining the sculptural function because it would imply that the statues were intended for Egyptian temples as representations of the reigning pharaoh. The continuation of representations of the rulers in a purely pharaonic style also implies that the statues with Greek portrait features were intended for a specific role.

Neither piece seems to fit well within the stylistic framework of other third century BC images, when the traditional Egyptian-style royal image is continued. The stylised curls on the Alexandria head (Cat. 27) have more in common with the late second century and early first century BC Egyptian-style portraits of the later Ptolemies. Furthermore, the side burns that are commonly compared to those on the coin images of Ptolemy IV also appear on a statue that is universally accepted to represent a late ruler from Aphroditopolis (appendix 1.9). If these two sculptures do in fact represent Ptolemies III and IV, they are anomalies, for it is not until the time of Ptolemy V that there is a sufficient number of Egyptian-style statues with

The Karnak Epiphanes (Cat. 12) demonstrates the priests' willingness to accept an image of a pharaoh who was obviously foreign. It is interesting to note that the earliest example represents the first Ptolemy known to have been

145 See Massner (1986) 65-67. Compare also the portraits and hairstyle of Nero; the change in portrait type during his reign and its similarity to the Hellenistic representations would account for the confusion between this head and Ptolemaic images. For comparison see Poulsen (1962) 99, no. 65.

Smith (1996a) 210. See Lauer and Picard (1955) on the Memphis Sarapieion and Thompson (1983) 18-20 and 23, who discusses the cultnral background and various quarters of the town. 146 147

25

Sally-Ann Ashton

crowned according to the Egyptian tradition and a ruler whom we know to have fostered close links with the Egyptian priesthood through a series of synods in a time of rebellion and court faction. 148 There is further evidence from Canopus with a mixed-style statue of Ptolemy VI (Cat. 15) and a later representation of Ptolemy IX (Cat. 24). Similar pieces were set up in Alexandria, alongside other earlier purely Egyptian-style images (Cats. 19-21) during the mid to late second century BC. 149

differing standards in localised workshops; secondly that there was a lack of centralised control and production of the Ptolemaic royal image. 152 The Egyptian sculptors seem to have paid more attention to the production of a standard portrait type, although as the Strasbourg and Vatican representations of Philadelphos reveal, this was not always methodical. The similarity between busts such as the British Museum Ptolemy II and the BMA model indicate that there were defined portrait images in circulation. Furthermore, the specific attributes of the deified members of the royal family that are recorded in the Canopus and Rosetta decrees, suggests that there was some national control over the sacred royal images at least, presumably to allow recognition.

The reasons for the appearance of this type of statuary, at the end of the third century BC, may be a reflection of the change in the political climate or a development of the royal image. The distribution would accord with our knowledge that Egyptian sculptors travelled to commissions. 150 This raises the important question of the appearance of Greek portrait types on Egyptian-style statuary. Was it a royal, priestly or artistic initiative and what did the adoption of Greek features mean?

As previously noticed, there is an abundance of Egyptian sculptors' models dating to the third century BC; most are made from limestone as illustrated by Cat. 3, but there are examples manufactured in plaster as seen from the evidence collected by Petrie from Memphis. 153 Instructively, all of these models are Egyptian in style. Because the traditional Egyptian models seem to cease at around the same time that the Egyptians begin to copy the Greek portraits, they perhaps did so because the royal house, or whoever controlled the royal image, failed to produce Egyptian-style models for sculptors to use. This would suggest that with no alternative, the sculptors may have turned to the more commonly promoted Greek images and adopted the models of the other tradition to accommodate the lack of guidance.

3.2 Models and Methodology

Amongst the third century BC Egyptian-style statues are two that have inscriptions; this permits a comparison with uninscribed but stylistically similar pieces. For the second and first century BC versions of Greek portraits it is possible to compare Greek coin portraits and consequently images in the round to aid identity. The latter method is generally used when identifying the statues under consideration in this chapter, which adopt Greek portrait features. This system of analysis is not, however, without flaw, and the diverse range of identities offered for key sculptures is testimony to the problems of using this method of classification. This problem is compounded in the later images, when the Egyptian copies move away from the Greek models and offer a more stylised version of the ruler's Greek portrait type. For this reason, this chapter will consider Greek parallels for the portrait types in addition to the stylistic framework of this subgroup.

3.3 Egyptian-style Statues of Male Rulers with Greek Portrait Features

Copies of Greek-style portraits- Ptolemies V and VI The death of Philopator marked the beginning of a much weaker royal house. The royal advisors obviously anticipated problems, and although the king died in the Spring or Summer 204 BC his death was not made public until November. 154 His successor, who was only six years old in 204 BC, was not crowned until 196 BC when he came of age. The Egyptian-style ceremony has its parallel in the change in both the Greek and the Egyptian-style representations. 155 The portraits of Ptolemy V show a young man with rather weak features; the sculptures, such as a marble head in the Louvre, are easily identified from the ruler's coin image (appendix 1.1). Although the wide almond-shaped eyes continue a Ptolemaic fashion known since the time of Soter, the thin nose, weak chin and small mouth are particular to Epiphanes and suggest a certain youthfulness. The apparent remodelling of the hair on the Louvre Epiphanes may have been an attempt to age the

Greek models do not tend to survive, presumably on account of their fragile nature. Their existence is attested by the production of the same portrait types with identical features such as hair-line, brow and face shape. 151 However, the range of suggestions for the dating of individual portraits, particularly in the Greek style, would suggest that the Ptolemaic royal image was open to interpretation. There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon, firstly as Smith suggests in respect to the dissemination of the image of Augustus, that there were Thompson (1988) 120-21. See Ashton in Hirst ed. (forthcoming) on the pharaonic artistic tradition in Ptolemaic Alexandria. 150 See chapter 2, section 2.3 for a full discussion of native sculptors and their almost priestly role in the manufacture of statuary. 151 For a detailed discussion on the use of Roman models and evidence for replication of a single portrait type see Fittschen (1971) 214-52 on the portraits of Lucius Verus; Bergmann (1978) on Marcus Aurelius; Zanker (1973) on Augustus and with Vierneisel (1979); For methodology see Smith (1996b) 31-35 on Augustus, especially 32-33, and Smith (1997) 176-77 on Licinius I. 148 149

Smith (1996b) 34. London, Petrie Museum of Egyptology, UC 28711 and UC 14855. To view see the Petrie Museum web site. 154 Holbl (1994) 118. 155 Koenen (1993) 71 and footnote 109, suggests that Epiphanes was not the first of the dynasty to be crowned. 152 153

26

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

original image, for the king's appearance remained constant throughout his reign. 156

The Greek-style portrait of Ptolemy VI, now in the GrecoRoman Museum, Alexandria is extremely fine (appendix 1.2). The position of the head and the expression of the ruler, which might appear to modem eyes as supercilious, all suggest that the artist was working from an original model, perhaps his own. There are several Egyptian-style adaptations, the most successful and closest to the Greek version being another head in the Greco-Roman Museum, originally from Canopus (Cat. 15). The similarity between these two portraits led Smith to suggest that both artists were working from the same model. 158 The reason for his conclusion is that he believes the Canopus Philometor is of a higher quality than its Greek equivalent, thus the more successful version must have copied the same model rather than the statue itself It is the rendering of the hair in particular that has led Smith to draw this conclusion.

Two of the earliest images of Epiphanes (Cat. 13 and 14) show a slightly curious iconographic mixture. One of the heads (Cat. 13) at first glance appears to belong technically to the Greek tradition, since there is no sign of a dorsal support. The manner in which the double crown sits directly on the subject's head gives the piece an Egyptianising rather than Egyptian appearance; there is also a diadem and a very Greek rendering of the hair covering the entire head. The lock of Horus, indicating a youthful subject, seems to have been accepted into the Greek iconography relatively early and commonly appears on Hellenised representations of Harpocrates of Ptolemaic date. However, the rather stylised and frontal form is closer to the Egyptian-style representations and it is possible that the pillar was lower down the back.

The Canopus head (Cat. 15) is one of the earliest Ptolemaic examples of an Egyptian male portrait with inlaid eyes, which may indicate the type of model from which the Egyptian artist was working. Bothmer considered the use of inlaid eyes possibly to denote Greek influence. However, the Greek Alexandrian artists seem to have favoured sculptured eyes rather than inlays, which might suggest that the technique was reintroduced by the Egyptian artists who may also have been copying marble portraits with painted eyes. 159 It is interesting that the Egyptians also used incised pupils whereas this feature does not appear on Hellenistic portraiture. If the Egyptian and Greek artists were copying the same model, there would be no need to include inlays for the eyes on the Egyptian head. Although inlaid eyes are found on several Ptolemaic portraits, they are by no means the standard and their inclusion on the Canopus Philometor must have been intentional and probably indicative that the model also had inlaid eyes. If however, the Egyptian sculptor was using a bronze original as a model he would have automatically copied the inlaid eyes. This technique would also explain the careful styling of the hair on the Canopus head, which is, as Smith notes, superior to that of the Greek portrait. Certainly the appearance of bronze statuary would have been closer to the hard stone Egyptian portraits than the tinted white marble. However, the Canopus Philometor is an exceptional piece, which perhaps reflects the talent of an individual sculptor and not a general trend for producing accurate copies of Greek models, original or shared.

The second example (Cat. 14) is less carefully executed and has a back pillar. The ruler wears a diadem, a single uraeus and also has a Horus lock. The hair is carved in small knots and is generally more stylised than its Greekstyle counterpart. Both examples have very similar portrait features to the Louvre Epiphanes. The imagery of the two pieces is extremely interesting because it combines both Greek and Egyptian attributes, which are a curious mix, for they juxtapose a Greek diadem, with the crown of Upper Egypt and it is almost as if the diadem has replaced the more usual nemes. Examples of this category of statuary from the second century BC remain true to the Egyptian form and only adopt the portrait features of the ruler, ignoring foreign characteristics such as the diadem. The attribute returns, however, on the first century BC representations of princes and is clearly associated with youth in an Egyptian context. On the more mature Egyptian-style representation of Epiphanes from Karnak (Cat. 12) the artist has simply added an already established portrait type to an Egyptian statue. The similarities of the details of the Louvre and Karnak Epiphanes are quite uncanny, and the side profiles of the pair are remarkably similar (appendix 1.1). Furthermore, the hairstyles on both sculptures are alike, with a more natural fringe but with more stylised locks as the side of the head, which accords with hairstyle seen on the ruler's coin portraits (appendix 1.13). The important visual symbolism, which is an essential part of the Egyptian tradition, is not affected by the adoption of a Greek portrait. 157 Although Egyptian art is often considered to be stylised, relying heavily on symbolism to portray a message, each ruler has his own portrait type. From this point in the Ptolemaic Period, the artists begin to utilise an existing Greek image for their own representations of the pharaoh. Whether this is simply a natural artistic development remains to be considered.

The Aegina head (Cat. 16) was undoubtedly manufactured in Egypt and later transported to Greece. The back pillar is inscribed with a cartouche bearing Philometor's name, but even without it the styling of the hair would indicate the identity. 160 Although the Aegina head is a more stylised copy of a Greek portrait type, the sculptor has paid great attention to such details as the hair and mouth. However, the eyes are carved, not inlaid, possibly suggesting that the

Smith (1988) 206. Bothmer (1996) 225. 160 Smith (1996a) 205, who does, however, stress the similarity of the hairlines of the portraits of Ptolemy VI. 158

See Kyrieleis (1975) 173. 157See Ashton and Spane! (2000) on the recognisability of Egyptian portrait types. 156

159

27

Sally-Ann Ashton artist was using a stone model for his work. This feature would support the idea that the Egyptian sculptors copied whatever was available rather than using a standard model.

under the nemes headdress; unfortunately both examples are badly weathered. However, the Narmouthis head (Cat. 18) has a corpulent portrait type with full lips on a small, straight mouth and closely set eyes, which suggest that the identity of the subject is Ptolemy VIII rather than Ptolemy IX or X. This face is mirrored by that of a colossal statue that was recovered from the coastal area of Alexandria (Cat. 21), although the features are badly worn. The statue once had inlaid eyes and if indeed is does represent Ptolemy VIII is the only extant image of this ruler with this feature. The hair is just visible on the left side of the face; like that on the portraits of Ptolemy VI it is finely carved and avoids the stylised locks of the Narmouthis sphinx, now in Milan (Cat. 22). To what extent this stylistic feature is a chronological indicator will be discussed below. Cats. 19 and 20 also date to this period and may represent Ptolemies IX and X. Although the surfaces are worn, the hair is clearly visible on the side of the face of the former, indicating that these portraits belong to the same group as the other Egyptian statues with Greek portrait features.

The final representation of Philometor is a poorly preserved head, now in Erlangen (Cat. 17). Unfortunately the area around the brow is badly damaged and the full extent of the hairline is not discernible. The face is slightly narrower than on the Canopus and Aegina sculptures and the eyes are set very closely together, possibly indicating the influence of the portraits of Ptolemy VIII. 161 However, the hair and mouth are very similar to those on the Canopus head (Cat. 15), which nonetheless is the better work. Ptolemies VIII, IX and X Ptolemy VI ruled from 176 to 164 BC and was then deposed in favour of Ptolemy VIII until 163 BC, when he ruled for a further eighteen years. The second century BC was dominated by dynastic struggles, between Ptolemy VIII and his two wives and then between Ptolemy IX and X. The political climate seems, however, to have had little effect on the quality of royal images. 162 One seemingly new development is the reworking of earlier statues, which is a sign of the troubled times and possibly evidence of either financial problems or of rival members of the dynasty usurping earlier images as seen in appendix 1.4, 1.5, 1.8 and 1.10. The portrait type of Ptolemy VIII, who was called Physcon by the Alexandrians, is known from his coins. 163 The profile image shows the ruler with a hooked nose, flared nostril, a disproportionately large eye and rounded face with a double chin; the mouth is important because it is the only really distinguishing feature of this earlier Physcon portrait type; the lips are fleshy but still proportioned. This feature is best illustrated on the Brussels Physcon (Cat. 8). As previously noted the features of the closest parallels in the Greek style differ considerably from the Egyptian version of this portrait type. From the reign of Ptolemy VIII, Egyptian artists introduced parallel portraits rather than copying Hellenistic images. Stylised versions with the inclusion of hair continued under Ptolemy IX and X; hence both the Egyptianising versions and the more stylised representations can be classified as an interpretation of the royal image rather than a new development.

The study and identification of Greek portrait types from the second half of the second century BC is impeded by the lack of coin portraits for Ptolemies IX and X, which means that it is impossible to know with any certainty which of the surv1vmg portraits represents which ruler. 164 Fortunately, it is possible to distinguish several late Ptolemaic portraits from clay seal impressions, the first group of which is said to be from Edfu and is now divided between the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto and the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam. 165 The second group was found at Nea Paphos, Cyprus and so is to some extent less relevant to this work since it is concerned primarily with the Ptolemaic royal image in Egypt. 166 The sealings are instructive for the posthumous representation of rulers. The later rulers wear broad diadems whilst the images of earlier rulers from the Edfu hoard have a narrow diadem, suggesting that posthumous portraits remained close to the original representations of those rulers. 167 It is generally accepted that the Edfu hoard dates from the late second to the first centuries BC, which means that the portraits of the earlier rulers were either posthumous images dating to the second or first centuries BC or that originals were used. One might expect old models to be used instead of new, since contemporaries would instantly recognise the portraits of earlier rulers from existing statues that must

These variations may reflect the work of an individual artist rather than a new trend by Egyptian sculptors or they may simply result from chronological differences, since like Ptolemy IX and XII, Ptolemy VIII's rule was divided into two periods. There are two other representations, that appear to copy the Physcon portrait type, but with hair

164Kyrieleis (1975) 72 discusses Ptolemy XI. See also Krug (1978) who ascribes several of the seatings and portraits in the round to Ptolemy XI. Maehler (1983a) 9-10; Smith (1988) 95, note 60; Plantzos (1998) 45. Kyrieleis and Krug both suggest that some of the late Ptolemaic portraits represent Ptolemy XI, but as Maehler, Smith and Plantzos have pointed out, it is highly unlikely that he was represented in Ptolemaic imagery, because of his short rule. 165 The Amsterdam seatings remain unpublished. Because I am more familiar with the seatings from the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), Toronto I shall refer mainly to this collection, published by Milne (1916) 87ff. The earliest scholarship is Kyrieleis (1975) 64-75, Krug (1978) 924 and Parlasca (1978) 25-30. 166 The Nea Paphos seatings have not been fully published Smith (1988) 95, n. 2; Plantzos (1998) discusses some of the examples. 167 See Milne (1916) 87-101 for the Greek-style impressions and Plantzos (1998) for a more recent discussion.

161 For the portrait type of Ptolemy VIII see chapter 2, section 2.5 and chapter 3, section 3 .4 above. 162 Maehler (1983a) 5, makes the same observation, in contrast to the view held by Lawrence (1925) 179 and Noshy (1937) 95. 163Kyrieleis (1975) pl. 52.1 and Smith (1988) pl. 75.17 for illustrations of the coin portrait. Plantzos (1998) 45 refers to two small garnet ringstones with the same image. In the Edfu seatings there is an image showing three jugate rulers; this may represent Ptolemy Vill and Cleopatras II and ill (ROM inv. 906.12.206-208).

28

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

have remained on display. Such conventions are echoed in the consistency of the iconography of Arsinoe II on the Egyptian-style representations, which are considered in chapters 4 and 5 below.

identifying portraits of this period (appendix 1.5). Stucco additions form a low beard on the piece, which might suggest that the statue was originally made to represent Ptolemy X and then adopted by Ptolemy IX during the second part of his reign. It is, however, also possible that the representation survived the reign of Ptolemy X as a representation of his exiled brother and was then updated with the beard to accord with a new image of Ptolemy IX, again during the second part of his rule. A less wellpreserved head, now in the Getty Museum, Malibu shares very similar features to those previously discussed. (appendix 1.6). The subject has a low beard and a slimmer face, of the type associated with Ptolemy IX. The lips are fleshy and the mouth is proportionately rather wide, which is a common feature on the seal impressions of the portrait type that is associated with Ptolemy X. It may also be possible that the Malibu head was once intended to represent the younger brother and then adapted to portray Ptolemy IX during the second part of his reign.

The late second century sealings reveal two distinct portrait types: 1. One clearly represents a Physcon, but the nose and chin are more accentuated than on portraits of Ptolemy VIII, and this type appears with some facial hair, but mostly clean-shaven. 168 This portrait is generally accepted to represent Ptolemy X Alexander I, since the subject wears a plumed headress, which may be a reference to Alexander the Great and so Ptolemy X's title. 169 2.

The second portrait type appears in two slightly different forms: with a beard and clean-shaven. 170 The subject has a large, hooked nose and slimmer face than that of Ptolemy VIII or the portrait believed to represent Ptolemy X. The ruler wears an eagle headress on several of the portraits, which is normally interpreted as a reference to Ptolemy I Soter and so, by association, Ptolemy IX Soter II (appendix 1.20).171 The bearded and clean-shaven versions of the same portrait type can be explained by Ptolemy IX's two separate periods of rule, from 116-107 BC and 88-81 BC, with Ptolemy X ruling from 107-88 BC.

Group 2 of the sealings is represented in the round by another head in Malibu that shows a much heavier portrait type with jowls (appendix 1.8). Although badly damaged, the head is of Physcon type and appears to have once had a very fleshy proportionately large mouth; it is without a beard. It is true that this portrait type in the Edfu sealings is sometimes shown with a beard, however, the beards on Cat. Nos. 20-22 are fuller than those on the sealings.

Krug concludes that the leaner face represented Ptolemy IX whilst his successor was portrayed with a more corpulent image. 172 Maehler agrees with the identification of the two different portrait types, but both Smith and Plantzos point out that Alexander did not exclusively wear the plumed headdress, thus the attribute cannot be attributed to Ptolemy X Alexander I with any real certainty. Even though this may be the case, the similarity between the allotted portrait type of Ptolemy IX and that of his son Ptolemy XII Auletes, in addition to the evidence of the bearded and clean-shaven versions of the same portrait type support the original interpretation.

Ptolemy IX reigned from 116 to 107 BC and then again from 87 to 81 BC; his brother Ptolemy X ruled Egypt from 107 to 103 BC and then from 101 to 87 BC. One should perhaps expect two different portrait types for Ptolemy IX, a more youthful type that would have been executed during his early reign and a second, more mature version for the later years. One such example is the Milan sphinx (Cat. 22), with stylised hair and modelled eyebrows; a feature more commonly found on images of the fourth and early third centuries BC. Another sculpture that shows the characteristics of Egyptian art, is the Berlin late Ptolemy (Cat. 25). The beard and overall shape of the face are very similar to the proposed Greek portraits of Ptolemy IX, such as the head of a late Ptolemy in Boston but there is an undeniably Egyptian feel (appendix 1.5). The head and facial hair are stylised, but the carving is also rather crude. The mouth, which is slightly down-turned when viewed from the side, is proportionately too wide, and the lips are shapeless in a frontal view; both are similar to the Milan sphinx (Cat. 22). These portrait features mirror those on Greek-style heads, such as the Stuttgart late Ptolemy (appendix 1.7). There is no Greek equivalent for these two images and yet they are similar enough to show that each was a type. As sculptures they lack the careful duplication of Greek portrait types, and this again is perhaps another indication of the more turbulent political situation in the late Ptolemaic Period.

The sealings have allowed the identification of several Greek-style portraits in the round, which in turn has assisted the identification of the Egyptian statues that adopt their features. Closest to group 1 of the sealings are: the colossal head of a late Ptolemy, now in the Boston Museum of Fine Art and the head of a late ruler now in the Getty Museum. The Boston head is the best preserved example and it was clearly re-cut in antiquity and illustrates well the problems facing the modem scholar in 168 Most clearly illustrated on ROM, inv. 906.12.100, 102, 111 and 112. This is the type to which Smith (1988) 95 pl. 75.19. 169 Maehler (1983a) 9, Smith (1988) 96, n. 64 and Plantzos (1998) 46; all three quote Plutarch, Alexander 16.7 on the headdress. 170 Appendix 1.18 (beard) and 1.19 (clean-shaven). 171 ROM inv. 906.12.125. For illustration see Maehler (1983a) pl. 2.c; Kyrieleis(1975)pl. 55.11 and Smith (1988)pl. 75.18. For discussion see Maehler (1983a) 9-10 and Smith (1988) 95-96, who also refers to the myth of Ptolemy I being exposed by Lagos and rescued by the eagle of Zeus (Pausanias 1.6.2). 172Krug (1978) 9-24, Maehler (1983a) 8-10 and Smith (1988) 76.

Two other statues that belong to this subgroup of representations are a sculpture in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Cat. 23) and a statue, now in the GrecoRoman Museum, Alexandria (Cat. 24). On both

29

Sally-Ann Ashton

examples, the eyes are very similar to those of the Brussels portrait of Ptolemy VIII, which are small and close-set. However, two noticeable differences are the leaner face and the more stylised hair. Again, both statues have the same characteristic mouth as the Milan sphinx (Cat. 22), which is straight rather than rounded and fleshy. On the Vienna statue, the comers of the lips are slightly downturned, no doubt an early example of a feature that was to become characteristic of the later Ptolemaic portraits. The most notable difference between these two examples and the earlier representations of Ptolemy VIII is the more stylised coiffure of snail-shell curls clearly visible beneath the nemes headdress in contrast to the more naturally rendered hair on the images of Ptolemy VI. Both the Alexandrian and the Vienna rulers have well-defined chins, with a deeply carved ridge below the lower lip, a feature that became a common feature of Ptolemaic royal image from the reign of Ptolemy IX. This characteristic also appears on the portraits of a young Ptolemaic ruler, probably Caesarion (Cats. 30-34). There are, however, other stylistic differences to distinguish the first from the second century BC portraits in question, as discussed below.

Ptolemy X. The formal style of the piece fits well within the framework of the images of Ptolemy X. The stylised curls around the face, the corpulent features and the inlaid eyes are all marks of the late second to early first centuries BC. Instead of poor craftsmanship, the sculpture results from an interpretation or Egyptian parallel of a Greek portrait type; the face has a very Egyptian profile, particularly the jutting chin. The inlaid eyes resemble those of the Canopus Philometor (Cat. 15); also like the Philometor this statue was found at Canopus and it is possible that they were perhaps products of the same workshop. If so, the stylised form was deliberate since aesthetically the two pieces appear to be a world apart. To an Egyptian, the later portrait would represent the corpulent image of Ptolemy X because pharaonic art relies heavily on iconography and symbolism to relay a message. Egyptian artists continued to produce idealised representations of the Ptolemaic rulers, such as those found on temple reliefs. Thus, although native artists adopted the Greek royal image during the reigns of Ptolemy V and VI, some workshops or sculptors began to adapt the portraits and in many respects gave them a more Egyptian identity.

Unfortunately, because Ptolemy IX seems to have adopted a more corpulent image in the second part of his reign, it is difficult to distinguish the portraits of this ruler from those of his brother, Ptolemy X, who ruled during the same period, taking control of Egypt when his brother fell out of favour. One contemporary portrait is the Copenhagen Ptolemy from Memphis (Cat. 26) like the Berlin late Ptolemy the ruler wears a diadem and uraeus and has unusually stylised wavy hair covering his entire head. The fleshy lips with down-turned mouth and weak chin are so similar to some of the portraits on the Edfu sealings that they must represent the same ruler. In some respects, this image is similar to the problematic late Ptolemy from Canopus (Cat. 27). The Egyptian portraits can be associated with the Greek-style images and consequently the seal impressions. Generally the Egyptian versions show a more reserved portrait type, unfortunately the nose is missing, it is not possible to know for certain whether it was hooked in the usual fashion. The mouths, however, are less full and generally of better proportions. Because of these distinctions it is possible to follow an independent sequence of stylistic development, and it is therefore, perhaps more sensible to use the sealings only as a guide. An over dependence on the Greek style portraits of twodimensional media can explain the misidentification of late sculptures, such as the Canopus late Ptolemy (Cat. 27), on the grounds that there is facial hair similar to that on the coins of Ptolemy IV (appendix 1.12). The sculptures from this group will be compared to the Greek-style images but are considered in stylistic sequence, as shown in Table 1.

First century BC princes It is unlikely that there were portraits manufactured of Ptolemy XI, because of his short reign. The only Egyptian image of Ptolemy XII is the Tebtunis statue (Cat. 11), with portrait features that are similar to those on the ruler's Hellenistic representations but with no fringe of hair beneath the headdress. The lack of Egyptian-style representations with the additional Greek hair during these two reigns does not signal the demise of the type, and there are several possible representations of the young Caesarion (Cats. 30-34). The only evidence for the promotion of Cleopatra VII with an escort is with her son Ptolemy XV. Any other statues showing the queen with her brothers would surely have been destroyed or re-cut following their deaths. There are no Hellenistic portraits of Ptolemies XIII to XV. Whilst it is unlikely that images of the brothers of Cleopatra VII would survive the queen's rule, the lack of representations for Caesarion needs more carefully explaining. It could be that the boy's images were destroyed by or on behalf of Augustus following Caesarion's death. There are Egyptian-style statues of Caesarion that have survived, as there are Egyptian images of Cleopatra VII. 173 This discrepancy may indicate a difference in the treatment of the statues from the two traditions, that the Egyptian-style representations were either ignored or spared by Octavian. 174

All of the possible Caesarion sculptures are in Egyptian format with stylised faces; however the young ruler is sometimes shown with a diadem rather than a nemes headdress. The BMA prince (Cat. 31) is the best preserved and is closest to the statue proposed to represent

The Canopus ruler almost certainly represents Ptolemy IX or X but was originally identified as Ptolemy IV by Dutilh, whose opinion is widely shared. However, the more corpulent ruler on the sealings also has facial hair and a similar hairstyle. This fact, along with the stylistic features that are discussed above indicate that the ruler represents

173 For representations ofCaesarion see Cats. 30-34 and for the images of Cleopatra VII see Cats. 38-41 and 63-65 174 Plutarch, Life of Mark Antony 86.9 for the reference to payment for the saving of Cleopatra's images.

30

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt his mother now in the Hermitage Museum (Cat. 63), particularly in the shape of the face, the upturned and squared chin and the mouth, features which are first seen in a less severe form on the portraits of Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra III. However, the hair is more naturally rendered than that on the portraits of his immediate predecessors. The eyes on the Brooklyn prince are inlaid, but once again the second representation from this period of a young prince has carved eyes. On the Bologna bust (Cat. 32) the prince wears a twisted diadem with a single uraeus; his bulging eyes are reminiscent of earlier Ptolemaic portraits. The chin and mouth are very similar to those on the Vienna ruler (Cat. 23), but the less stylised hair places the piece firmly in the mid-first century BC. On a head now in the National Museum, Warsaw (Cat. 30) the ruler wears a diadem rather than the nemes and again has the hair carved over the entire head. The subject has similar features to the BMA and Bologna princes but was identified by Kyrieleis as Ptolemy 11.175 Stylistically, however, this head dates to the first century BC, with its fine straight hair and diadem, and the down-turned mouth. There is no evidence to suggest that this type of portrait appeared before the reign of Ptolemy V.

part of the dyad (Cat. 42) are also youthful in appearance. Although the male could represent Caesarion, the stylised hair and general portrait type may have been used by his younger half-brother, Alexander Helios. Indeed the very flamboyant styling of the hair on the statue is deliberately reminiscent of Alexander the Great's posthumous hairstyle and because it is unique, was no doubt deliberate. Such images of the younger of Cleopatra's children accord with the donations of Alexandria and the prominent role which each of them takes. If, however, the lack of uraeus on the female statue was deliberate, to indicate a goddess, such as Isis rather than a queen, the image is more likely to represent Caesarion as pharaoh with Isis, his mother. The last two statues in this section are more problematic. They both seem to date from the mid to late first century BC but do not fit quite so neatly into the chronological sequence. The first (Cat. 29) wears a Macedonian kausia but has stylised Egyptian portrait features that are more typical of the fourth and third centuries BC with the usual sickle-shaped smile. Bianchi dated the piece to the fourth century BC, comparing it stylistically to the portraits of Nectanebo I, II and Ptolemy II; he identified the subject as Alexander the Great. Josephson, however, suggested that the subject is the young Ptolemy Philadelphos, son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Anthony, because of the kausia. He also alludes to a passage in Plutarch Life on Antony (Ch. 54), which describes Ptolemy Philadelphos at the Donations of Alexandria, wearing a Macedonian kausia. 178 The portrait has inlaid eyebrows and eyes, which is again a later feature. The carefully carved hair under the headdress is also more typical of the Egyptian-style portraits of Ptolemy VI and as the above has illustrated, it re-emerges on the portraits of Caesarion. The piece may be deliberately archaising or alternatively may have been re-cut from an earlier third century piece. There are no obvious marks to suggest the latter, and the appearance of an archaising piece in the first century BC would accord with the Greek and Egyptian-style images of Cleopatra VII. Josephson's arguments for the identity of the subject being Ptolemy Philadelphos, son of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, are extremely convincing. However, the kausia appears on several of the Edfu sealings and on a terracotta portrait in a private collection, not included in this catalogue; it may, therefore, be associated with another member of the Ptolemaic royal family, wishing to exploit their Macedonian roots. 179

Another statue that is unanimously dated to the mid first century BC (Cat. 33) is important firstly because it is the only example from this sub group to show a ruler with a nemes headdress rather than diadem, and secondly because it has a provenance. The statue is said to have been brought from Karnak to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo by Barsanti in 1915. It is generally identified as an image of Mark Antony, which is problematic because Mark Antony did not rule Egypt as pharaoh just as he did not take the 176 title l3acnA.eui:;. It is, therefore, unlikely that representations were made of the Roman showing him with the royal regalia of a nemes headdress and crown. The headdress is missing a uraeus, although the head-cloth indicates the royal identity of the subject. The statue does, however, fit comfortably within the first century BC framework of royal representations and is endowed with a youthful appearance nothing like the suggested portraits of Mark Antony. 177 The Cairo ruler may, therefore, by a process of elimination represent Caesarion in his role as the ruler and pharaoh of Egypt. Another statue, also often identified as Mark Antony is again more likely to represent a member of the Ptolemaic royal family. The fragment of a colossal statue from Hadra (Cat. 34) also dates to the first century BC. The subject wears a nemes headdress with the hair visible beneath it; the fringe is, however, less stylised than the portraits of Ptolemies IX and X and more carefully carved than the usual hair in the Roman Period, which often consists of a straight fringe rather than the tousled style of the Ptolemaic Period. This statue and the female that forms the second

A sculpture in the National Museum, Athens (Cat. 28), poses quite the opposite problem. Its portrait features have much in common with those associated with Ptolemy IX; that is to say, the thin, slightly down-turned mouth with the distinctive groove across the chin. The hair, however, is styled in a cable across the forehead and is more uniform than the usual Ptolemaic locks but not as stylised as the snail-shell curls on the portraits of Ptolemy IX and X. The cable fringe is more commonly found in the Roman

Kyrieleis (1975) 166. Whether Mark Anthony was shown as pharaoh is questionable, see Maehler (1983a) 9. 177 See Walker and Higgs (2000) 172-73, ill.24 and 25, 178, ill.33 for possible portraits of Mark Antony. 175

178 Bianchi (1992) 69-75, Josephson (1997b) 19, who compares the hair to that on the Brooklyn Black Head (Brooklyn Museum of Art, inv. 58.30). 179 See Bothmer (1996) 219 fig. 16 for a terracotta head, in a private collection in Amsterdam. See ROM 906.12. 66.

176

31

Sally-Ann Ashton

Faiyum Auletes (Cat. 11). This could indicate that only certain artists were copying the Greek-style portraits or, more importantly, that artists were interpreting the Greek portraits because of a lack of their own models. The result is that some statues appear to be interpretations of the Greek images, whilst others, such as the Canopus Philometor (Cat. 15), copy the original very closely, other sculptors produced very stylised versions of the original portrait types, making the features more Egyptian.

Period, and yet the similarity of portrait features on the Athens head with the portraits that are mentioned earlier in this chapter would imply that the piece was Ptolemaic. Such problems are common when attempting to place this type of representation within a chronological sequence, because there seems to have been a considerable degree of artistic licence in the production of these Egyptian-style images with Greek portrait features. This freedom would perhaps accord with our knowledge of the Egyptian sculptors' work routine, as powerful individuals who travelled to commissions not only to sculpt but also to breath life into the stone representations of the rulers and gods.

The majority of this group are life-sized or larger and this fact may also be significant. This type of statue would have been made for political reasons rather than to serve a religious purpose, and should be treated quite separately from the wooden or precious metal effigies that were nurtured by the priests in the inner sanctuaries of native temples.

Finally, the head recently recovered from Alexandria harbour, which was identified by Kiss as a representation of Octavian (appendix 2.6), deserves further attention. For the head shares very similar features to those found on the portrait of the Turin queen (Cat. 38). The full lips and soft modelling of the facial features, combined with the flat forehead and broad shape of the face are typical of another head of a Ptolemaic queen, now in the Brooklyn Museum of Art (Cat. 64) and the Hellenistic marble head from Rome (Cat. 70). All three heads are identified here as images of Cleopatra VII; further comment on the Alexandrian ruler, however, must wait until it has been brought to land to allow a proper study.

Why should Egyptian sculptors have broken away from the purely Egyptian images that were used for the early Ptolemaic rulers, and why did they apparently suddenly begin to use Greek portraits as the models for their representations? Firstly, it is important to note that only the faces of these statues are affected by any outside influence. The striding stance and traditional regalia are maintained throughout the Ptolemaic Period on royal statues in the round, and the temple reliefs remain unchanged. It is likely that this type of statue served a very specific purpose and was perhaps even intended for both Greek and Egyptian audiences, or perhaps members of the population who shared both cultures, such as the Egyptians who became 'Greek' through service in the royal administration. By the time of Ptolemy V, the communities must have become quite accustomed to both artistic styles and were also of mixed culture and often ethnicity. 180 Several Egyptian-style images have been found in Alexandria, and the juxtaposition of statuary at the Sarapieion in Alexandria, and Greek statues at the older sanctuary in Memphis, is testimony to their willingness to promote the two cultures side by side. The first appearance of a Ptolemy in the guise of pharaoh with foreign portrait features occurs at a time when there were uprisings in the Thebaid and a rival Egyptian pharaoh. 181 It is possible that the Greek features were used to distinguish the ruler from the native pretenders to the throne, while still appealing to Egyptian cultural and artistic traditions.

3.4 Function and context Function

is possible that there were practical, artistic or ideological reasons for both the Egyptian-style statues with Greek portrait features and the Greek portraits that are executed in a hard stone. We know from sanctuaries such as the Sarapieion that Greek and Egyptian statues were often placed side by side, which may have resulted in one tradition borrowing from the other. As noted in chapter 1, the Greek-style images on rings and seal impressions are occasionally shown with an Egyptianising crown. Although these portraits are not technically Egyptian, to a Greek the token crown and unusual stone may have been convincing. The examples without an Egyptian headdress but in a hard stone may have fulfilled a similar role in the early stages of Ptolemaic rule or simply have been the result of artists experimenting with a wealth of new stones. The most notable difference between the Greek images with token Egyptian influence and the Egyptian statues with Greek attributes is that only the latter group is effectively bilingual, in that the necessary features to allow understanding by both Greek and Egyptian artistic conventions are present. It

In an essay on pharaonic-style art of the Ptolemaic Period, Bianchi argued that the adoption of features such as the Greek portrait type or the cornucopia on female statuary does not necessarily indicate a foreign influence on the Egyptian sculpture. 182 Whilst this position is initially difficult to comprehend, particularly when there is such obvious evidence for the Hellenistic influence on Egyptian art, there is a degree of logic behind it. For the Egyptian sculptors were incorporating a portrait within their usual

The Egyptian-style statues are less easily defined and there are several possible functions that they might, in theory at least, have served. The statues with Greek portrait features are manufactured alongside the more traditional Egyptianstyle representations that offer versions of the Greek images, such as the Brussels Physcon (Cat. 8) or the

180See

Yoyotte (1969) 127-41 and Clarysse (1992) 51-56. McGing (1997) 282-83 for documentary evidence. 182 Bianchi (1988) 55-80. 181

32

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

framework. Whether they used a new portrait type of Egyptian creation or borrow the features from another source, the result was still an essentially Egyptian statue. The borrowing of a foreign image (and indeed the interpretation of that image into an Egyptian form) is not a new phenomenon in Egyptian history. The more interesting question that lies behind the appearance of such images after over a century of Ptolemaic rule is perhaps less easily understood.

been alien to Egyptians. Pharaohs are, however, usually shown as slender, and thus the corpulent imagery of the Ptolemaic rulers is either an adoption from the Greek portraits of the rulers or an attempt to portray the subject as he actually appeared; such images and ideologies are common throughout Hellenistic art. 184 The new physiognomy seems to have been a characteristic with which native artists were comfortable and thus we find that some workshops no longer copy the royal model as faithfully as the earlier portraits. In other words the Physcon portrait type could be translated rather than merely copied.

As previously noted, there is an abundance of sculptors' models from the fourth and third centuries BC. However, there is no evidence for their continued use from the time of Ptolemy V until later in the second century BC. It is tempting to interpret this lack of interest in the Egyptian presentation of the dynasty as simply the result of royal preoccupation with other problems, but given that Ptolemy V is known to have been crowned as an Egyptian pharaoh and that he moved the royal court to Memphis, such neglect would seem to go against royal policy at this time, unless of course the introduction of such dual-purpose imagery was intended to bring the two traditions together and was simply a further step in an already existing policy to associate the two cultures.

There is, however, a further explanation for the stylised images with snail-shell curls that emerge under Ptolemies VIII, IX and X, and were replaced by statues that show attempts to imitate a more naturalistic style from the mid first century BC. These images could be classified as archaising, and this would accord with the popularity of archaising art in the second century BC, as advocated by Becatti and Havelock. 185 This theory would only be plausible if the statues were placed in Greek sanctuaries, since the archaising representations in Egyptian art of the Ptolemaic period revert to earlier Egyptian styles, as seen on the Mariemont queen (Cat. 42). It is also possible that the Egyptian artists were merely copying the stylised Greek features such as the hair on the Stuttgart head of Ptolemy IX (appendix 1.7).

As Table 1 shows, the earliest images are closest to the Greek originals, and the similarity in the hair and portrait type suggest that the sculptors were using the same models. Then, from the time of Ptolemy VIII and continuing until the mid first century BC the Egyptian sculptors begin to produce versions of the Greek portrait types, manufactured according to Egyptian technique as on the Brussels Physcon or in the case of the statues that are included in this chapter by producing a more stylised version of the Greek representations. It is interesting to note that this particular period is perhaps the least stable and most problematic for the Ptolemaic dynasty, also that this factor is reflected by a change in the presentation of the Egyptian royal image. Finally, the sculptors revert to the production of more naturalistic depiction of hair, but maintain an Egyptian portrait type for the royal children. These developments are reflected in the presentation of the royal women.

There is of course a less favourable interpretation of these statues: that they are the result of the nationalist movement by the priests and were intended to represent their pharaoh in his true role, as a foreigner. 186 However, this would seem to be the least likely scenario, particularly as the colossal statues were placed in the vicinity of the royal palaces in Alexandria, although one could argue, rather implausibly, that the later rulers would have missed the intended insult through their ignorance of the native culture. The involvement of the native priesthood is an important element in the study of the Egyptian-style Ptolemaic royal image. Our understanding of the attitude to the various Greek royal cults of the native priesthood has developed considerably over the last decade. Winter concluded that the Egyptian priests accepted the cults of the Ptolemaic rulers in Egyptian temples only under duress. 187 Quaegebeur, however, has demonstrated that this does not seem to have been the case. 188 The sculptural evidence also supports the idea that in addition to maintaining the traditional role of pharaoh and the associated representations, the Egyptians were keen to

When Bothmer defined which features on Egyptian sculpture in the Ptolemaic Period were the result of a Greek influence, he concluded that whilst certain realistic features were already part of the Egyptian repertory the characteristic of mood belonged to Hellenistic art. 183 Because the types of image appear on the coinage and portraits in the round, it is more likely that their concept was originally a Greek inspiration as with the title ucrKrov. The idea of portraying wealthy and important males as corpulent was common in Egyptian art; pendent breasts and rolls of fat on the belly from the time of the Old Kingdom symbolised wealth and status. Therefore, the adoption of this particular imagery would not have

Pollitt (1990) 59-78. See Havelock (1964) 43-58 and (1965) 331-40 who follows Becatti (1941). There are examples from the second and frrst centuries BC of archaism being used to evoke a sense of the past. 186 Compare Fairman (1974) on the Triumph of Horus, who suggests that the rulers were associated with Seth rather than Horus. Compare Koenen (1993) 39 who states that the ethnic origin of the pharaoh was unimportant as long as he functioned in his role. 187 Winter (1978). 188 Quaegebeur (1989) 93-116 and Koenen (1993) 38-39 on the power of the Egyptian temples and 50-59 on the development of the royal cults in the Egyptian temples. 184 185

183Bothmer (1996) 223. Bothmer's comments are a matter of personal opinion, and there is the additional problem of defining 'mood' in sculpture.

33

Sally-Ann Ashton

develop and adopt images that were more closely associated with the Greek royal cults. There is no doubt that during the second and first centuries BC there are certain manifestations of anti-Greek, Egyptian 'nationalism' probably emanating from some priestly circles. 189 Such behaviour was not necessarily on account of the foreign ancestry of the Ptolemaic royal house; there are earlier instances of a general revolt by the Egyptian clergy against a native Egyptian pharaoh. The key factor was ma 'at (order) and it was the pharaoh's responsibility to see that this prevailed over confusion.

the tomb reliefs. 193 Quaegebeur discussed the meaning of the word mnx as found in cult epithet rmn n3 ntr. w mnb. w (carrier of the Theoi Euergetai) and concluded that rather than referring to the person who administered the cult, it · 194 may refer to the person who sculpte d th e roya 1 images. The issues of royal control, nationalism and the acceptance of centrally controlled cults in the Egyptian temples are all important for the understanding of the development of the Ptolemaic royal image over three centuries of rule. It is, however, important to establish whether this type of image came from an Egyptian context.

Some earlier scholars paint a rather bleak picture of crossculturalism in Ptolemaic Egypt and also of the Egyptian priesthood's acceptance of the foreign rulers. Still, references to the upsurge of nationalism and in particular the references in texts to the rebirth of Sesostris III or Ramesses II may help to explain two separate phenomena. The first is the re-use of statues representing Ramesses II. 190 If the reuse of earlier images shows an underlying support for earlier Egyptian pharaohs in the Ptolemaic period, the evidence of earlier imports to Ptolemaic sites may in fact date to the second century BC. The reappearance of portraits of Sesostris III may also explain the resurgence of the so-called realistic portrait type in the fourth and second centuries BC, which would support Bianchi (1988) and the idea that these heads owed nothing to Hellenistic influence. Interestingly there is a reference in the Alexander Romance to the rebirth of Nectanebo in the form of Alexander; this concept was echoed by the similarity of the Egyptian portrait types of the Thirtieth and Ptolemaic dynasties. It is possible that there was a degree of discontentment in Egypt under the Thirtieth Dynasty, since Nectanebo II's rule was not always peaceful, ending in defeat by the Persians. 191 If this development were the case, it would suggest that the priests had a certain degree of influence over the royal image and it might also explain the reasons for the appearance of Egyptian-style statues with Greek portrait features from the time of Ptolemy V. The use of the Greek-style portrait would convey the idea that Pharaoh was a foreigner and would in no way compromise the royal eagerness to be seen as ruler of Egypt. Ptolemy V was the first known ruler to have been crowned according to the Egyptian tradition at Memphis. . h"is reign. . 192 The royal court was also move d th ere durmg

Context As Table 1 shows, just over half of the catalogued sculptures have a known provenance; from this subcategory half again have a known context, from a Greek or Egyptian site. Four come from Egyptian contexts and span the entire period with which we are concernedCats. 12 and Cat. 33, the latter possibly from Karnak and Cats. 18 and Cat. 22 from Narmouthis. The same numbers also come from Greek contexts: Cats. 19-21 and Cat. 34 were all found in Alexandria and from their . situ. . 19s excavation reports appear to have been ,, ~ound m The colossal statues from the Alexandrian harbour (Cats. 19-21 and 58-59) may have stood on the island of Pharos or perhaps in an open-air temple; at twelve metres in height it is unlikely that they were kept indoors. There is no evidence from the island to suggest that there was a formal Egyptian temple, and certainly not one large enough to house at least four statues of this size. The Hadra ruler (Cat. 34) was found in Alexandria in 1841 by Harris, who was the British consul in Alexandria. 196 The sanctuary no longer survives but a detailed description of the area in the Nineteenth century, recorded by Wilkinson, may help to determine whether the bicultural images were intended for one or both communities: 'Pococke mentions ruins of an ancient temple under water, about two miles from Alexandria, which he conjectures belonged to Zephyrium, or some other place on the road to Nicopolis. He saw some columns there, three feet in diameter. Three shattered sphinxes of yellow marble and a female of red granite, twelve feet in length with a fragment of a colossus of a man of very large dimensions. Near this were the remains of what were apparently the remains of a portico and a little to the south a great number of red granite columns which, if judged by their position, seem to have belonged to a circular temple. They were mostly grooved and 3' 3" in diameter and were of course Ptolemaic and Roman in date. Other remains were cut in a form at once indicating the site of some very large edifice' .197

The role of the Egyptian sculptors should also be taken into account. Unlike their Greek counterparts, who are celebrated as artists in the ancient literature, the Egyptian craftsmen seem to have fulfilled an almost priestly role. The distinction between sculptors and other craftsmen is illustrated by the fact that only the sculptors are named on

The sphinxes that are described by Pococke as yellow marble may well have been limestone since the local stone

189 See Koenen (1993) 36-38 on ethnic tension and Eddy (1961) 257-94. McGing (1997) 281 suggests that social problems were also the cause of discontent. 190 Bianchi (1991) 1-8 on the understanding by the priesthood of earlier monuments from the Ramesside tradition. Ashton (in Hirst ed.) discusses the possibilities for the finds from Heliopolis in Alexandria. 191 Eddy (1961) 284-85. See also Huss (1994) on the relationship between the titulature of the Ptolemaic royal house and the Thirtieth dynasty. See chapter 2 for a discussion of the portraits of Sesostris ill. 192 Thompson (1988) 118-21.

Baines (1994) 73, and Krauss (1983) cat. 43-4. Quaegebeur (1989) 105-06. 195 See Empereur (1998) 76-77 who maintains that there were six statues outside the lighthouse and Wilkinson (1841) 169. 196 Tkaczow (1993) 196 and Faider-Feytmans (1952) 29-30 pl. 6. 197 Wilkinson (1843) 169. 193 194

34

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt has a very yellow appearance; we must presume that they were Egyptian in style, although at the temple of Sobek/Renenutet in Narmouthis Pharaonic style royal sphinxes with the portrait features of Ptolemy VIII or X sit alongside a winged female sphinx made according to the Greek tradition. The round building that Pococke describes is more likely to have been a Greek tholos; yet we are told that the columns were made of granite, an Egyptian hard stone. Unfortunately none of the descriptions tell us whether the main temple was built according to Greek or Egyptian traditions. The overall impression of the sanctuary is one of mixed traditions, and this conjecture in itself has important implications for the function of the group of royal statues to which the colossal male figure belongs.

examples, with three rows of stylised curls along the forehead. The snail-shell curls continue under Cleopatra VII and appear on two statues of the queen, (Cat. 64 and 65). The same pattern can be found on statues of male rulers. The earliest examples date to the reign of Ptolemy IX and continue under Ptolemy X. Including the Greek-style image of a ruler now in Stuttgart (appendix 1.7), which may explain the inspiration for this phenomenon, a feature which is often added in stucco and so lost. The stylised rows of curls appear on a sphinx of Ptolemy IX, now in Milan (Cat. 22), and on a portrait of Ptolemy IX in Vienna (Cat. 23). There are two further portraits representing either Ptolemy IX or X, one in Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum (Cat. 24) and the other in Berlin (Cat. 25); both have the stylised curls on the forehead. One of the best examples is the portrait of Ptolemy X from Canopus (Cat. 27). Here the curls are divided into two sections, with further stylised facial hair on the cheeks. It is easy to see what the Egyptian sculptors are using for models when the Stuttgart Greek-style portrait of a late Ptolemy is considered; for the same blobs of hair, representing curls are used on the beard and the head. The stylised hair that continues this tradition on the Egyptian-style statuary can also be traced back to portraits such as those on the seal impressions.

The remainder of the provenanced statues from this group also come from ambiguous contexts. The images of Ptolemy VI (Cat. 15) and the late Ptolemy (Cat. 27) from Canopus may also have been located in a Greek sanctuary or Egyptian temple, since there were both in the city. Similarly at Memphis, the location of the Copenhagen late Ptolemy (Cat. 26), there were both Greek and Egyptian temples and communities. Finally the first century head of a Ptolemaic prince from the Faiyum (Cat. 29), could have been housed in either a Greek or Egyptian context; the only difference with this particular piece is that the ruler wears a headdress more commonly found in Greek rather than native Egyptian art.

More carefully stylised curls of hair are found on an unusual representation of a Ptolemaic prince (Cat. 34). This statue is also interesting because the features are archaising in Egyptian terms. The portrait is softly modelled and has more in common with the images of the fourth and third century rulers than with those of the first century BC. The accompanying female statue (Cat. 42) has features that are commonly found on the archaising sculptures of the Twenty-sixth dynasty, including plastic eyebrows and make-up lines. 199 The latter is closer to the early Ptolemaic portraits and, were it not for the datable male statue (Cat. 34) that accompanies the queen, her image would be difficult to distinguish from the earlier Ptolemaic representations.

3.5 Archaising Features As previously noted, in the first century BC there appears to have been a deliberate movement towards presenting the royal family in a manner that is associated with the styles of the third century BC. Archaism in terms of Greek art is the revived use of features, which were commonly employed during the archaic period (680-480 BC) after the style had ceased. There are many examples of archaism attested in Greek art, and the style seems to have enjoyed a revival during the second century BC. 198 There is nothing to suggest that the Greek-style royal representations from Ptolemaic Egypt copied the archaistic style, but there are examples that may be interpreted as Greek archaism on some of the Egyptian statuary. This phenomenon occurs on the Egyptian representations with Greek portrait features and the statues of queens with Greek attributes, dealt with in chapter 5.

The re-appearance of the classic Greek and Egyptian styles under Cleopatra VII seems to have been part of a deliberate policy by the queen to separate the two traditions and return to the standards of the third century BC, when the Ptolemaic dynasty was at its height. The earlier more stylised images with archaising features may have been influenced by the more general trends of Hellenistic sculpture. That the phenomenon appears on the Egyptian-style images is extremely instructive because it shows that the rulers saw their history in terms of Egypt and so the only statues to appear with archaising features are those in the Egyptian style.

In both instances the archaism is manifested in the styling of the hair. The earliest instances occur during the reigns of Cleopatra 11-111. There are two examples from this period, the New Haven statuette (Cat. 55) and the Ma'amura queen (Cat. 58), on which both have stylised corkscrew coiffures with snail-shell curls on the forehead. The statue of a queen now in Museo Barracco, Rome (Cat. 46) and a head now in Vienna (Cat. 47) show a more stylised version of this hairstyle and is one of the best

199 Compare Bothmer (1960b) 13-14, no. 12 for a Twenty-fifth Dynasty female and for the Twenty-sixth Dynasty male rulers with plastic eyebrows see 57-59, nos. 50 and 51.

See Schmidt (1922), Becatti (1941) 32-48, Havelock (1965) 331-40, Fullerton (1987) and Zagdoun (1989). 198

35

Sally-Ann Ashton

uninscribed representations may be explained by the turbulent political climate of the second century BC, and this interpretation also applies at the temples where cartouches are left intentionally blank.

3.6 Conclusion

Neither the Greek portraits in hard stone nor the Egyptian statues with Greek features can properly be described as a mixed style, since the borrowing is very specific and controlled. The former seem only to have been experiments with a local medium and demonstrate the limitations of Greek artists when the results are compared with the Egyptian portraits of the time. The continuation of the separate traditions throughout the Ptolemaic period implies that the adoption, and then adaptation, of Greek portrait types by native artists served a specific purpose. Although any conclusions concerning the place of manufacture are tentative because of the lack of provenance for many of the examples, there seems to have been a higher concentration of statues in the north including Alexandria and Canopus. These images were found in Egyptian temples, as the Karnak Epiphanes and first century ruler show, but the majority come from sites of dubious context and this may ultimately be a truer reflection of this particular group of statues: that they were intended to serve both communities or members who were familiar with both traditions. The high percentage of

The putative use of the same models by both Egyptian and Greek sculptors seems likely in the early stages of the adoption of the Greek-style portraits. Although there is an abundance of Egyptian models from the early Ptolemaic Period, there is a noticeable lacuna from the time of Ptolemy V to Ptolemy IX and again under Cleopatra and Caesarion. The high quality of the early portraits, particularly the Canopus Philometor, may suggest that artists were using Greek bronze originals as models rather than stone copies. This fact would explain the characteristics of the finer hair on the coins of Philometor and the Egyptian version of his portrait. Although the duplication in a different medium demonstrates the skills of native artists, they were not necessarily more skilled than their Greek counterparts. To conclude, this group of royal representations accurately reflect the cultural climate from the second century BC, where the definition of Greek and Egyptian identities becomes less rigid than before.

36

of Arsinoe II during Ptolemy II's reign. 206 Interestingly, Nefertiti wears a double uraeus on the relief, a characteristic adopted by Arsinoe II, possibly as a reference to her close relationship with her brother. Nefertiti was also the first queen to adopt the title 'Lady of the two lands', a title which would be used several centuries later by queens such as Arsinoe and Cleopatra VII.201

Chapter 4: Ptolemaic royal women and the Egyptian tradition 4.1 Pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian representations of royal women Royal women in the pharaonic period were most commonly portrayed as regents to their sons, often taking a protective position with their child seated on their knee. 200 The first female to rule Egypt was Nitokris in the Sixth Dynasty, but very little survives from her reign; the first evidence for a female ruler using the full king's titulature dates to the Middle Kingdom and the reign of Sobeknefru. The queen is described as 'The Horus, she who is beloved of Ra, she of the two ladies, powerful daughter, mistress of the two lands, the golden falcon, enduring of appearances, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the daughter of Ra Sobekneferu'. 201 Sobeknefru is the first queen to wear the nemes headdress, and on a statue now in the Louvre, Paris, the queen wears a kilt over the usual dress for females. 202 Later in the Eighteenth Dynasty, Hatshepsut often appears in the guise of a male pharaoh, even wearing a false beard, and is referred to in texts as a man. 203 Perhaps the closest analogies to images of the Ptolemaic queens can be drawn with the reigns of Nefertiti and Tauseret, two prominent women from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties. Both queens lived during periods of political instability and like the Ptolemaic queens both always appear in a female form; neither queen took the royal titulature of pharaoh. Following the Nineteenth Dynasty ruler and consort were often portrayed; the Ptolemies followed this tradition, with occasional autonomous rule by a woman. 204

The Ptolemies were responsible for further new developments in the Egyptian-style royal image, such as the naturalistic presentation of royal women. 208 Not until the Ptolemaic Period was there such an interest in the individual portrayal of the female form. This is largely due to the increased importance of the women, particularly Arsinoe II, in the royal cult. Cleopatra I ruled briefly effectively by herself ( 180-17 6 BC), Cleopatra II had an independent role in the civil war against Ptolemy VIII, and Cleopatra III also ruled in her own right, as regent to her sons. This position of power was reflected in the queen's artistic representations where she takes the dominant position standing in front of her sons, unlike Cleopatra VII who stands behind her son on the temple reliefs at Denderah. 209 At Armant, however, the rulers appear alone and then together, on one occasion Cleopatra stands in front of her son.210 Egyptian artists seem to have coped easily with the wider use of the female royal image, the introduction of which can be attributed to their Greek rulers. In the early stages the female royal images remain idealised, with little to distinguish the Ptolemaic women from earlier representations of the female form. However, during the second century BC the Egyptian artists borrowed from the iconography of Hellenistic images for specific forms of statuary.

Perhaps the closest parallels can be found in the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the Amama period, when religious developments resulted in the increase in the importance of the role of the royal women. 205 The new triple ennead of Aten and the royal twins of the king and his queen resulted in the need for a new type of representation that was accompanied by a revolutionary new style. It is now generally accepted that the artistic developments began before the changes in the state religion, but the increase in the representation of royal women was a direct result of religious developments; a phenomenon paralleled during the reign of Ptolemy II, particularly following the death of Arsinoe II in 270 BC. Furthermore, the possible evidence for the posthumous divine promotion of Nefertiti on a fragment of the sarcophagus of Akhenaten, as protector of the ruler is also paralleled by the deification and promotion

4.2 Stylistic development Third century BC Queens The evidence for Egyptian-style representations of Ptolemaic queens must be considered alongside those of the so-called 'Isis' statues, which are discussed fully in chapter 5. As with the discussion of the male rulers, this section will concentrate on images that are identifiable either by inscription or iconography. Stylistically, the early representations of queens correspond to those of the males. However, as a hieroglyphic inscription on a statue of a priestess associated with the royal cult of Philoteira, sister of Arsinoe II and the deification of the Princess Berenike in the Canopus decree demonstrate: the royal cult extended beyond the immediate rulers and queens. 211

°

For a comprehensive discussion of female rulers see Bryan (1996) 2536. On the titulature see Troy (1986). 201 Bryan (1996) 29. 202 Louvre inv. E 27135. See Bryan (1996) figure 7 for illustration. 203 Tefuin (1979) and Ratie (1979). On some of the representations the queen is shown with breasts, whilst on others she has a masculine chest, see Vandier (1958) for discussion and Robins (1996) 45-52. 204 Bryan (1996) 36 and robins (19 on the role of the royal women prior to the Ptolemaic period. 205 Allen in Arnold (1996) 5. 20

Berlin, Agyptisches Museum and Cairo, Egyptian Museum; see Arnold (1996) 94, fig. 85, also for further discussion. 207 Arnold (1996) 85. 208 Bothmer (1960b) 118. 209 Quaegebeur (1988) 49-51. 210 Lepsius 1901 vol. 4 Text: 1:11. 211 Quaegebeur (1983) 118. The statue represents Heresankh, priestess of the cult of Philoteira, from the Sarapieion at Memphis: Musee du Louvre N2456. 206

37

Sally-Ann Ashton

The Vatican sculpture of Arsinoe (Cat. 35) like that of Philadelphos (Cat. 6), establishes a chronological sequence. The representation of Philadelphos has already been discussed above; the third statue is believed by Roullet to be a Roman copy of the Vatican Arsinoe and by Quaegebeur to be Ptolemaic in date. Although the second female is very similar to the representation of Arsinoe it is almost certainly a Roman copy, a practice common in Imperial Rome. The colossal statue of Arsinoe not only shows the portrait type of the queen, but also her associated iconographic attributes. The statue is one of a group of two or three, found in Rome but believed to have originated from Heliopolis. 212 The inscription on the back pillar reads: 'The princess, inherent; daughter of Geb, the first, the daughter of the bull mrhw, the great generosity, the great favour, the daughter of the king, sister and spouse (of the king), woman of Upper and Lower Egypt, image of Isis, beloved of Hathor, mistress of the two lands, Arsinoe, who is beloved to her brother, beloved of Atum, mistress of the two lands. 213

Second Century BC

The second century representations of queens with Greek attributes are extremely significant for the dating of portrait heads in the Egyptian style. A posthumous sculpture of Arsinoe II in the MMA (Cat. 54) is of particular importance because the drapery, portrait features and attributes are all well preserved. Stylistically and iconographically the statue dates to the mid-second century BC and thus is an important reference point for comparison. Although there is a temptation to date some second century sculptures by quality, standards varied and therefore quality cannot be used as a guide to chronology. Furthermore, some portrait types in Egyptian-style royal portraits were neglected or not promoted, possibly reflecting the turbulent political situation under Ptolemies V, VI and VIII in particular. By far the best-preserved example of the traditional Egyptian-style representations is a statue of Arsinoe II in Leiden (Cat. 37). Again, the date of the piece and indeed the identification of the queen are controversial. 216 If the torso alone had survived, a third century date would seem to be the most likely. However, the facial features are not typical of portraits dating from the early Ptolemaic Period. The shape of the face on the Leiden statue is also more typical of the second century BC with its strong, angular jaw. Quaegebeur questioned the identification of the Leiden queen (Cat. 37), even though she wears a crown that was favoured by Arsinoe II. Bianchi preferred to identify the statue as Cleopatra II or III. However, given the popularity of the cult of Arsinoe well into the first century BC, coupled with the double uraeus and the crown, it would seem unnecessary to attempt to seek another identification. 217 Its existence, alongside the images of the queens with Greek attributes, offers an insight into the function of royal statuary and the royal cult, because the Egyptian-style statues such as the Leiden queen must have fulfilled a different role from the functions that are discussed in chapter 5. The description of the statue of the princess Berenike in the Canopus decree is very specific, and it would seem unlikely for two versions of the same . 1atmg . at any one t"1me.218 cult statue to b e crrcu

Stylistically the piece clearly dates to the third century BC; although, it is difficult to say whether it was a posthumous dedication because there are no other inscribed statues of this size for comparison. 214 The difference between the titles in the Vatican inscription and those on the posthumous statue of Arsinoe II, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Cat. 55), where the queen is called divine, would suggest that the Vatican statue was manufactured during her lifetime, before the instigation of her cult and that the royal pair are shown as the Theoi Adelphoi. Evidence that the queen appeared posthumously with Philadelphos as the Theoi Adelphoi, as seen on the relief decoration of the gateway of Euergetes at Karnak, is further indication that this role was not affected by her own cult and divine status. The precise date of the Vatican statue must therefore remain conjecture. Another statue of third century BC date, but without provenance is preserved in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.215 The headdress is damaged but in addition to the central vulture head, there are two holes on either side, which almost certainly supported a double uraeus. The body of the statue is more rounded than usual but the queen holds a sceptre in her left hand, the arm drawn across the abdomen in the same manner as the Vatican Arsinoe.

First Century BC Queens There are other statues that fall within the same category as the Leiden queen but which were intended to represent the queen during her lifetime. They form two groups: with a single or triple uraeus. As previously mentioned, it was assumed by Quaegebeur and Bianchi that the sheath-like drapery belonged exclusively to the third century BC. This confusion seems to have arisen from a comparison with the statues which are discussed in chapter 5, where the drapery does become more stylised in the manner of the hair on the

Roullet (1972) 109, no. 181 and (Quaegebeur 1983b) 114. For the inscription see Sethe (1904) 71-72 and Gauthier (1916) 241. For discussion see Gitton (1978) 389-403, who believes that the statue dates from Arsinoe's lifetime and Quaegebeur (1983b) 115, who believes that the statue may be posthumous. See also Koenen (1993) 28-29 on the role of the deified Arsinoe. 214 See Quaegebeur (1983b) for discussion. For comparable examples of fourth and third century Egyptian-style statues of women see Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 1332 in Bothmer (1960b) 119-20, no. 95 figures 236-38; Brussels MRAH E. 3073 in Quaegebeur (1983) figures 9-11 and Louvre N. 2456 figures 5-8. 215 CG 678, Borchardt (1931) 23 and more recently Rausch ed. (1998) 171, no. 119. 212 213

Quaegebeur (1983b) 110-12, 117 dates the statue to the third century BC on account of the drapery; Bianchi ed. (1988) 180-81 dates it to the second century BC. 217 Quaegebeur (1988) 42 and Bianchi ed. (1988) 180-81, who also suggests that the statue may represent a Cleopatra. 218 Quaegebeur (1988) 41, distinguishes between the various roles of the queens in the royal cult. 216

38

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

Egyptian-style male portraits. There are two statues with a triple uraeus on the traditional Egyptian headdress, and a further three with a corkscrew wig.

Jose statue as a first century ruler. Interestingly the back pillars of the purely Egyptian-style statues dating to the first century BC all stop around the mid back level, which is in contrast to those images with Greek influence where a distinctive form rises to and covers the top of the head.

The first, until recently unpublished, is now in the Louvre (Cat. 40) has more chiselled features but again wears a triple uraeus, the second (Cat. 39), now in San Jose, is better known. This type of uraeus is controversial because some scholars interpret it as a double uraeus with the third, middle cobra as part of the vulture headdress. Two further images fall within this category since they wear the vulture headdress: the Turin queen (Cat. 38) and the wooden statue of a Cleopatra (Cat. 41). Muller suggested that the middle uraeus was part of the vulture headdress. However, as Bianchi points out, only the Turin statue wears a vulture cap and so it would seem that the three cobras are meant to be a specific iconographic attribute. 219 Bianchi associates the Turin, San Jose and Hermitage (Cat. 63) queens to demonstrate that although the iconography may be representative of a single ruler, it appears on different types of statues. This conjecture would support the idea that the two types of images served different purposes, or at least referred to different aspects of the deification of the royal women. That some attributes, such as the type of uraeus, remained consistent would further demonstrate the uniformity of the individual royal representations.

Finally, the Mariemont statue (Cat. 42) is often referred to as a representation of Cleopatra VII with either Mark Anthony or Caesarion. 221 The male ruler Cat. 34, which is discussed in chapter 3, clearly dates to the mid-first century BC and the Egyptian-style queen is in keeping with Cleopatra's image and its third century influence. Since the sculpture is part of a dyad and the dating for the male ruler is relatively secure, it can also be placed in the mid first century BC. Her face has the same shape as that of the San Jose queen, and yet the treatment of the mouth has more in common with the early portraits of Arsinoe II. The statue is therefore archaising. The Mariemont statue represents either a queen or a goddess as illustrated by her modius decorated with cobras, and the vulture cap. There are the remains of an animal head at the front of the headdress, which was most likely to have once supported a vulture head. In addition to the third century portrait features, the subject wears the drapery associated with this period, the sheath-like dress; its appearance on this statue would support the re-dating of the Leiden piece to post third century BC. The youthful image of the female might suggest that the dyad represented a young Cleopatra, or daughter of Cleopatra. The stylised and youthful image of the male ruler would suggest that the pair might represent Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios, but Cleopatra VII and Caesarion cannot be ruled out on iconographic grounds, since the despite the fact that the female does not wear a uraeus it is possible that the female statue is a representation of Isis, and by assimilation, Cleopatra VII accompanied by her son Caesarion. This is paralleled by the image of Isis nursing Horus on the obverse of her Cypriot coins.

Not only is the interpretation of the triple uraeus perplexing, but also the identification of the queen whom the sculptures represent. The Hermitage and MMA statues are dealt with in chapter 5. The San Jose queen has been dated from the third century to the first century BC. Bothmer suggested that the piece represents Cleopatra II or III whereas Kyrieleis and Quaegebeur date it to the first century BC. Bianchi disagreed, on account of the nose, which was not ancient, claiming that with it removed, the statue has nothing in common with the portrait type of Cleopatra VII. He then compares the San Jose queen to the basalt statue of a Cleopatra in Vienna but dates it to the third century BC on account of the drapery. 220 As with the Leiden queen, the putative early dating derives from the drapery. However, the sheath-like garment may represent an attempt by later queens to revive the imagery of their third century predecessors. Supporting the first-century date of the statue are the portrait features and the treatment of the body; in particular the use of Venus rings around the neck, whilst a feature of earlier Egyptian male portraiture, is more commonly found on the Greek-style representations of queens. This type of portrait has little in common with the Egyptian-style portraits of Arsinoe II for which there is a certain date of the third century BC. Bianchi's argument that the San Jose queen appears less hawk-like without the nose, which is a restoration, and so less like the portrait type of Cleopatra VII, is incongruous, since stylistically the portrait is Egyptian. The angular features also occur on first century BC portraits such as the BMA prince (Cat. 31) and support the identity of the San

The representation of royal women in the same fashion as men is a further point of interest. Statues of women with naturalistic portraits are possibly distinct from the other representations of royal women and consequently may have fulfilled a different purpose. The Egyptian sculptors clearly struggled with the rendering of the hair, and the overall result is rather stylised. Such representations are very rare and, as previously suggested, may be interpreted as direct equivalents to the male statues, manufactured during the period in which a lone female rather than male ruled Egypt. On the Hadra dyad, the female (Cat. 42) is portrayed in a wholly Egyptian manner, whilst her male companion (Cat. 34) has stylised hair beneath the headdress. The female royal portraits follow a very similar pattern to those of the males and the evidence suggests that the Egyptian-style images were still produced alongside the statues of the queens that are erroneously associated with Isis. The promotion of the royal women is a consequence

Millier, cited in Bothmer (1960b) 147 and Bianchi in Bianchi ed. (1988) 176. 220 Bothmer (1960b) 145-47, Kyrieleis (1975) 119 and Quaegebeur (1983b) 114. Bianchi ed. (1988) 176. 219

221

39

See Quaegebeur (1983b) 114 and Kyrieleis (1975) 184.

Sally-Ann Ashton MMA head (Cat. 36) and statues from the Thirtieth Dynasty demonstrate that the same policy of continuing the earlier portrait styles was valid for the female royal representations. A basalt head with similar features to the MMA Arsinoe head was registered in Zurich, Galerie Nefer in 1927. Nothing on this piece, however, suggests that the image is a representation of Arsinoe II, which supports Quaegebeur's point regarding the similarity of Late Period and early Ptolemaic portraiture. Another representation of this time of Arsinoe II, now in Cairo Museum and not included in this catalogue, shows a voluptuous queen with similar features to the MMA Arsinoe, wearing a vulture headdress with holes on either side to support two cobras, it is possible to see links between this particular statue and some of the images of Eighteenth Dynasty queens, particularly with respect to the swollen thighs and abdomen. 227

of the popularity of the ruler cult in both Greek and Egyptian contexts. The attributes that some statues adopt are clearly influenced by the Greek cult but should be considered within the same framework as the purely Egyptian-style royal images since they are Egyptian in style. This type of statue will be discussed fully in chapter 5.

4.3 Iconography

Because the majority of royal statues are uninscribed, modem scholars depend on stylistic analysis and iconography to date individual pieces. In most cases the iconography and attributes that were associated with the Ptolemaic queens on their Egyptian-style images are of a very general nature, showing them with a single uraeus or cobra decorating their wig and a single cornucopia or ankh sign, others simply with clenched fists. There are only two complete, inscribed statues, both representing Arsinoe II; one is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Cat. 54) and the other is in the Vatican Museum (Cat. 35). The Metropolitan Arsinoe wears a Hellenised version of a knotted Egyptian costume, and adopts a Greek hairstyle and holds a double cornucopia and will be discussed in chapter 5. Both statues are important because they illustrate continuity in use of attributes to identify important royal figures in a religious context. The double cornucopia on the MMA statuette accords with the double form that appears on inscribed faience cult vases (figure 1). Similarly on posthumous coin issues with Arsinoe's portrait the double cornucopia appears on the reverse. 222

The attributes of these inscribed statues are of considerable importance for identifying individual queens and because of the prominence and the popularity of her individual cult, Arsinoe II is an important figure in the understanding of the iconography of the Egyptian representations of royal women. They also demonstrate that in both Greek and Egyptian contexts the queen was associated with the double cornucopia. When Arsinoe was portrayed in the Egyptian style she wore a double form of the uraeus, which is unusual in Egyptian royal representations. The posthumous statues of the queen show that the form of uraeus remained unchanged from the third to the first centuries BC as can be seen from a comparison of the Vatican Arsinoe and the later head of the queen from Canopus, now in the GrecoRoman Museum, Alexandria (Cat 66). Was the uraeus linked with the double cornucopia and what does the double form of either symbol represent? The double uraeus is attested in previous periods of Egyptian history. The earliest sculptural example occurs in the Eighteenth Dynasty, where queen Tiye, wife of Amenhotep III frequently appears with the double form of uraeus: one cobra wearing the white crown of Lower Egypt and the other the red crown of Upper Egypt, thus representing the · · · Jommg of th e two lands. 22s The successor of Tiye, Nefertiti, wife of Amenhotep IV (later known as Akhenaten) also wore the double uraeus. 229 Because many of the statues of Nefertiti were pieced together, the headdress and so uraeus is missing and so it is not possible to know whether the double form of the uraeus referred to Upper and Lower Egypt or whether it had, in this period of great artistic and ideological innovation, another meaning. The double uraeus also appears on a Nineteenth Dynasty

The double uraeus on the Vatican sculpture is an important feature because it was commonly associated with the queen, and was possibly intended as a reference to her relationship with Philadelphos, in the same way that the double cornucopia was associated with the Greek royal cult. 223 It seems more than likely that the two attributes were in some way connected and might even be seen as parallels from the two traditions. Another identifiable feature on this representation would have been the crown. 224 However, as Quaegebeur points out, the crown was not worn exclusively by Arsinoe II and it is possible that the same was true of the double uraeus. 225 The double uraeus also appears on another third century BC representation identified as Arsinoe II in the MMA New York (Cat. 36), which has very simila; features to th~ Vatican Arsinoe. 226 In particular, the careful outlining of the eyes and their almond shape on the MMA head are reminiscent of those of the Vatican statue. Quaegebeur's comments regarding the stylistic similarity between the Thompson (1973) 65, suggests that the dikeras represents double sovereignty. 223 On the cornucopia see Thompson (1973) 32, for the double uraeus see Griffiths (1961) 113-14. 224 Quaegebeur (1983b) 112-13 and Dils (1998) on the crowns worn by Arsinoe II. 225 See also Cat. 37 for full discussion below. 226 Bothmer (1960b) 125-26 fig. 244-46 and Quaegebeur (1983) 116.

Cairo CG 678, Corteggiani in Rausch 1998: 170, no. 199. Cairo, Egyptian ~useum CG 137, fragment of a statue of Tiye from Karnak and Berlin Agyptisches Museum 21834, catalogued in Aldred (1973) no. 19. See also Russmann (1974) 39 f.n. 2 for early examples of the double uraeus in other media. 229 For Nefertiti see Arnold (1996) fig 8 Berlin, Agyptisches Museum inv. 14 145 and fig 2 Cairo, Egyptian Museum inv. CG 42089, and for a sculptors' model Cairo JE 592964.

222

227 228

40

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

representation of Meretamun, daughter and consort of Ramesses II, now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo; the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt are worn by each cobra, again suggesting that the double form was a reference to the two lands.230 Griffiths concluded that the double form was not simply a duplication of the single and suggested that it represented the cobra goddess and vulture goddess with the latter in the guise of the former.231 In the Twentyfifth Dynasty, the male rulers frequently appear with the double uraeus. These kings were originally from the kingdom of Kush, modem Sudan, and the use of the double form of uraeus by these rulers may have represented the amalgamation of Egypt and Kush rather than Upper and Lower Egypt.

the Turin queen are more stylised and of a generic type. The association of Cleopatra VII has already been noted, with respect to the crown and double cornucopia, it is therefore possible that the central figure was either a cobra to differentiate between Arsinoe and Cleopatra, or that the triple form developed from the initial appearance of the double form and the vulture head. It is also possible that the triple form of uraeus was deliberately used from the outset and that when the queen wore a vulture headdress it was not seen to be appropriate to show four animals and so the type reverted to the earlier double form used by Arsinoe II.233 Stylistically the statues Cats. 38-41 and Cats. 63-65 are not immediately striking as a group, which is the result of separate artistic trends and also because they probably served different functions within the royal and dynastic cults. Four statues have Greek attributes, including the bust of a queen now in Turin (Cat. 38), whose portrait is very similar to those in the Greek-style and whose raised left shoulder has led some scholars to conclude that she once held a cornucopia. 234 This sub-group also includes an inscribed statuette now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Cat. 65) and a stylistically similar head now in the Brooklyn Museum of Art (Cat. 64). Finally, the statue of a queen now in the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, which although essentially Egyptian in the style of costume and wig, holds a Greek attribute in the form of a double cornucopia (Cat. 63). The other three statues are purely Egyptian in style (Cats. 39-41) and look back to the styles of the third century BC: the Louvre queen (Cat. 40) with her plastic make-up lines and the queen now in the Rosicrucian Museum, San Jose (Cat. 39) wears the sheath-like drapery, which first appears in the early Ptolemaic Period; only the sharp facial features betray her later date. The wooden statue (Cat. 41) has a cartouche that is similar to the MMA Cleopatra on her right arm, and wears similar drapery to the Louvre and San Jose queens.

The double uraeus does not appear again until the reign of Ptolemy II, when as we have seen, Arsinoe II adopted it for her Egyptian-style images. The inscription on the back pillar of the Vatican statue implies that the double form refers to the queen's role of mistress of the two lands. However, with the exception of the wooden statue (Cat. 41) the cobras of the Ptolemaic period do not wear the crowns of Egypt. The other problem with interpreting the double uraeus simply as a reference to the joining of the two lands is that Arsinoe is the only queen to wear the double form. If the significance was of such a general nature, one might expect subsequent queens to adopt the double uraeus, but that seems not to have been the case. Griffiths suggested that Cleopatra VII wore the double uraeus and that the queen used two asps for her suicide as a deliberate reference to the symbol.232 It is possible that the double uraeus was a parallel to the double cornucopia that appears on the coins of Arsinoe II and that it may represent the close relationship between the queen and her brother, Ptolemy II as the Theoi Adelphoi. In support of this is that it appears on the Vatican statue, which forms part of a pair of statues representing the Theoi Adelphoi. The adoption of Greek attributes along with the difference in the number of cobras worn by the queens have helped to further our understanding of a group of statues of a Ptolemaic queen wearing a triple uraeus for the first time in Egyptian art.

Not all scholars, however, recognise the triple uraeus, but prefer to see the form as a double uraeus with the central vulture from the headdress worn by queens and goddesses in Egypt. 235 Although this is certainly the case in the Eighteenth Dynasty representations, this theory is only applicable for the Turin queen, since she is the only statue from the group to wear a vulture cap. It is also clear from the second century BC that some sculptors forgo such details, showing the legs and feathers of a vulture over the wig but without the bird's head.

In addition to adopting a specific iconography, Arsinoe also wore a special crown, as seen on temple reliefs and the Leiden statue (Cat. 37), to distinguish her from other queens and deities. Cleopatra VII also wore this crown, as seen on the relief of the South wall at the temple of Hathor at Denderah and on a stela now in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. Cleopatra VII also adopted the double cornucopia on the reverse of her Cypriote coins. The Turin (Cat. 38) and wooden statue (Cat. 41) queens are also extremely important for understanding the meaning of the triple form of the royal cobra. As noted, both representations show the queen with a vulture headdress; on the Stafford statue the central figure is clearly in the form of the vulture's head, whereas the form of the animal heads on the wig of 23

The bust of a Ptolemaic queen in Kassel Museum inv. Sk. 77 (formerly B68) wears a tripartite wig and vulture headdress but there is no head of the vulture, illustrating that the head was sometimes not shown. See Felgenhauer (1996) 202-04. 234 Vittozzi (1995) 412. One would, however, expect a trace of the cornucopia to support this suggestion. Instead it seems more likely that the left arm was held across the abdomen in the style of the Vatican queen. I am grateful to Dr. Eleni Vassilika for suggesting this during a discussion of this group of statues. 235 Millier in Bothmer (1960b) 147. 233

°Cairo JE 31413 from Thebes.

231 232

Griffiths (1961) 113-14. Russmann (1974) 39-40. Griffiths (1961) 114, after Spiegelberg.

41

Sally-Ann Ashton

Brooklyn Museum of Art (Cat 31). The features on both the Hermitage queen and the Brooklyn prince are refined versions of the down-turned mouth and square chin that appear on the portraits of the second century BC rulers. The prince could represent Ptolemy XIII or XIV, who ruled with their sister during the early part of her reign; it is, however, more likely to represent Caesarion and the similarity of the portrait features was probably a deliberate association of the two rulers, as seen on the South wall of the Temple of Hathor at Denderah and on the Cypriot

One of the earliest discussions of the triple uraeus can be found in a catalogue by Bothmer for the exhibition Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period as part of the entry for the Metropolitan Cleopatra (Cat 65).236 Bothmer dismissed the possibility that the statuette represented Cleopatra VII on stylistic grounds, preferring to date the piece to the second century BC. He tentatively suggested that triple uraeus represented the triple rule of Cleopatra II, Ptolemy VI and VIII; citing the Turin, Hermitage and San Jose queens as comparable examples and commenting on the hawk-like appearance of the latter two statues, concluding that they may well represent the same queen. However, which queen?

COlnS.

As noted, the Hermitage (Cat. 63) and San Jose queens have been allocated a third century BC date on account of their sheath-like drapery, which is so typical of this period. However, there is evidence to suggest that during the first century BC there was a deliberate movement towards archaising and a return to the pure, Egyptian-style images of the third century BC, as illustrated by the Hadra dyad (Cats. 34 and 42). The male ruler, although Egyptian in style has hair, a non-Egyptian feature, whereas the female figure is very similar to the type of representation found in the third century BC and without the obvious date of the male, the female would be dated to the early Ptolemaic Period. The Louvre queen (Cat. 40) with a triple uraeus and plastic make-up lines is also reminiscent of early Ptolemaic images such as the MMA Arsinoe (Cat. 36), drawing inspiration from Twenty-sixth and Thirtieth Dynasty portraits. On the Hermitage queen this can be seen in the costume and wig, which return to the more traditional Egyptian form compared to the Hellenised drapery and wig of the MMA Cleopatra and other such statues with the cornucopia.

Although the idea that the triple uraeus represents the triple rule of Ptolemies VI and VIII and Cleopatra II is theoretically feasible, there are nonetheless historical reasons for refuting the idea. Ptolemy VI was ten or eleven years of age in 176 BC, when his mother, Cleopatra I died. Two unlikely candidates were chosen as regents: Eulaeus, a eunuch and Lenaeus, as former slave from Coele-Syria. In order to cement the royal power Ptolemy VI was married to his sister Cleopatra II in April 176 BC, although neither was of age. Then in 170 BC when Ptolemy VI came of age, his younger brother was made joint ruler in order to further strengthen the royal throne and prevent internal rivalry. In reality, however, the reigns of Ptolemy VIII with his siblings and then later with Cleopatra II and her daughter by Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra III, were dominated by internal power struggles. It therefore seems unlikely that the three would be associated in this way. A triad representing Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatras II and III sometimes appears on stelae, temple reliefs and on seal impressions, but a more careful study of the statues in question and the associated iconography would suggest that the triple uraeus represented a more complex, ideological union. There are also stylistic features to consider which support a first rather than second century BC date for the group of statues.

The fragment of a crown from Koptos, now in the Petrie Museum creates a further confusion but can again be explained by this policy of association by Cleopatra VII with Arsinoe II (appendix 2.7). The crown is in the simple form of two plumes with a sun disk and decorated with three cobras. The crown has been identified as that of Arsinoe II on account of the titles that appear in the inscription: " ..king's daughter, king's sister, great royal wife, who satisfies the heart of Horus ..". However, it is not the usual form of crown worn by this queen.237 If the crown is compared with the relief representations of Arsinoe II, the queen is shown without cobras on the crown or, on the reliefs at the Temple of Horus at Edfu, with the double cobra, as a parallel to the double uraeus on her statues. The titles in the inscription of the Koptos crown are used by Arsinoe II, but it is also possible that Cleopatra VII adopted a similar titulature in the same way that she used the double cornucopia and crown of Arsinoe.238 It therefore, seems unlikely that the triple form of uraeus was associated with Arsinoe; this accords with the inscriptional evidence for her representations in the round. Interestingly on a relief at the temple of Hathor at Denderah an image representing Ptolemy XIII, XIV or XV

Quaegebeur's original identification of one of the group, the San Jose queen, was disputed on stylistic because of the restored nose and the type of drapery worn by the statue. The triple uraeus on this statue was not considered in the original identification and so a comparison and discussion encompassing the other statues in the group was not undertaken. However, the argument for the association of the triple uraeus with Cleopatra VII that follows below, supports Quaegebeur's original identification of the queen on stylistic grounds. The second century Cleopatras adopt a masculine appearance, as seen on the Vienna queen (Cat. 47), which compare well with the male images from this period and are quite different to the statues with the triple uraeus where a more youthful portrait type is adopted. The Hermitage queen is perhaps the most useful, because she has the added Greek iconography and is stylistically similar to a statue of a first century BC prince, now in the

See Dils (1998) for the crowns worn by Arsinoe II, especially 1302, fig. I. 238 Troy (1986) 178-79. 237

236

Bothmer (1960b) 146-47.

42

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

(Caesarion, Cleopatra's son) shows the ruler wearing a crown that is decorated with three cobras rather than the usual single or double forms.239 The reassociation of the Petrie Museum crown with Cleopatra VII is supported by the fact that the queen dedicated a bark shrine at the site .h er reign. -240 dunng

4.4 Egyptian-style Portraits of Ptolemaic Queens with Greek Features The Egyptian representations of Ptolemaic royal women with Greek features form a distinctive group. The earliest example of an Egyptian-style representation with a back pillar is a basalt portrait but with a Greek-style coiffure is now in Copenhagen and is generally accepted to represent Arsinoe III (Cat. 43).242 Her hair is parted down the centre, drawn back in a bun with an unfinished narrow diadem. The result is a slightly stylised but exceptionally high quality sculpture. Although the use of inlaid eyes is attested throughout the history of Egyptian sculpture, their re-appearance here might suggest that the artist used a bronze image as a model, which is also reflected in the stone that would once have been highly polished. Because the piece is unique, dating it is a problem. Like the Egyptian version of the Physcon portrait type, there is little to connect the Copenhagen head with the portrait type of Arsinoe III. The mouth in particular is not typical of the sullen configuration that is generally found on her images, and the general appearance of the Copenhagen statue is youthful rather than matronly. However, it has been dated to the third century BC because of the coiffure, but a second head in Copenhagen (Cat. 44) demonstrates that the queens were not always portrayed with the corkscrew coiffure in the early second century BC and the identification must therefore remain conjecture.

The triple form of uraeus is more likely to be linked to Cleopatra VII and there are stylistic reasons to suggest that the above group of statues should be dated to the first century BC. There are further ideological justifications to link this form of the uraeus with this particular queen, although its meaning must remain conjectural. As noted above, the double uraeus is most commonly associated with the two lands of Upper and Lower Egypt, it is therefore possible that the triple form is an extension of this affinity. The triad may refer to Egypt, Rome and, during the second half of Cleopatra's reign, the old Seleucid Kingdom, as illustrated by the coins of the queen and Mark Antony that were minted in Antioch. It is also possible, though less likely that the triple form represents an ideological union of Cleopatra, Caesarion and the deceased Julius Caesar as Isis, Horus and Osiris because Caesar never actually ruled Egypt and so could not really be linked to Osiris, because this association was usually reserved for the dead pharaoh. It is even less likely that the triple form would relate to Cleopatra, Caesarion and Mark Antony, although the latter associated himself with Dionysos who is linked to Osiris and the underworld. The third element could, however, be a reference to Auletes, Cleopatra's father, with whom she maintained a strong ideological bond. Finally the triple uraeus may have been used literally, to illustrate Cleopatra's title as 'Queen of Kings', the remaining cobras representing the kings. 241

Like the ostensible Arsinoe III sculpture, the subject of the second Copenhagen statue (Cat. 44) wears her hair in a bun, rather than in corkscrew locks. Stylistically the piece is similar to the images of the mid-second century BC, with a rounded face, full lips and wide eyes. However, the sculptor has clearly struggled with the proportions of the forehead, which appears to be too high because of the central parting of the hair. Like the statues that show the queens wearing a corkscrew wig, this particular example has stylised portrait features rather than the individual representations in the Greek style. For this reason it is difficult to discern which queen was intended. A comparison with the male portraits suggests that it dates to the reign of Ptolemy VI or VIII and would, therefore, represent either Cleopatra I or Cleopatra II; it is less likely to be an early portrait of Cleopatra III, for reasons discussed below.

Without inscribed statues it is not possible to know for the certain why this new and distinguishing form of iconography was introduced. That it has received such little attention by scholars illustrates not only how neglected the study of Ptolemaic royal portraiture has been, but also the problems of conducting research into a culture that links two of the great civilisations. As this discussion illustrates, the bicultural climate found in Ptolemaic Egypt can also serve to the modem scholar's advantage. A point illustrated by a Greek-style image resembling that of Cleopatra VII' s coin portraits on a glass gem now in the British Museum (appendix 1.24). Sprouting from the top of the head is an Egyptianising crown comprising of three cobras, thus adding support to the reidentification of the Egyptian-style representations with this feature.

The sharply carved eyebrows of the first Copenhagen head (Cat. 43) are similar to those of a colossal limestone statue from Alexandria (Cat. 45) and the Canopus Philometor (Cat. 15). The three statues are probably, therefore, of a similar date. The coiffure of the Alexandrian statue is also very close to that of Cat. 44, and both queens wear a modius. On the former the base is carved in a circle of cobras, whereas the modius of Cat. 44 is roughly finished. The Alexandrian queen also has two rows of thick locks at the side of her head, but the fringe on both examples is remarkably similar. Although the queen wears a diadem, the rest of her regalia is Egyptian, and she may be seen as a

See Dils (1998) 1306 fig. 2.g. Arnold (1999) 221. 241 This interpretation was suggested by Professor John Ray during a seminar at the British Museum in November 1999. 239 240

242

43

See Kyrieleis (1975) 183 and Bianchi ed. (1988) 177.

Sally-Ann Ashton

female equivalent to the images of male rulers that are discussed below. Stylistically the Alexandrian piece probably dates to the time of Ptolemy VI or Ptolemy VIII and may, therefore, represent either Cleopatra II or III. The head was found in the district of Hadra in Alexandria, although there is no context for its location.

royal women, as a parallel to this phenomenon on the male representations. Another representation of this queen was recorded at the temple of Sobek/Renenutet at Narmouthis in the Faiyum (Cat. 48). This piece is very unusual because it portrays a queen in the form of a royal sphinx; her portrait features are crudely carved and yet are clearly based on those of the male rulers from the site (Cat. 18 and 22). The queen wears her hair in a corkscrew coiffure and appears to have drapery represented between her breasts. The close-set eyes are again reminiscent of the portraits of Ptolemy VIII and the thin, wide mouth is similar to the slightly later images of Ptolemy IX and X. The Narmouthis queen is the only example from this subcategory to have both a provenance and context, in that it was found at an Egyptian temple. This accords with many of the statues of male rulers with Greek features, including two from the same site (Cats. 18 and 22).

A head of a queen in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Cat. 47) illustrates the development of this type of statue. Because the back pillars are lower, the stylised curl that decorated the sides of the dorsal support was by this time redundant and had been replaced by a continuous row of corkscrew locks at the back of the head, usually resting on the shoulders. However, it is important to distinguish such examples from those on which the queen wears a more stylised corkscrew wig. The Vienna queen is problematic, in that her hair appears to be more stylised, particularly around the fringe, which consists of three layers of tight curls. However, the more naturalistic treatment of the back locks and the clear attempt to carve portrait features rather than a stylised image, distinguish the piece from the other statues with a corkscrew wig. The Vienna queen's portrait type and the adoption of three rows of archaising curls have more in common with the images of Ptolemy IX and X; it therefore probably represents Cleopatra III.

The close attention to the Greek coiffure and the individualising portrait features that echo the male portraits of the period may have been introduced when the queens ruled in their own right, without a male consort. Like the portraits of the male rulers from this period, the Vienna queen shows a stylised, non-ideal portrait type with a corpulent face, weak chin and jowls, its closest parallel being the Berlin late Ptolemy (Cat. 25). The earlier examples may represent Cleopatra I when she ruled Egypt as regent or Cleopatra II during a period when she controlled country in the absence of Ptolemy VIII (131130 BC). Of all the female royal statues, this parallel group to the male rulers' representations is the smallest and the least commonly represented, but if the sculptures did commemorate the queens' short, autonomous rule, the paucity of examples is not surprising.

The statue of a queen now in the Museo Barracco, Rome (Cat. 46) also wears her hair in corkscrew locks and has the characteristic triple row of archaising curls for the fringe. Unlike the statues that are discussed in chapter 5, this example shows the queen wearing a sheath-like dress and standing in the traditional stance with arms held firmly by her sides. It is lacking the knotted costume or cornucopia, illustrating that the adoption of Greek hairstyles was found on purely Egyptian style images of

44

5.2 Chronology and Identification

Chapter 5: Representations of Isis, Egypt and the Ptolemaic Queens

The earliest example of a Ptolemaic queen wearing a knotted garment that can be dated with any certainty appears on a stela, now in the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum (Fig. 7).

5.1 Introduction This chapter is concerned with a group of statues of Ptolemaic royal women that are essentially Egyptian in style, but which share iconographic attributes with the Greek-style representations. The statues are linked stylistically and chronologically with the purely Egyptianstyle representations, which were discussed in the previous chapter. The main differences between the two groups are the hairstyle, drapery and attributes, which are sometimes borrowed from the Greek tradition. Not all of the representations within this group have all three components. Many of the statues are fragmentary and so it is impossible to know their exact form and several have no provenance. As table 2 shows, the statues that do have a known findspot originated in either the Delta or the Faiyum. This may be purely a coincidence, but on the other hand the concentration of finds within a particular region and indeed one which had a high Greek population may help in understanding the function of this distinctive group. The type of image was certainly adopted by the Romans and possibly the Greek communities in the Ptolemaic Period but only one version without a back pillar survives. This exceptional figure was executed in a hard stone and shares much in common with the earlier Egyptian prototypes. Unfortunately it cannot be dated with any certainty to the Ptolemaic period, but it demonstrates that the Greek workshops began to manufacture their own versions of this type of statuary, probably, as the long locks of hair suggest, during the first century BC (Cat. 68). This particular statue is clearly modelled on the Egyptian versions, and it is, on first glance, the same as the Egyptian-style images, only the lack of back pillar and the soft modelling of the right arm place it within the Greek tradition, although it is executed in a hard stone.

Figure 7 The British Museum, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum, EA 1054

Many early scholars assumed that this type of representation was intended to assimilate the Ptolemaic royal women to the goddess Isis. 243 However, this association has more recently, and quite correctly, been disputed; with the conclusion that the association between this type of statue and Isis was not developed until the Roman Period and may even have been a direct consequence of Cleopatra VII's own assimilation to the goddess. Before considering the function of this group it is necessary to establish a chronological sequence.

The stela, from Tanis, can be securely dated to the reign of Ptolemy IV, and it has been suggested that the garment worn by the ruler is associated with the king's Heb-Sed festival, although as Bianchi notes this remains conjecture. 244 Arsinoe III, who stands behind the ruler, wears a knotted tripartite costume with clear folds in drapery; her hair is styled in corkscrew locks, and she wears the ostrich feather, cows' horns and sundisk crown. Although caution is necessary when comparing relief representations with those in the round, the developed folds on the British Museum stela, which continue into the first century BC, suggest that the more naturalistic drapery as found on the images from group A, are considerably earlier. It will be suggested that this type of royal image was intended specifically to represent the queens as goddesses in their own right, and the phenomenon would, therefore, have first occurred during the reign of Ptolemy II, following the death of his wife, Arsinoe II, in 270 BC. Interestingly, Arsinoe III is not venerated to the extent of other queens, and Thompson noted that it is the king's name that appears on the faience cult vases of this period

See Walters (1989) 5-33 for a detailed account of the study of this type ofrepresentation: Hissing (1914) 112; Schaefer (1921) 194 f.; Vandebeek (1949) 18f., 38 f., 88 and 98; Needler (1949) 137.

244

243

See Bianchi in Bianchi (ed.) (1988) 105, no. 15 and Andrews in Walker and Higgs eds. (2000) 88-89, 1.91.

45

Sally-Ann Ashton

The first piece (Cat. 50) is very fragmentary and again, there is no cornucopia or indication of the corkscrew coiffure; thus the statue is wholly Egyptian. Here, the drapery is tied in a double knot and has more clearly defined folds than the BMFA statue (Cat. 49), particularly under the breasts.

rather than the usual reference to the queen. 245 The adoption of the costume and the dominant position of the ruler on this stela may reflect a similar policy here. A similar, although poorly preserved, fringed mantle appears on the Pithom stela (264/3 BC). One important factor to consider when attempting to establish a chronological sequence for any group of Ptolemaic representations is the existence of local workshops. Early commentaries on Ptolemaic sculpture tend to date any pieces of poor quality to the late second and first centuries BC. 246 In reality poor quality may reflect regional rather than chronological differences or may be the result of a private rather than state sponsored dedication. In order to avoid errors in dating, it is necessary to look carefully at iconographic and stylistic subtleties, and I have attempted to do so where possible by comparison with the purely Egyptian-style representations. For clarity, the statues are divided into subgroups (A-F), although these divisions are not necessarily indications of chronological differences.

The second statue, which was found in the Faiyum and is also now in the Alexandria Museum (Cat. 51), is perhaps the earliest example of this type of statue with the corkscrew locks. The knot is tied in a double form and positioned slightly higher than on the previous representations. The drapery still clings to the subject's body, but the folds of the garment are more obvious. The queen holds both hands firmly by her sides, with clenched fists. The style of the drapery and also the appearance of the locks would suggest a later date for this piece, since the locks first appear on the Libyan coins of Berenike II, with a cornucopia on the reverse. 248 Although there is one Hellenistic representation of Berenike II wearing the coiffure in Egypt, it is not until the time of Cleopatra I that the royal women regularly appear on coinage or statues in the round with the Libyan locks. However, Needler suggested that some versions of the corkscrew coiffure with the more naturalistic treatment if the fringe on Egyptian statuary were the result of artists confusing the Libyan and Greek styles.249 On the original coins of Berenike II from Cyrenaica, it has been suggested that the queen personified Libya or Africa. However, the regular adoption of the coiffure in the second century BC in Greek and then Egyptian contexts may well have had a stronger association with Egypt than with the goddess Isis, particularly on Egyptian-style statues.

Subgroup 'A' contains the earliest statues, including a queen that is now in the Boston Museum of Fine Art (Cat. 49), which has been dated to the third century BC on account of the fine, body-clinging drapery. The only difference between this piece and the early Ptolemaic statues such as the Vatican Arsinoe II (Cat. 35) is that the queens wear different garments. This type of dress is not, however, a chronological indicator: the traditional transparent dress of the Vatican Arsinoe continues throughout the Ptolemaic period and is not confined to the early years of Ptolemaic rule. The knot on the BMFA statue (Cat. 49) may, as suggested, be equated with specific changes in the royal cult and the deification of Arsinoe II. Unfortunately the head of the BMF A statue has not survived, and so there is no indication whether the queen wore her hair in the corkscrew coiffure or a traditional Egyptian wig. If the transparent drapery is an early feature, the BMFA queen is the first example to wear the knotted garment in Ptolemaic art, which suggests that unlike the other associated attributes, the origin of the so-called Isis knot was Egyptian rather than Greek. This idea is supported by the lack of Greek features on the BMF A queen. Many early scholars such as Breccia and Needler believed the garment to be Greek in origin, and Bothmer considered the soft modelling of the female body to be influenced by the Hellenistic tradition. More recently, however, Bianchi and Walters offered the contrary view, that this treatment of the female form was already established in the Egyptian artistic tradition, which will be upheld here. 247

Two further statues with a slightly more elaborate type of dress may also be assigned to sub-group 'A'. One is a well-preserved statue in Cairo with a greater emphasis on the folds (Cat. 52) but still transparent in appearance. The Cairo queen wears a garment with folds under the breasts and then draped over her right shoulder to form the knot with the central pleat of the dress. Both hands were held firmly by the queen's sides, and thus there was no cornucopia. The scalloping of the shawl fringe over the queen's right shoulder occurs on other representations. The other, a statue now in Paris (Cat. 53), has an almost identical decorative edge on the garment, and like the Cairo statue the subject holds her arms firmly by her sides, clutching an ankh rather than a cornucopia. The third example from the Villa Albani in Rome and now in Munich, has the same effect but the stone is highly polished, with a finish that has more in common with the Hadrianic copies from the Emperor's villa at Tivoli. A highly polished example in the Staatliche Sammlung Agyptischer Kunst, Munich is not included in this catalogue because is most probably Roman in date, and is

There are two other related statues from subgroup 'A', both now in the Greco-Roman Museum in Alexandria. Thompson (1973) 87-88. Lawrence (1925) 179 and Needler (1949) 140. 247 Bothmer (1960b), Breccia (1926) 19 Needler (1949) 138. Compare the view held by Bianchi (1980) and (1988) and Walters (1988), see also Ashton in Riggs and McDonald eds. (2000) 1-10.

Robinson (1965) 249 pl. xxx. Needler (1949) 139. For the Cairo head inv. JE 39517: Edgar (1915) 4, no. 4 [Isis]; Watzinger (1927) 25 [end of third century BC]; Thompson (1973) 93 [Arsinoe III]; Johannes (1975) 4, 18, no. 10 [Isis]; Queyrel (1988) 15, 22 [Berenike II]; Rausch ed. (1998) 200, no. 145 [Berenike II].

245

248

246

249

46

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

therefore probably a close Roman copy of the Cairo and Paris representations. 250

portrait features compare well to the royal images of Ptolemy VIII and those of related females. However, Bianchi compares the inscription to that on the Alexandrian triad, dating to the reign of Philadelphos, after Arsinoe' s death, thus dating the statue to the late third century BC.254 The style of the drapery and the facial features do not, however, support this hypothesis, and the unfortunate lack of inscribed royal images from this period, mean that the use of specific titles and references cannot be easily defined.

The statues in subgroup 'A' have more naturalistic drapery and are thus less stylised in appearance than the later second and first century BC examples. This phenomenon parallels the development of the Egyptian-style statues of male rulers with Greek portrait features, where the earliest examples are closer to the Greek images and in some cases of a higher standard. One might expect a more pronounced Greek influence later when Greek workshops were established, if they were indeed responsible for the introduction of the style. That the opposite was the case may indicate a lack of interest on behalf of the royal house in the dissemination of their image.

Subgroup 'C' contains four statues: two were salvaged from the Alexandrian harbour and are datable because of the associated male statues from the same context. These representations have recently been assigned to the third century BC; but with their stylised drapery and the portrait features of the associated male rulers, they can be dated to the reigns of both Ptolemy VIII and X and thus represent Cleopatra III. It is just possible to distinguish the position where the cornucopia joined the upper left shoulder on the more fragmentary of the two female representations; the knot is also visible above the right breast (Cat. 57). The better-preserved statue shows more clearly the form of the mid-second century queens (Cat. 56). This example was a colossal piece with stylised locks and drapery; again, there are only traces of a cornucopia remaining on the left arm. The head shows a full face with inlaid eyes, which is another feature of the second century BC.255 Fortunately, the crown has also been preserved. It is purely Egyptian in style and is of a type worn by the goddess Isis and also by many of the Ptolemaic queens.256 It was recently suggested that this particular statue represented Arsinoe II, hence the third century BC date. Just as a third-century date cannot be justified, it is equally unlikely that this particular example represents even a posthumous Arsinoe II, since the queen usually wears a very specific crown rather than the more general sun disk, cow horns and double feathers.257

The next subgroup (B) probably also dates to the third century BC, possibly the later years, at a time when the royal females gained a more powerful and independent role. 251 This was, however, a time when there was a decline in the production of the faience oinochoai, which were closely connected with the Greek royal cult in the early to mid third century BC.252 It was during this period that the first evidence appeared for the use of specific attributes to distinguish individual queens and this change in iconography may well echo developments within the dynastic cult from the time of Cleopatra III, when the rulers become their own priests and priestesses. From this point, many of the statues that survive intact have either a single or double cornucopia; the latter form was associated specifically with Arsinoe II, and later under Cleopatra VII in Greek art, and on the coins of Cleopatra Thea. A statuette of Arsinoe II, now in the MMA (Cat. 54), represents subgroup B. This image is rare because it has survived intact and the back pillar is inscribed; thus it illustrates the association of Arsinoe II with the double cornucopia in Egyptian as well as Greek art.253 The queen wears a long garment to her ankles, which is pulled over the right shoulder and tied in a knot above the right breast; the material is gathered beneath her breasts and there is a slightly off-centre fold down the centre. Fortunately the head on this statue has been preserved, showing a stylised coiffure of corkscrew locks falling onto the queen's shoulders and a second row of locks along her brow. The face is rounded, with large eyes, again a feature of the Greek-style portraits. It is in marked contrast to the other head of Arsinoe II in the same museum (Cat. 36), which owes nothing to the Greek tradition and is more typical of Arsinoe's Egyptian portrait type. The inscription, which refers to Arsinoe the divine, suggests that this portrait is a posthumous representation of the queen. Stylistically, the

A much smaller statue now in New Haven (Cat. 55) shares the same stylised curls on the forehead as the MMA Arsinoe II (Cat. 54) and the colossal queen from Fort Qait Bey (Cat. 56), which was cited by Needler (1949) 140, as an example of the degenerative style of second century Egyptian sculpture.258 The fourth member of this subgroup also shares features with the statues from subgroup 'D'; it is in the form of a dyad, found at Ma 'mura, near Alexandria (Cat. 58). Like the statue from Canopus (Cat. 62) the Ma 'mura queen carries an ankh rather than a cornucopia, and her facial features are rounded and similar to those of the MMA Arsinoe II (Cat. 54) and the colossal queen from Qait Bey (Cat. 56). Although the divisions are artificial, the Ma'mura queen (Cat. 58) links subgroups

See Arslan (1997) 97, no. ill.3 for an illustration of the Munich statue inv. WAF 26b and Roullet (1972) 97, no's 141-42, figs. 160-61 for the Vatican statues (inv. 33 and 117). 251 See Fraser (1972) 115-31 for outline of the relationship of the ruling house with the Alexandrians and Holbl (1994) for a more general history. 252 Thompson (1973) 46-48, on the chronology of the vases. 253 Bianchi suggests in the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture notes for this statue that the back pillar was deliberately damaged, it is therefore, possible that the statue was later re-used to represent another queen, perhaps Cleopatra VII, since the iconography would have been the same. 250

Bianchi in Bianchi (ed.) 170-71, no. 66. Inlaid eyes occur much earlier in dynastic art, Bothmer (1996) 225 mentions a Nectanebo portrait with inlaid eyes, but generally they do not seem to occur in the Ptolemaic period until the second century BC. 256 For a survey or the types of crowns at the Temple of Isis at Philae see Vassilika (1989) 315-26. 257 Quaegebeur (1988) 47 fig. 18, Dils (1998) discusses the various crowns of Arsinoe II. 258 Needler (1949) 140. 254 255

47

Sally-Ann Ashton

'C' and 'D', particularly in the rendering of the lower skirt, which falls over the feet.

Finally there are two statues which fall between subgroup 'D', with regard to their iconography and style of drapery, but which have back pillars executed in the same manner as those in group 'F'. Both are in the Greco-Roman Museum, the first is from Fouah (Cat. 61) and has a heavily stylised garment and the queen wears a single uraeus on a diadem, but this time with the Egyptian tripartite wig. This move towards a more Egyptian appearance again parallels the male rulers' portraits and the next sub-group of statues of queens. The second is from Canopus (Cat. 62); unfortunately the face has been destroyed, possibly deliberately removed, and thus it is not possible to know what form of uraeus the queen wore. Like the Fouah statue, the back pillar finishes on top of the head, and no crown was worn. A feature which occurs on the images from sub-group 'E', but which is omitted on the purely Egyptian-style statues.

One further attribute, which becomes more common later in the sequence is the inclusion of a uraeus in addition to the corkscrew locks. The uraeus is of course an Egyptian feature, and it is interesting that, during the final period of development, the tripartite wig also appears to replace the corkscrew coiffure, which was a Greek characteristic. 259 Again this seems to parallel the developments that occur in the male Egyptian statues with Greek portrait features, with native versions replacing close copies of the original portraits. On a statue from Alexandria (Cat. 59) and a late sculpture now in Cambridge (Cat. 67) the drapery is also more carefully rendered and could perhaps be described as more Hellenised in appearance. Attention has been given on both statues to the chiton, which is clearly visible around the lower neck. The Cambridge statue is almost certainly first century BC in date, illustrating that the fashion for attention to detail on the drapery continued in some workshops, whilst others preferred the more traditional Egyptian-style drapery; this type of dress is essentially Greek rather than Egyptian in style, the knot, however, remains the same.260 The Venus rings, which are shown on the neck, are also a feature of Hellenistic rather than Egyptian-style portraits in the Ptolemaic Period, but occur on earlier Egyptian-style representations. 261 The Alexandrian statue (Cat. 59), like the Ma'mura queen, shows that careful attention has been given to the lower section of the drapery, which covers the top of the queen's feet rather than ending at the ankles. She also wears sandals, which are not typically shown on the Egyptianstyle statues and again may be a concession to the Greek tradition. However, the statue remains essentially Egyptian, it is carved out of a hard stone and has the traditional back pillar. The Alexandrian statue would fit well into the sequence, around the late second century BC; it was found at Canopus and is further evidence of the ability of native craftsmen to adopt attributes from a foreign tradition and combine them successfully with native art.

One of the statues in sub-group 'E', the Hermitage queen (Cat. 63), wears the same transparent garment that is found on the purely Egyptian-style statuary of the same date, and like the Fouah statue, the queen wears a tripartite wig, but this time decorated with a triple uraeus. The Hermitage queen has been identified as Arsinoe II, on account of the double cornucopia. However, given the strong portrait features on this statue, it would seem unlikely that this was in fact the case. If the MMA Cleopatra (Cat. 66) and BMA queen (Cat. 66) are considered, it would seem that they are more general representations of royal women; this may have been due to the unstable political climate during the later second and early first centuries BC. This contrasts with the carefully executed portrait on the Hermitage queen. For this reason I suggest that the Hermitage ruler represents Cleopatra VII, since it is under this ruler that there is a re-emergence of more carefully executed portrait types. There are stylistic as well as iconographic reasons to support this argument. Firstly under Cleopatra VII, the royal image looks back to the third century BC for its inspiration in both Greek and Egyptian-style representations. Both statues show the queen with a more traditional form of costume; the clinging drapery that appeared on the BMFA queen (Cat. 49) has replaced the heavy folds. The Hermitage queen holds a double cornucopia and this symbol was associated with Cleopatra VII in addition to Arsinoe II, most probably to associate the later ruler with a more prosperous period of the dynasty. The promotion of the double cornucopia on the reverse of Cleopatra VII's coinage illustrates the queen's wish to be linked with Arsinoe II. On the relief decoration of the south wall of the temple of Denderah, Cleopatra VII wears a crown that was associated with Arsinoe II and the queen can be seen wearing the crown again on a stela now in the Egyptian Museum, Turin and on two of the relief scenes at the Temple of Hathor, Denderah. Cleopatra II also wore the crown of Arsinoe on the fourth pylon of the temple of Amun at Karnak and on the Ptolemaic gateway temple of Khonsu. 262 It is the quality of the Hermitage

The next statue within sub-group 'D' is unfortunately without a head. The BMA queen (Cat. 60) holds a single cornucopia and again has a very stylised form of drapery, with just the remains of the corkscrew coiffure surviving on her shoulders. The drapery here completely obscures any hint of the body beneath it and although the folds are slightly heavier than those of the Ma'mura queen (Cat. 58), the BMA queen is of a similar date in the sequence of images, that is to say mid to late second century BC.

Bothmer (1996) 225 discussed of the origins of the corkscrew locks stating that they were in fact Egyptian; it seems that what he means is their introduction outside Egypt was largely through their use in an Egyptian context. 260 Vassilika (1995) 120, no. 56. 261 For the rings around the neck of earlier Egyptian portraits see Paris, Louvre N2454, which dates to the Twenty-seventh Dynasty. 259

262

48

Quaegebeur (1983) 111-13, Turin inv. 1764.

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

Many of the features on the BMA queen (Cat. 64) are identical to those on the MMA Cleopatra, such as the back pillar, which extends over the top of the head and the hair, which is styled in the same way, with tight snail-shell curls around the forehead and longer locks falling onto her shoulders. The two statues would also have been of the same scale. The features are more Egyptian in appearance on the BMA statue: the nose is damaged, but a profile view of the statue shows a down-turned mouth and well-defined chin. She also has inlaid eyes, a characteristic that the statue shares with the Hermitage Cleopatra VII (Cat. 63). Bothmer described the faces of the Hermitage and MMA queens as hawk-like and yet dismissed the possibility that they might represent Cleopatra VII. 267 To this group he added the San Jose queen (Cat. 40), which again has a triple uraeus but is purely Egyptian in iconography and style.

queen that support a late Ptolemaic date, and the iconography that links it most convincingly with Cleopatra VII. There are other associated statues, including the MMA Cleopatra (Cat. 65), which has heavy and stylised drapery with the knot taking a very simple form. The queen wears her hair in a corkscrew coiffure, but on her head she also wears a diadem and triple uraeus. On her upper right arm the queen has a hieroglyphic cartouche, the authenticity of which has recently been disputed.263 Bothmer described the representation as "youthful in appearance" and chose to identify the queen as Cleopatra II in favour of Cleopatra VII, interpreting the triple uraeus as a symbol of that queen's joint rule with Ptolemy VI and VIII.264 He dismissed the statue as a representation of Cleopatra VII on stylistic grounds, concluding that the only way that this statue could date to the first century BC was to ascribe it to a "provincial" workshop. The provincial workshop would also explain the single rather than double cornucopia that was associated with Cleopatra VII as well as Arsinoe II, particularly as the attribute is Greek and the sculptor was clearly Egyptian.265 If, however, the colossal statue of a queen from Fort Qait Bey (Cat. 56) with a single uraeus is Cleopatra III, on account of the date of the associated male rulers, the MMA Cleopatra is likely to represent a later queen because of the difference in iconography. The positioning of the right hand, which is held flat against the queen's thigh rather than clenched, is further support for a mid-first century BC date. This feature can be found on an early example of this type of image without a back pillar, now in Cairo Museum. Finally, the stone used for the MMA Cleopatra supports a late Ptolemaic or early Roman date. The statue is manufactured from marble that has the characteristics of a type from Proconnesios, which was commonly used in Roman Alexandria. 266 If the statue is posthumous, the discrepancy of a single rather than double cornucopia can be explained, since the Egyptian sculptors would be familiar with the native iconography but with a lack of Greek models for the cornucopia.

The MMA Cleopatra (Cat. 65) and the BMA queen (Cat. 64) both have a somewhat youthful appearance; their features are not identical to the Hermitage representation and the iconography of the MMA queen also differs from the Hermitage, in that she holds a single cornucopia, which might suggest that they represent different rulers. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that the portrait features on the Egyptian-style statues of Ptolemaic queens were as carefully reproduced as those on the representations of the male rulers. The iconographic attributes may have served to indicate the identity of the queen, which would explain why there is no evidence for sculptors' models oflate Ptolemaic queens. As previously noted the very particular attributes and crowns that are described in the Ptolemaic decrees, suggest that an individual would be unlikely to change his or her iconography. The use of an attribute by more than one member of the dynasty seems, however, to have been acceptable and would have served to associate a ruler with his or her ancestors. It should also be noted that Cleopatra VII did not, unlike Arsinoe, exclusively use the double cornucopia on the reverse of her coins.

Another head (Cat. 66) that has remarkably similar features to the MMA portrait and may even have been carved by the same workshop was included in Kyrieleis' catalogue of first century queens. The head is important because it has a double uraeus and was clearly intended to represent Arsinoe II, thus illustrating that the triple uraeus was a quite separate iconographic allusion. Because the two are contemporaneous, it is probable that they refer to two different queens. It is however, possible that the link with Arsinoe was quite deliberate and that the triple uraeus was used to distinguish Cleopatra VII from her popular predecessor, whose cult survived the Roman occupation of Egypt. In addition to the double cornucopia, Cleopatra VII also appears with the crown of Arsinoe on a wall relief at Denderah.

To summarise, it has been suggested that the MMA Cleopatra (Cat. 65) could represent a young Cleopatra III and that the triple uraeus could refer to a triple rule. Stylistically, however, the portrait is later than the date allocated by Bothmer and is therefore unlikely to represent Cleopatra II. The BMA queen (Cat. 64) is very similar to the MMA statue and must date to the same period. The modification of the imagery, particularly the drapery and wig of the Hermitage queen may have been part of an official change in royal imagery that occurred following Cleopatra VII's new era in 37 BC.268 Finally group 'E' contains two statues that are possibly later in date. The first is a fragment of a statue that has already been mentioned in respect of the careful attention to the Hellenistic drapery, now in the Fitzwilliam Museum

Josephson and Stanwick (forthcoming). Bothmer (1960b) 145-6, no. 113 265 Bothmer (1960b) 146. 266 I am extremely grateful to Dr. Susan Walker for drawing this to my attention. 263 264

Bothmer (1960b) 147. See Grant (1995) 166-172 for a discussion of the Donations of Alexandria and the changes in royal titularies. 267 268

49

Sally-Ann Ashton (Cat. 67). This statue also has a double cornucopia and consequently has been identified as a posthumous representation of Arsinoe II. Although the statue has been dated to the mid-second century BC, it has two features suggesting that it actually dates to a century later. The first characteristic is the hair; these thinner and longer locks are seen on the MMA Cleopatra and on the second statue from sub-group 'F' now in Cairo (Cat. 68). All three statues have characteristic right hands; on the MMA statue the hand rests on the thigh, on the Cairo representation the queen actually holds the drapery in her right hand but on the Fitzwilliam there is a wreath in the right hand, which might suggest that it is a posthumous representation; the wreath being a common feature on Ptolemaic and Roman funerary representations. The Cairo statue is also important because it is the only statue from the Ptolemaic period to have been manufactured without a back pillar; it is to all intents and purposes Hellenistic, albeit in a hard stone.

The chronology that was established in the first part of this chapter suggests that these images first appeared in the third century BC, and that initially their only distinguishing feature was the knotted garment. As noted, the earliest representation of a queen wearing this garment, the fringed mantle is on the Pithom stela (264/3 BC), with a second more stylised version on the Tanis stela. The relief shows a representation of Arsinoe II, who has the titulature 'Arsinoe, image of Isis and Hathor'. 271 Bianchi points to other pre-Ptolemaic representations in Egyptian art with drapery similar to that worn by the Ptolemaic queens.272 A knot also appears on a Twenty-fifth Dynasty relief showing a Kushite princess as the divine consort. 273 The knot is clearly part of the established Egyptian artistic tradition and appears in the Egyptian repertoire well before the first evidence of its adoption in the Greek artistic tradition. Thompson dated one of the representations of a queen with the knot to the time of Berenike II purely on account of the portrait features. However, although Berenike is portrayed with the corkscrew coiffure there seems no stylistic reason for this particular vase to date to the third century BC, particularly because it would be an isolated appearance of this iconography. 274 It seems more realistic after a comparison with the Greek-style portraits to date both faience vases with queens wearing the socalled Isis knot and locks to the reign of Cleopatra II or III. However, the knots to which Bianchi refers are different from those that are associated with the Ptolemaic statues. Bianchi also notes that the use of the knot to fasten the tripartite costume in Egyptian art is simply a way of fastening a garment as opposed to using a fibula. The Ptolemaic garments, however, seem to have served a specific purpose, perhaps ritualistic rather than simply reflecting a fashion because they exist alongside the sheath-like garments. 275 Was the introduction of the more stylised garment with heavier folds also Egyptian in origin? It is possible to note similarities between the heavier costume on Egyptian statues and their Greek counterparts.276 However, the heavier drapery and more importantly the appearance of a Hellenistic chiton beneath the fringed mantle corresponds with the adoption of the cornucopia, which suggests that the drapery on the statues that are categorised here as sub-groups C and D was

5.3 Origins

In order to understand the origins of this particular group of statues it is necessary to look at earlier and later examples of related material. This type of image belongs firmly within the Egyptian tradition; they are Egyptian in style of execution and are often made from a hard stone, a feature more commonly associated with the native artistic tradition. Schaefer divided the so-called Isis statues into two separate groups:269 1) Those in a conventional Egyptian pose with more formal drapery. 2) Those with a sense of movement with more naturalistic drapery. The statues in the early part of this chapter fall into the first category, although Schaefer's divisions are oversimplified and do not take account of the Egyptian-style images with drapery that was influenced by Hellenistic sculpture. Of the three attributes that form the consistent features of the iconography of this group, two are associated in the first instance with the Greek tradition- the corkscrew coiffure and the cornucopia. The distinctive garment is more problematic and was the subject of an article in 1980 by Bianchi entitled 'Not the Isis Knot'. 270 In his paper Bianchi unequivocally denied any association between the statues from this group and the goddess Isis. However, although he offered some evidence to support his argument there are still gaps in the interpretation and the function of these particular royal representations. For the remainder of this chapter, I shall demonstrate that this group of statues fulfilled a very specific role and was not intended to associate the Ptolemaic queens with Isis or to represent the goddess herself Thus supporting Bianchi's arguments.

269 270

Cairo Museum inv. CG 22183. Fraser (1972) 236 and Thompson (1973) 58-59 draw attention to the relief and use it as evidence of an association between the costume and Isis. Walters (1988) 10, n. 38 points out that the assimilation to the two goddesses demonstrates that the garment was not associated exclusively with Isis. For the Pithom stela see Naville (1885) 16-20, although table one does not show the fringed mantle. 272 Notably Fignre 4, (BMA inv. 47.120.3) and fignre 11, (Louvre inv. E 11162) for the similar costume worn on the Egyptian-style Lirinum relief. 273 Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge inv. EGA 4542.1943. For illustration see Vassilika (1995) 106, number 49. On earlier drapery, particularly of the Nineteenth Dynasty, the knot is tied beneath the right breast rather than above or between. 274 For the examples of the costnme on faience oinochoai see Alexandria Greco-Roman Museum inv. 16170 and Oxford, Ashmolean Museum inv. 1909.347. For discussion and illustrations see Thompson (1973) 165-66 no. 122 and 123, plates XLID-IV. 275 Bianchi (1980) 12. 276 Bothmer (1996) 225 also dismissed the idea that this type of garment belongs exclusively to the Greek tradition. For examples see Markoe and Capel eds. (1997) 169-74, catalogue number 92-4 (Nineteenth Dynasty). 271

Schaefer (1921) 12 ff. and Needler (1949) 137. Bianchi (1980) 9-31. See also Walters (1988) 5.

50

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

influenced by the Hellenistic tradition. This echoes the developments in the Egyptian-style representations of male rulers, where Greek portrait types are adopted.

been found in areas where there was both a strong Greek and Egyptian religious tradition, namely Canopus and Alexandria. The two representations from the coastal region of Alexandria (Cat. 56 and 57) are the most instructive, because they were placed alongside representations of Ptolemy as pharaoh albeit with Greek portrait features. One of these statues also illustrates that these images wore a traditional Egyptian crown rather than the more Hellenised version that appears on sealings and rings. The type would, therefore, seem to be more closely associated with the Egyptian rather than the Greek tradition. However, the statues of the queens with Hellenistic features and the images of male rulers with portrait features that were recognisable to Greek subjects may have served a truly cross-cultural purpose. The fragment of the lower section of a statue of a queen with a knotted garment, found at the Alexandrian Sarapieion (Cat. 69), illustrates that this type of image would be used at a Greek sanctuary, albeit with Egyptian sculpture such as the colossal sphinxes from the site.

The statues with the Hellenised drapery appeared alongside those with the more traditional sheath-like dress that were discussed in chapter 3, which would suggest that they served a specific role, other than to associate the queens with the dynastic cult. This development occurred during the mid to late third century BC, during the reign of Arsinoe III, meaning that the earlier statues without the cornucopia were simply variants of the more general representations. Before any conclusions can be drawn with regard to the function of this type of statue it is also necessary to address the origins of the corkscrew wig and the relevance of the cornucopia. Egyptian artists adopted both attributes from the Greek tradition, unlike the drapery that was Egyptian in origin and later Hellenised. There is nothing to associate the appearance of the corkscrew coiffure on the Greek-style portraits of Ptolemaic queens with the goddess Isis. Needler believed that the locks were Egyptian and were intended to represent natural hair rather than a wig whereas Bothmer states that traditionally the locks were believed to have first appeared in Egyptian art, but concluded that they also appear on Greek statuary long before they are seen on Egyptian representations. 277 The appearance of this form of corkscrew wig on Egyptian-style statuary is of little surprise when one considers that the native priesthood readily adopted the Greek dynastic cult and Greek cult titles: it might even suggest a more direct link with the royal cult and the acceptance of associated religious developments. In other words, the wig shows the queens in the guise of a Greek but portrayed according to the Egyptian tradition. The cornucopia may also fulfil a similar role, since this was also associated with the Greek royal cult. Like the wig, it is unequivocally Greek in origin yet the images remain essentially Egyptian until the first century BC. In the next section the functions of the Egyptian-style statues will be considered before addressing the Hellenistic form of Isis.

Were the attributes intended to associate the queens with a specific deity or was the purpose of the costume simply to present the queens in a particular guise or role? The function that the cornucopia served is problematic, and its association with the Roman form of Isis has tended to cloud any interpretation of its function within the Egyptian artistic and religious traditions. On the faience cult vases, the cornucopia is intended to represent the queen's role as mother of Egypt and provider; thus it overflows with the fruits of Egypt.279 The cult vases are often inscribed with the name of the goddess Tyche or Isis, but this is generally accepted to simply associate the queens with the qualities of these two deities rather than to be an attempt to assimilate themselves to existing goddesses. The symbol of the horn of plenty was generally associated with the goddess Tyche in the Greek tradition, and so was probably adopted by the queens to associate themselves with the role that the goddess fulfilled. The one inscription on the Egyptian-style representations from this group (Cat. 54) would also support the idea that these statues were not intended to be associated with Isis.280 Its reading is problematic, because the surface has been removed; It probably reads: 'King's [daughter], king's [sister] king's [wife], daughter of [Amu]n, mistress of the two lands, Arsinoe, the divine, the beloved of the King who lives forever.' The sign for Amun is clearly visible, from the crown at the top of the seated god.

5.4 Function of the Egyptian Statues There is a problem in associating the Egyptian statues with those of the more general dynastic cult, because there are many examples on the relief decoration of temples that show the queens wearing the more traditional Egyptian garment; there are, however, instances in which the queens wear the tripartite costume, tied in a knot..278 There are two possible explanations for this: firstly that the statues were used in Greek contexts, or alternatively that they fulfilled a very specific role within the Egyptian tradition. Unfortunately those statues with a known provenance have

This inscnpt10n is particularly important for our understanding of these images, as is the treatment of the representation of foreigners in Egyptian art. They are clearly intended to associate the queens with the Egyptian tradition, because they wear Egyptian crowns. However, there is also an obvious reference to the queens' Greek ancestry, since two of the attributes are established and

Needler (1949) 138-39 and Bothmer (1996) 225 note 48. Needler (1949) 138, n. 4 cites the relief of Ptolemy VIII and the two Cleopatras at Korn Ombo; Walters (1988) 8, footnote 21, cites the Korn el-Hisn stela (Cairo CG 22186) and the propylon of the temple ofKhonsu at Karnak where Bereuike II appears in a garment with a fringed mantle.

277

Thompson (1973) 51-54, on Isis-Tyche and Alexandria. The MMA Arsinoe II is the only inscribed version. See Bianchi (1980) 18-19 who points to the fact that the inscription refers to Amun rather than Isis. See also Walters (1988) 9-10.

278

279 280

51

Sally-Ann Ashton

more closely associated with the Greek artistic traditions. At least six of the ten images held a cornucopia, with a further ten out of twelve wearing the corkscrew wig. As Table 1 shows, eight of the statues are too damaged to know for certain whether they held a cornucopia and similarly six statues are without a head. That some of the statues are shown with the more traditional tripartite wig and others hold an ankh rather than the cornucopia could indicate that this type served different functions or that the iconography was flexible or subject to specific variations. Although it would be tempting to see this as a chronological indicator, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case and the fact that the Hermitage queen has both attributes indicates that the two types were probably still in use until the end of the Ptolemaic period.

statues in the round from the Hellenistic period that are Greek in style. The earliest example of a Hellenised statue of this type from Egypt dates to the first century BC (Cat. 68). From the front this statue is indistinguishable from the Egyptian images, the only difference being the exclusion of a back pillar. The subject also holds her dress with her right hand, but by this stage the Egyptian-style representations also adopt this pose such as the MMA queen (Cat. 65). Unfortunately the head of the Cairo statue is missing and so it is not possible to discern whether the subject wore an Egyptian or egyptianising crown. This factor is important in understanding what the statue represented and also whether it was intended to represent the goddess Isis. This type of image was eventually accepted into the Roman tradition, possibly via the Greeks in Egypt or in Ptolemaic possessions, where the type was used it to represent the goddess Isis.285

The chronological sequence may, however, help to determine the function of the group. Perhaps the most obvious conclusion would be that the statues with the cornucopia were introduced to represent the queen as a priestess of the dynastic cult, under Cleopatra III.281 Certainly the images of the queens on the faience cult vases show them in a very active role, pouring a libation at an altar, and although at this stage they are not intended to represent priestesses, the images clearly show them fulfilling a functional role rather than simply receiving honours. 282 Perhaps the Egyptian artists adopted the cornucopia to represent the new 'active' role played by the queens. As Bianchi points out, the costume is worn by royals, goddesses and mortals alike, which suggests that the dress must have had a more general association, perhaps with the royal cult. This supports the idea that these statues were in some way associated with the Egyptian version of the dynastic cult, which also explains the absence of the cornucopia on some pieces, since even after the reforms at the time of Cleopatra III, priestesses would presumably still be needed for the cults of the earlier queens. He also notes that the unpublished inscribed pieces with a tripartite costume in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (JE 37027, 38017 and 37453) are associated with the cults of Amun and Hathor rather than Isis.283

The popularity of this form of statue among the Roman cults of Isis, has led to the identification of images from the Hellenistic Period to be identified as representations of the goddess or of Ptolemaic queens associated with Isis.286 If the evidence from the Roman period is set aside, there is little to support the assimilation of these statues with Isis in the Ptolemaic period. The close relationship between the queens and the Egyptian pantheon and their role as provider for Egypt led to the assimilation of certain royal attributes with those of Isis in the Roman Period. It is possible that this association began during the Ptolemaic Period in Greek contexts, but there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. If one considers the images that were used in the Hellenistic period outside Egypt to represent the goddess Isis, it is obvious that the iconography was not uniform. On Delos for example, the cult statue of Isis was very similar to that of the Greek Aphrodite. 287 The two deities were already associated both in and outside Egypt, and so it is of little surprise that the population of Delos looked to Aphrodite for inspiration when they commissioned their cult statue of Isis. If the Egyptian statues are considered in this light, it is easy to see how images that were originally intended to represent Ptolemaic queens, could be misidentified as Isis, particularly when the second and first century queens were associating themselves with the goddess in their titulature.

5.5 Hellenistic and Roman Isis

Many of the Roman statues or relief images that adopt the associated iconography are thought to represent priestesses of Isis.288 If, as suggested, the original Egyptian statues of Ptolemaic queens were introduced to represent them in their posthumously deified role and later as priestesses of their own cult, the appearance of the statues in ritual contexts as participant in cult activity in the Roman period

Although there are many Hellenistic and Roman examples of terracotta figurines with attributes associated with Isis, they are extremely difficult to date and consequently of little use for the study of the development of the iconography of the goddess. 284 There are also very few Walters (1988) 11 points out that Cleopatra III has the greatest accumulation of Isis titles, see Fraser (1972) 219-20 and 244. The appearance of the more Hellenised version of the Egyptian-style statues during her reign may have become associated with the goddess Isis through the queen. See Koenen (1993) 55, who notes that Cleopatra III was priestess at least once in 105/4 BC. 282 Thompson (1973) 31. 283 Bianchi (1980) 18. 284 Walters (1988) 13 makes the same point. 281

See Walters (1988) 14, who stated that the earliest examples of Isis with this iconography come from Rhodes, followed by Delos and Kos. 286 Even in the most recent catalogue on Isis, see Malaise in Arslan ed. (1997) 86-95. 287 See Walters (1998) 15. 288 See Walters (1988) 25, on the Attic grave stelae, where the subject in the Isis costume holds a situla, implying that she served a cult role. 285

52

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

associated attributes of Isis.293 It seems likely that these representations may have been associated with Isis because of her close connection with the Ptolemaic royal women. The confusion in iconography may have resulted in the Greeks overseas and the Romans adopting the two images for Egyptian deities. 294

is easily explained. What is perhaps peculiar, is that the early examples in group A do not have the cornucopia which appeared on the Greek-style images of Arsinoe II. It may therefore, be possible that the images such as those on the faience oinochoai represented the queens in the dynastic cult rather than their own individual divine role, then later when the queens were shown as priestesses, it was felt appropriate to adopt the symbol on the Egyptianstyle images.

The close associations between deities and their assimilation to foreign equivalents may explain how attributes that were intended to represent Ptolemaic queens were taken by the Hellenistic Greeks in Egypt and overseas to represent an Egyptian goddess. This amalgamation of roles played by major deities and the iconography of two cultures in best represented by a relief now in Milan Archaeological Museum. 295 The object dates to around the time of Ptolemy VIII and shows a female with the corkscrew coiffure and portrait features more commonly associated with Cleopatra III; however, the related iconography makes reference to Horus, Sobek, Isis and Thmuis. In short, the iconography of particular deities was borrowed and sometimes adopted and then adapted by other gods. This blending of attributes is confusing but appears to have been perfectly acceptable in Ptolemaic Egypt. The practice is simply an extension of the many cult titles adopted by the royal house in association with gods, thus showing the rulers not as manifestations of a particular deity, but as fulfilling their role be it as provider or protector. Cleopatras III and VII both called themselves Isis, and so it is easy to see how this type of imagery became standard in the Roman period.

The representations of a female with the corkscrew locks and knotted mantle in the Hellenistic minor arts of Ptolemaic Egypt, such as the BMA medallion, need to be explained (appendix 1.26). The earliest appearance of the costume in a Hellenistic context is under Cleopatra I, when the queen appears on a faience oinochoe in the full costume, with the cornucopia and corkscrew locks. 289 However, other images such as the BMA medallion are generally interpreted as representations of the goddess Isis. Because the male subject is always interpreted as Sarapis, his partner by association is equated with Isis.290 Because the Ptolemaic queens are clearly the first to use the iconography in the Hellenistic tradition as well as in Egyptian contexts, it would seem unlikely that the same attributes would be shown to represent a goddess. There are three possible explanations for this interpretation. The first is that the male deity represents Zeus-Amun and not Sarapis; Bianchi mentions the link between the third century queens and the god Amun.291 This association may well have resulted in the appearance of queens as a kind of divine consort to the god, and subsequently the introduction of a specific costume and attributes again to distinguish the more usual role of the queens within the dynastic cult. If this hypothesis is accepted, the appearance of a Ptolemaic queen with corkscrew coiffure and Hellenised lotus crown alongside a bearded deity can be reinterpreted as the god Zeus rather than the less successful Sarapis. Zeus of course was the Greek equivalent to Amun and was also closely associated with the Ptolemaic dynasty through Alexander the Great. The link between Zeus-Amun and the rulers was one that the royal house would have been keen to promote in both Greek and Egyptian contexts. Since the iconographies of Sarapis, Zeus and Asclepios are often difficult to distinguish, the identity of the male subject on rings and sealings has always been accepted as Sarapis.292

5.6 Conclusion

This type of image represented the Ptolemaic queens in a specific role, associated with the royal cult rather than associating the subject with Isis. The early statues are Egyptian in style but from the second century BC the artists adopt Greek attributes and the costume becomes more Hellenised in appearance. In the first century BC the images revert to the more traditional garments and wigs, on occasion maintaining the cornucopia. This development reflects that of the male statues in the Egyptian style during the second and first centuries BC. This symbol and the corkscrew coiffure are Greek in origin and demonstrate a degree of cross-cultural borrowing, which is of little surprise in context. The drapery and knot can be firmly placed within the Egyptian artistic tradition and they in turn are accepted into the Greek imagery from at least the time of Cleopatra I. That the two cultures were able to use iconographic attributes that were foreign to their own tradition illustrates a much broader syncretism than simply the imitation of an artistic style.

The second explanation is that this pair represents the ruler, in the first instance Ptolemy IV in the guise of Sarapis, and that his consort appears as his queen, as seen on the faience oinochoai; this phenomenon would explain why on the earliest examples the queen does not wear the

See Castiglione (1978) pl. XIX for the queen without the corkscrew locks, and also pl. XX for an image with distinctive portrait features that would be associated with a queen rather than a goddess. 294 Walters (1988) 11-12 still assumes that these images represent Isis and Sarapis, even though she admits that there is little to support the identification prior to the Roman Period. 295 Inv. E 0.9.40114. for illustration see Arslan ed. (1997) 77. 293

See Thompson (1973) type IV figure: nos. 123, plate D and 124, plates XLID-XLIV, both of which she identifies as Cleopatra I by the portrait features. 290 See also Price in Jeffreys and Smith eds. (1988) 70, pl. 51. 291 Bianchi (1980) 19, see also Quaegebeur (1988) 43. 292 See Bianchi ed. (1988) 208 number 102, BMA inv. 78.85 for example. 289

53

Appendix 1: Greek-style Royal Representations Sculpture The Greek-style representations in this section have been selected as examples of comparative material for the Egyptianstyle representations with Greek portrait features from the time of Ptolemy V. This appendix is not an exhaustive survey of Hellenistic Greek-style Ptolemaic royal portraits.

Paris, Musee du Louvre MA 3532 [1.1] Marble, h: 22 cm; hdh: c. 17 cm. Said to have come from Egypt. 204-181 BC (PtolemyV). Greek-style portrait of Ptolemy V originally inserted in a statue. The top of the head is roughly finished and was probably completed in stucco. The tips of the ears are damaged and there are further superficial marks to the surface. The lower-back section of the neck is discoloured, possible stained from contact with iron. There are traces of red pigment on the eyelids and hair. The sculpture has a youthful appearance with a thin face, pointed chin and small narrow mouth. The nose is short and straight; the eyebrows and eyes rather than the brow dominate the face, as on earlier Ptolemaic portraits. The hair falls in short waves onto the forehead and forms curls down the sides of the cheeks. Charbonneaux (1966) 53-7 [Ptolemy VI]; Kyrieleis (1975) 56 f., 133 f., 173, El0 [Ptolemy V]; Hamiaux (1998) 79-80, no. 81 [Ptolemy V, manufactured first century BC]. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduced courtesy of the Musee du Louvre.

Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 24092 [1.2] Marble, h: 37 cm; hdh: 25 cm. Provenance unknown. 176-145 BC (Ptolemy VI). Greek-style portrait of Ptolemy VI originally inserted in a statue. The lips, nose and right eyebrow are damaged. The top of the head is roughly carved and was finished in stucco, now missing. The head tilts slightly to the right and the ruler wears an almost supercilious expression. There is a brown discoloration where the head was slotted into the body. The eyes are well defined and are almond in shape; the eyebrows follow the line of the upper lid and the brow is flat. The hair falls on the forehead in soft waves with the outer strands combed inwards to the centre of the brow. The mouth is straight with well-proportioned lips. The chin is strong, particularly in profile and the nose appears to have been wide, straight and relatively long. The neck is long with well-defined muscle. Adriani (1938) 97f.; Conticello (1962) 50-51 and 55; Bieber (1961) 93; Kyrieleis (1975) 59-61, 120-21, 127, F3; Wildung et al (1979) 116 [Ptolemy VI]; Fittschen (1983) 167 [Ptolemy VI] Kiss (1984) 24 [Ptolemy VI]; Pollitt (1997) 251 [Ptolemy VI]; Smith (1996) 205 [Ptolemy VI]; Smith (1988) 28, 93-4, 166, no. 55 [Ptolemy VI]. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduction by permission of the GrecoRoman Museum.

54

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

Hildesheim, Roemer-Pelizaeus-Museum 2160 [1.3]

Plaster, h: 12 cm Egypt 170-116 BC (Ptolemy VIII) This Greek-style portrait of Ptolemy VIII is roughly finished at the back and flattened. The left side of the head and face are missing and the surface is pitted. The ruler is shown with a corpulent face, fleshy, even lip and a bulbous nose. The cheeks are rounded, creating two grooves from the nostrils to the comers of the mouth. The eyes are deep set and large; the pupils are incised. The brow is prominent and well-defined with the upper section covered by a thick, wavy fringe, behind which is a broad, smooth band which would have accommodated the diadem. Ippel and Roeder (1921) 148; Parlasca (1967) 179; Kyrieleis (1975) 64, 174, Gl. Photograph: The Roemer-Pelizaeus-Museum, reproduction by permission.

Private Collection of W. Kelly Simpson [1.4]

Currently on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art Ll992.27, formerly in the Collection of Constance and Edgar P. Richardson. Marble, h: 23.5 cm; hdh: 25 cm. Provenance unknown. mid to late second century BC (Ptolemy VIII?). Greek-style portrait of a second century ruler. Only the head is preserved. The right side, ear and back of the head are missing and the nose, top of the head and lower chin are damaged. There are traces ofred paint in the hair and on the eyes. The ruler is shown with a corpulent face, fleshy, pouting lips and a strong, hooked nose with large, deeply carved nostrils. The eyes, which are round in shape, are set deeply and closely together; the eyebrows follow the curve of the upper lid and are well defined. The left ear is very large and the marble between the back of the ear and the hair has been crudely carved, and roughly finished. The hair is combed forward onto a strong and prominent brow, with a curl falling onto the cheek. The back and top of the hair, which is receding, has is also roughly carved, with a channel for a thin diadem is just visible between the fringe and hair. The identity is clearly one of the later, corpulent rulers. The lack of beard would suggest that it is more likely to be Ptolemy VIII or X and the narrow channel for a diadem is more typical of the early second century BC. Sotheby's New York Sale 30th May 1986, no, 35 [Ptolemy XII]; Smith (1996) 207-8 [Ptolemy VIII]; Smith (1988) 96-7, 124, 167no. 58 [Ptolemy IX or X]; Ashton in Walker and Higgs (2000) 78, 1.69 [Ptolemy VIII]. Photograph: S-A.Ashton. Reproduction by permission of WK Simpson.

55

Sally-Ann Ashton

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 59.51 [1.5]

Edwin L. Jackson Fund, 1959. Marble and stucco, h: 64 cm; hdh: 44 cm. Egypt. 116-80 BC (Ptolemy IX, re-cut from a portrait of Ptolemy X)? Greek-style portrait of a late Ptolemy originally inserted in a statue. The back of the head and the right ear are missing, and the neck has been repaired in a different marble. On the left, the ear is damaged, the facial hair is missing and the neck has been filed down. The surface of the chin is also damaged, possibly to accommodate the stucco beard. The tip of the nose is also damaged. The face is oval in appearance with a prominent, slightly furrowed brow. The eyes, which are deep-set and round in shape, and close together; the eyebrows follow the shape of the upper lid. The stucco hair and beard are curly in appearance. The nose is large and fleshy and slightly hooked and the lips are fleshy in appearance. The portrait type is very close to those on the Edfu sealings (appendix 1.20) and probably in its present state represents Ptolemy IX. The surface suggests that the head was re-cut in antiquity, most probably when the stucco beard was added. The portrait probably originally represented Ptolemy X and was re-cut during the second reign of Ptolemy IX. Cahn (1958) no. 14 [Alexander Severus?]; Vermeule (1960) 12 ff., [Alexander Severus]; Ingholt (1963) 125 ff., [Herodes I]; Parlasca (1967) 8 167 f., [Ptolemy IX]; Kyrieleis (1975) 71-72, H6 [Ptolemy IX]; Krug (1978) 14; Maehler (1983a) 10 [Ptolemy IX]; Kiss (1984) 86-87 [Alexander Severus]; Smith (1988) 96-97, 167 no. 57 [Ptolemy IX or X]. Photograph: Courtesy, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Edwin L. Jackson Fund, 1959.

Malibu California, J.P. Getty Museum 83.AA.330 [1.6] Gift of Stefan Hornak. Marble, h: 34 cm; hdh: 24 cm. Said to be from Alexandria. 116-80 BC (Ptolemy IX, re-cut Ptolemy X)? Greek-style portrait of a late Ptolemy, originally inserted in a statue. The back of the head is missing and there is damage to the lower lip, nose, right eye and front of the neck. The surface around the ears is worn. The face is oval in shape and the subject has full, fleshy lips and a down-turned mouth. The nose is prominent and slightly hooked, with flared nostrils. The brow is flat and overhangs the eyes, which are downturned and set closely together. The ears are roughly shaped and smaller than many of the other portraits from this period. The subject has a beard and short, curly hair. The heavy, downturned mouth and beard suggest that the subject is likely to be Ptolemy IX (See appendix 1.20). Smith (1988) suggests that the surface has been re-worked- there are chisel marks on the neckbut it is not possible to determine whether the features themselves were re-cut. Sotheby's London Catalogue 7041 (4th December 1979) no. 112 [Roman first century BC]; Jucker (1983) 140-41; Smith (1986) 70-78 [Ptolemy IX or X]; Smith (1988) 167, no. 59 [Ptolemy IX or X]. Photograph: Courtesy of the J. Paul Getty Museum. Gift of Stefan Hornak.

56

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

Stuttgart, Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum SS 17 [I. 7]

Marble h: 23.3 cm Athribis 116-80 BC (Ptolemy IX) ? Greek-style head of a late Ptolemy originally inserted in a statue. The nose is damaged and there is further superficial surface damage, particularly on the beard and hair. The ruler wears a broad diadem and the hair and beard are carved into blobs representing curls. The face is oval in shape and the chin is square with an indentation below the bottom lip. The mouth is straight and the lower lip is fuller than the upper and there are creases running from the nostrils to the lower cheeks. The eyes are deep-set and gaze upwards and the brow is prominent. Pagenstrecher (1923) 66; Watzinger (1927) 14 f[Ptolemy XI=X]; Pfuhl (1930) 38; Parlasca (1967) 188 f [Ptolemy IX]; Kyrieleis (1975) 72-73, 176, HS [Ptolemy IX]; Ashton in walker and Higgs eds. (2000) 81, I.74 [Ptolemy IX]. Photograph: Courtesy of the Stuttgart, Wilrttembergisches Landesmuseum.

Malibu California, J.P. Getty Museum 83.AA.205 [1.8]

Gift of Vasek Polak. Marble, h: 51 cm; hdh: 40 cm (originally 43-4 cm). Said to be from Alexandria. 107-87 BC (Ptolemy X)? Greek-style portrait of a late Ptolemy, originally inserted in a statue. The mouth, hair and chin are either missing or damaged beyond recognition. There is further surface abrasion to the right eyebrow and the tops of the ears. The face is corpulent with heavy jowls and rings on the neck. The mouth, although disfigured, was clearly down-turned with fleshy lips. The eyes are oval and the brows follow the line of the upper lids. The hair was short and wavy rather than curled. The most likely identity of this portrait is Ptolemy X. The down-turned mouth, heavy jowls and slightly wider eyes are all typical features of his portrait type (See appendix 1.17). Smith (1986) 64-70; Smith (1988) 168, no. 63 (for full description of the condition and fittings on the piece) [Ptolemy VIII?]. Photograph: Courtesty of the J. Paul Getty Museum. Gift of Vasek Polak.

57

Sally- Ann Ashton

Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 42891 [1.9]

Limestone, full height of statue: 2. 05 m; hdh: 26 cm. Aphroditopolis. First century BC ? Greek-style statue of a late Ptolemy. Both arms are missing from the elbow. There is also considerable damage to the surface and the end of the nose is missing. The back of the head is roughly carved, and was possibly originally finished in stucco. The ruler stands naked, with a cloak draped around his back; only the aegis and part of the material over the left arm survive. The subject has a muscular, thick set body and stands with his weight on his left foot, the right knee is bent with the ball of the foot resting on the ground. The face is oval-shaped with fleshy, down-turned lips and a prominent chin in profile. The brow overhangs deeply set eyes and appears to be slightly furrowed. The hair is styled in short waves, falling onto the forehead and with slightly tighter sideburns to the level of the lower part of the ear. The ruler wears a broad diadem. The identification of the ruler has been the subject of considerable debate. Although the appearance is very close to the coin portraits of Mark Anthony, Smith (1988) and Maehler (1983a) both state that the Roman never took the title Basileus and so would not be portrayed with a diadem. The lips and brow are similar to the portraits of Ptolemy XII, but unfortunately the nose is badly damaged. The other possible identity is Ptolemy IX on account of the less exaggerated portrait type. Watzinger (1927) ll[Mark Antony]; Gebauer (1938/9) 105 [Ptolemy II]; Bieber (1961) 174 [Mark Antony]; Parlasca (1967) 177 [Mark Antony]; Grimm (1970) 163 f., [Mark Antony]; Felten (1971) 238 [Mark Antony]; Kyrieleis (1975) 70-1, H3 [Ptolemy IX or X]; Krug (1978) 15-16 [Ptolemy IX]; Maehler (1983a) 9-10 [Ptolemy IX]; Kiss (1984) 53 [Domitian]; Smith (1988) 30, 84, 97, 124, 168, no. 61 [Ptolemy IX or X]. Photograph: S-A. Ashton, Reproduction with permission of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.

Paris, Musee du Louvre MA 3449 [1.10]

Marble, h: 38 cm; hdh: 28 cm. Alexandria? 80-51 BC (Ptolemy XII). Greek-style portrait of Ptolemy XII originally inserted in a statue. The hair, top of the ears and diadem are roughly finished; originally they were stuccoed. The tip of the nose is damaged and there are further superficial marks on the surface. The rough treatment of the eyebrows, bridge of the nose and mouth suggests that the piece was reworked from an earlier Ptolemaic portrait. The ruler wears a mitra or diadem across the forehead, although it is possible that the band is the result of the re-cutting. The nose is prominent and accentuated by the crudely carved bridge. The eyes are large and slightly down-turned at the outer comers. The mouth is straight with a fleshy lower lip, suggesting that the original portrait may have represented Ptolemy IX or X. Richter (1965) 261 [Ptolemy II]; Strocka (1967) 126, no. 41; Kyrieleis (1975) 76-77, Il [Ptolemy XII]; Smith (1986) 67; Bianchi ed. (1988) 154-55, no. 57 [Ptolemy XII]; Smith (1988) 97, 168, no. 62 [Ptolemy XII?]; Rausch ed. (1998) 274, no. 218 [Ptolemy XII?]; Hamiaux (1998) 81-82, no. 83 [Ptolemy XII]. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduced courtesy ofMusee du Louvre.

58

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

Portraits in other media The remainder of this appendix includes representations of Ptolemaic rulers on coins and seal impressions and is intended to illustrate the process of identification used by classical scholars for the Greek-style representations. These images have also been used to identify Egyptian sculpture, although this method will be used only with caution in this publication because of the different nature of the two styles. BMC Ptolemy III 104 164/8 [1.11] Portrait of Ptolemy III. The ruler wears a radiate diadem associating him with the Greek sun god Helios, around his neck he wears the aegis of Zeus and behind his head is the trident, perhaps intended as a reference to the ruler's sea power and associating him with Poseidon. The face is broad and fleshy with a weak chin and straight well-proportioned nose. The neck is also fleshy rather than muscly in contrast to the portraits of his predecessors. This is the earliest example of a Ptolemaic ruler directly associating himself with existing deities. On the reverse is a cornucopia, more typically associated with Ptolemaic queens, which is also surrounded by sun rays and overflowing with the usual fruits referring to the ruler's role as provider. Photograph: Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

BMC Ptolemy IV 34 164/8 [1.12] Portrait of Ptolemy IV. The ruler has a full, youthful face with fleshy cheeks, small mouth and slightly upturned nose. His hair is rendered in light curls, which continue to form a sidebum on his right cheek. He wears a diadem, which is tied loosely at the back of the head. On the reverse is the usual eagle, holding a thunderbolt. Photograph: Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Ptolemy VBMCPtolemy V62164/12 [1.13] This coin shows a youthful portrait of Ptolemy V. The ruler has the usual large eye and a large ear. The nose is slightly hooked the chin pointed and the neck fleshy rather than muscly. The ruler wears is hair short with a knotted diadem, tied behind the head and with an ear of com tied into it. On the reverse is the usual eagle and thunderbolt. Photograph: Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra I 9.411978.10.21.1 [1.14] Gold coin with a representation of Cleopatra I and a male ruler, probably her son Ptolemy VI on the opposite side. The ruler is youthful in appearance, has a pointed chin and straight, long nose. His hair is short and he wears a fillet, tied behind his head with two straight ends. Cleopatra I wears a stephane and veil. Photograph: Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Ptolemy VIII New York, American Numismatic Society 1944.100. 75452 [1.15] Silver didrachmon with a representation of Ptolemy VIII. The ruler has a rounded, fleshy face with double chin and strong, straight nose with flared nostrils. The eye is particularly large and the lids are defined. The hair is unkempt with locks falling on to the face and neck. The ruler wears a diadem with rays emanating upwards, presumably as a reference to the sun god Helios or the earlier coins of Euergetes I (Ptolemy III). He wears a cuirass and has a double wreath tied around his neck. Photograph by Sharon Suchma. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society, New York.

59

Sally- Ann Ashton

Toronto Royal Ontario Museum 906.12.106 Ptolemy IX/Xtype 1 [1.16]

Clay seal impression with the profile portrait of a late Ptolemaic ruler wearing a wide diadem, which is knotted at the back of the head. The ruler has a large, hooked nose, fleshy lip with a slightly down-turned mouth and a heavy chin with jowls. The hair is stylised and almost cable-like in appearance. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduction courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Toronto Royal Ontario Museum 906.12.99 Ptolemy IX/Xtype 1 [1.17] Clay seal impression with the frontal portrait of a late Ptolemaic ruler with a fleshy face with pointed, flabby chin. The mouth relatively wide with full lips and the nose is broad. The brow is heavy and the eyes are deep set. The ruler wears a plumed headdress and brandishes a sword to his left. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduction courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Toronto Royal Ontario Museum Ptolemy 906.12.132 IX/Xtype 2 [1.18]

Clay seal impression with profile portrait of a late Ptolemaic ruler with a broad wreath on his head. The ruler has a sharp, pointed nose and wears a low beard, under the chin. The hair is rendered in stylised curls, both for the beard and the head. The eye is large and deep-set. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduction courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Toronto Royal Ontario Museum Ptolemy 906.12.133 IX/Xtype 2 [1.19] Clay seal impression with a profile portrait of a late Ptolemaic ruler wearing a broad diadem. The ruler is clean shaved, has a sharp, pointed nose and strong chin. The hair is straight and stylised in appearance. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduction courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Toronto Royal Ontario Museum Ptolemy 906.12.125 IX/Xtype 2 [1.20]

Clay seal impression with a profile portrait of a late Ptolemaic ruler wearing a lion's skin headdress. The ruler has a strong, pointed nose, straight mouth with fleshy lips and wears a stylised beard, low on his chin. The hair is unkempt in appearance with several strands pointed upwards. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduction courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

BMC Ptolemy XII 34 [1.21]

Bronze coin showing a portrait of Ptolemy XII with a broad diadem and wavy, unkempt hair. The hooked nose and pointed chin are typical of the late Ptolemaic portraits.

60

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

BMC Arsinoe II 1897.2.1.4 [1.22]

Portrait of Arsinoe II. The queen wears a stephane with her hair pulled in a bun, which is visible beneath her veil. The portrait is youthful with a long slender nose and pointed chin and two Venus rings on the neck; the same sharp features are replicated on the marble portrait of the queen (Bonn, Akademisches Kuntsmuseum der Universitat B284). Below the ear is a small horn, thought to associate the queen with either Arnun or Khnum, the Egyptian ram headed deity. 1 It has also been suggested that the sceptre behind the queen's head is a reference to the Egyptian tradition. On the reverse of the coin is a double cornucopia or dikeras, filled with the fruits of Egypt and referring to the queen's role as provider. The double form is always associated with Arsinoe II and may refer to her close relationship with her brother and consort, Ptolemy II. Alternatively it could refer to the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, although there is obvious political reference to this at this time. Photograph: Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

BMC Cleopatra VII 3 Cyprus [1.23]

Silver coin from Cyprus showing a portrait of Cleopatra VII and Caesarion. The queen wears a stephane, her hair is styled in a melon-coiffure. Cleopatra holds Caesarion to her breast in a manner reminiscent of Isis suckling Harpocrates. To the left of the image is a sceptre, similar to that on the coins of Arsinoe II. On the reverse is a double cornucopia, again as on the coins of Arsinoe II. Photograph: Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

London British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities I 92 3. 4-I. 67 6 (Gem 3 085 )[I.24]

Glass paste h: 1.3 cm Provenance unknown This pale blue glass gem shows a portrait of a royal woman, as identified by the broad, knotted diadem. The hair is tied back in a bun in the usual Greek manner and the dress that the queen wears is also Greek in origin, with folds of drapery clearly visible. The headdress, however, is Egyptian in style and in the form of a triple uraeus; the cobras wear sun disks on their heads. The portrait features are relatively clear and show a full face, with straight nose and a strong chin with a down-turned mouth. It is, however, the hairstyle and broad diadem in particular, which indicate that this representation is of Cleopatra VII. Portrait features are often distorted when produced on such a small scale. This piece provides important support for the re-identification of several Egyptian-style statues with a triple uraeus as Cleopatra VII. Walters (1926) cat. 3085; Ashton in Walker and Higgs eds. (2000) 118, II.3 [Cleopatra VII]. Photograph: Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 906.12.162 [1.25]

This well preserved clay seal impression shows the portrait of a female wearing an Egyptian tripartite wig, vulture headdress with vulture head and a small Egyptianising crown consisting of a sun disk and cows' horns, as worn by the goddess Isis. The subject has a long, straight nose with flared nostrils and a large eye. Around her neck is a necklace consisting of three strands, beneath which she wears a sheath-like Egyptian costume. Although it has been suggested that the representation is of an early Cleopatra, the obvious association with Isis, the prominent necklace and the overall portrait type mean that it may equally represent Cleopatra VII. Kyrieleis (1975) pl. 100.4 [early Cleopatra]; Plantzos (1993) fig. 18 [Isis]; Ashton in Walker and Higgs eds. (2000) 128, II.14 [Cleopatra VII]. Photograph: S-A. Ashton. Reproduction courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

1 Bergmann

(1998) 32.

61

Sally- Ann Ashton

Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum of Art 73.85 [1.26] Gold Medallion: 2.8 cm x 2.4 cm Provenance unknown. Condition: Good. Date: Reign of Ptolemy IV or V? Round gold medallion with busts of a male and female figure standing proud from the background. The two deities, identified as such by their crowns, are positioned towards the front, although both turning slightly inwards towards each other; the female is slightly behind the male, and surrounded by a palm or lotus flower. She wears a solar disk and cow's horn crown, which is attached to a thin diadem. Her hair is shown in the so-called Isis coiffure and falls in two sets of ringlets, one to around the bottom of her jaw line and the second on her shoulders. Her dress is gathered in a knot, tied on her left shoulder. Sarapis wears an atef crown, again attached to a diadem. His hair is shoulder length and falls in waves; his beard is thick and again is rendered in curls. He wears a Greek style tunic and mantle over his left shoulder. Tran Tam Tinh in LIMC V 771-73; Bianchi in Bianchi ed. (1988) 250-251, no. 98; Arslan (1997) 309-10 and 321-22; Rausch ed. (1998) 244, no. 181. Photograph: Reproduction courtesey of the Brooklyn Museum of Art.

62

Appendix 2: Problem Pieces This appendix will list statues and portraits in the Egyptian style that are questionably Ptolemaic in date. Each is important either chronologically or stylistically for our knowledge of the interaction between Greek and Egyptian royal sculpture. 2.1 New Haven, Barringer Collection.

On extended loan to the Yale University Art Gallery 4.1.1953 Schist, h: 37 cm; h. of face: 15 cm; w: 30.5 cm; d: 24.4 cm. Provenance unknown. First half of the 1st century AD. (Nero?). Egyptian-style statue of a ruler with a nemes headdress and single uraeus. The lappets of the nemes headdress are broken and the back of the head is missing. The nose is badly damaged and there are further marks to the chin and forehead. The inlays from the eyes and the cobra from the uraeus are missing. There is further superficial damage to the surface. The face is rounded in appearance with a row of hair forming a fringe under the nemes headdress. The ruler has thin lips with a down-turned mouth, with no evidence of drill holes at the comers. The eyebrows are curved following the shape of the eyelids and the eyes, which were originally inlaid, are wide and round in appearance.

Both Needler and Bothmer dated this piece to the third century BC. However, Bothmer (1960b) compares the sculpture to a portrait of Ptolemy VI in Athens (Cat. 16) and a first century BC sculpture from Hadra, Alexandria (Cat. 34), which Bothmer also dates to the reign of Ptolemy VI. Comparison with the inscribed Athens statue and other images of Ptolemy VI of this type, illustrate that the features bare little resemblance to those of the New Haven statue. The fuller, cord-like fringe is a feature that appears at the end of the Ptolemaic period and is more commonly found on the early Imperial portraits from Egypt. The down-turned mouth is also a later feature that appears under Ptolemy IX and X and continues on the images of Caesarian; it is also commonly found on Roman portraits, such as the Louvre Nero (inv. E 14705). Although youthful, the face differs from the usual portrait type of Caesarian in that the chin is fuller and the face more rounded than Cats. 30-33, representing Caesarian. For this reason the piece should be dated to the early first century AD and because it lacks the distinctive hairstyle of Augustus possibly represents either Germanicus or Nero. Bibliography Needler (1949) 133-36 [Ptolemy IV]; Bothmer (1960b) 131-33, no. 103 [250-200 BC]; Bonacasa (1961) 369 [Ptolemy IV]; Grimm (1974) 75, 112 [third century BC]; Kyrieleis (1975) 37-42, 44, 136, 170, C16 [Ptolemy III]; Kiss (1975) 293-302 [Augustus]; Vermeule (1981) 142, no. 111; Massner (1986) 65-67 [Claudius?]; Scott (1986) 170-171, no. 96 [250-225 BC]; Smith (1988) 169, no. 70 [Ptolemy II, III or IV]; Bothmer (1996) 223-24, fig. 32 [Ptolemy III?]; Smith (1998) 249, fig. 416 [early Ptolemaic]. Photograph: Yale University Art Gallery.

63

Sally-Ann Ashton

2.2 Kyoto, Shinji Shumeikai Collection, Miho Museum Granodiorite, h: 159.5 cm; w: 50 cm. Provenance unknown Third century BC (Arsinoe II?). The crown and feet are missing and the nose and mouth are damaged on this Egyptian-style statue of a queen with an uninscribed back pillar. The subject is in striding stance and wears a sheath-like, transparent garment and a tripartite echeloned wig with a diadem and double uraeus. The torso is softly modelled and the sculptor has left two pieces of stone on either side of the left arm, which is held across the upper abdomen and the clenched hand holds a lily sceptre, to support it. The right arm is held by the subject's side and the hand is held flat against the thigh. The statue is said in the catalogue entry to be made from granodiorite, although the photographic record would suggest that it was basalt; it measures 159.5 cm in height by 50 cm in width and its provenance is unknown. In the museum catalogue Kozloff suggests that the statue was deliberately usurped by or for Arsinoe II (275-270 BC) from an earlier image, representing Tiye (1391-1353 BC) on account of the "assimilation by both queens to the goddess Isis", and the measurement of what is interpreted as the lower line of the collar, which is noted as the exact size as those on representations of queen Tiye. This same kind of mark, however, can also be found on the Hermitage queen and is more likely, in the Ptolemaic period, to represent the neckline of the dress. The identifications are supported by the double uraeus that the queen wears, although this particular form of royal insignia can have a variety of meanings. The queens with whom it is associated can be narrowed down to those of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth dynasties. Tiye and Arsinoe are included amongst them, but more careful attention needs to be given to the dating of the piece and the question of its reuse. Stylistically the statue fits well into the Ptolemaic period and there is little to betray its proposed eighteenth Dynasty origins. The shape and execution of the wig are similar to those found on the first century BC images of Cleopatra VII (see Ashton: Cleopatra paper), and the diadem appears on the purely Egyptian-style representations, such as the San Jose queen (Cat. 39). The form of the uraei is very different to either Eighteenth Dynasty or Ptolemaic examples, since the cobras are typically more abstract in appearance and without tails. Similarly the more usual type worn by Tiye have broader bodies than those on the Miho statue. The lily sceptre can also be found on first century BC representations, such as the Louvre Cleopatra VII (Cat. 40); it also appears on a representation of a queen with a vulture headdress and double uraeus in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (CG 678). The sheath-like drapery is not an accurate dating tool, since it continues into the first century BC and is also found on early Ptolemaic representations. The position of the hand is more important; it sits flat against the subject's thigh with elongated fingers, which does not accord with the varying hand positions of first century BC images, namely clutching the drapery or loosely holding an object, but appears in this exact form on statues which are generally dated to the third century BC (Alexandria 1332 and Brussels E3073). 1 Proportionately the statue also fits well into the Ptolemaic period, with soft curves, prominent breasts and a slightly swollen stomach.

The facial features compare well to the early images of Arsinoe II particularly in respect to the narrow line of the eyebrows and the slightly modelled eye lines (Cat. 36). Furthermore, the fleshy mouth with a wide mouth are also similar to other representations of the queen and the Egyptian-style portraits of her brother and consort, Ptolemy II, most obviously on the sphinxes from the Alexandrian Sarapieion. The tripartite wig is not, however, commonly used on the images of Arsinoe II, but is found on images from the third century BC. Finally, the back pillar is likely to be the deciding factor in dating this piece, since it ends below the wig. This feature is common on both third and first century BC statues but is not usually found on Eighteenth Dynasty representations, where the back pillar goes to the top of the head. It is therefore, likely that this statue is a Ptolemaic original, representing either Arsinoe II or a goddess. The date of its manufacture is more problematic because the uraei are unique in their style, but the crown, which was added to a modi us is a third century BC feature. Even if the statue is not a usurped Eighteenth Dynasty original, it offers an important link between the representations of earlier queens and those of the Ptolemaic period. Kozloff(l997) 34-37, no. 13. Photograph: Reproduction courtesy of the Shinji Shumeikai Collection, Miho Museum, Kyoto.

1 Bothmer

1960: 119-21 and Queyrel in Rausch ed. (1998) 174, no. 122; Chauveau in Rausch ed. (1998) 176, no. 124).

64

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

2.3 Paris, Musee du Louvre MA 970

Basalt, H: 38 cm Provenance unknown Late second to first century BC The bust is modem, as are the nose, upper lip and part of the left lip, and chin. The top of the head and the diadem are damaged. This portrait is generally considered to be Egyptian in style, although there is a lack of Egyptian features- with the exception of the stone from which it is carved. The ruler wears a broad diadem that sits on stylised curls of hair, heavily arranged at the front over the forehead. There are further marks on the cheeks to indicate facial hair. Because of the poor state of preservation and modem additions it is not possible to date this image more accurately than the late second to early first centuries BC; the broad diadem and face indicate that this represents one of the later Ptolemies. Like the representations of first century princes, the subject of the Paris statue wears a diadem rather than headdress. There is also no indication of a back pillar, although it is possible that this ended lower down the back. For these reasons, the image cannot be categorised with any certainty as Egyptian. This portrait may be an example of a Greek-style image in a hard stone (see appendix 3 for comparative heads). Kyrielies (1975) 70-71, H2; Smith (1988) 87, 96-97, no. 76 [late second to early first century BC Ptolemaic ruler]; Hamiaux (1998) 80-81, no. 82 [Ptolemy X]. Photograph: S-A.Ashton

2.4 Seattle Art Museum 47.54

Wood, h: 30 cm; w: 8.3 cm; d: 12.7 cm Provenance unknown. Eugene fuller Memorial Collection First century BC The vulture head is missing, the arms are damaged and the paint is also unevenly preserved. There is a crack to the upper right leg. The skin is painted flesh brown, the upper part of the garment tan and the features are painted black. This seated figure shows a representation of a queen or goddess seated on a simple backless throne. The subject wears a sheath-like dress in the usual Egyptian style, with a cord separating the upper section from the lower skirt, tied beneath the breasts. Unusually the nipples are indicated and the upper section is painted with a darker pigment. The facial features are painted on with black and white, and the details on the tripartite echeloned wig are also added in pigment. On top of the head is a sundisk and cow's horn crown, associated with the goddess Isis. On the right arm is a painted

L]~4B □~==~

hieroglyphic cartouche reading . There are several problems with this particular piece, which cause its authenticity to be brought into question. The author has not had the opportunity to see the statue and so observation here must remain conjecture and subject to re-assessment. The main problem is the method of manufacture; wooden sculptures are generally pieced rather than manufactured from a single piece of wood, as is the case here. The costume compares well to several statues from this period but the indicated nipples are unparalleled. The only explanation may be that the statue was originally accompanied by Horus/Harpocrates with Isis, and that the cartouche if genuine was added later on account of Cleopatra VIl's association with the goddess. Unpublished Dated to the ?1h century BC on the museum card. I would like to thank Dr Bob Bianchi for drawing this particular sculpture to my attention. Photograph: Reproduction courtesy of the Seattle Art Museum, Eugene Fuller Memorial Collection.

65

Sally-Ann Ashton

2.5 Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, 98

Limestone, h: 51 cm Provenance unknown First century BC? The statue is preserved to the kilt. There is superficial damage to the right cheek and shoulder; the tip of the nose is missing. The lower section of the back pillar is restored. Egyptian-style statue possibly representing a first century BC ruler in striding stance with an uninscribed trapezoidal back pillar to mid head level. The ruler wears a plain nemes headdress with long lappets and a thick fringe of hair on the brow. He wears a plain kilt with an uneven waistband. The waist is narrow with prominent pectoral muscles and nipples indicated. The face is rounded with a downturned mouth in profile and thin straight lips. The eyes are well defined and the subject has a strong chin. The styling of the hair, which is combed forwards is similar to several of the images that have been identified as first century Ptolemaic princes. Furthermore the down-turned mouth can also be found of several portraits in this group. The indicated ribs and poorly proportioned body are features more commonly found in the first century AD and for this reason the statue must remain a questionable representation ofCaesarion. Curto (1963) 113 f. [Caesarion]; Curto (1967) 70-72 [Ptolemy IX]; Kyrieleis (1975) 75, H21 [Ptolemy IX]; Kiss (1984) 46 [Nero]. 2.6 Alexandria 1015

Granite, h: 80 cm. Alexandria, harbour Mid-first century BC The surface is worn by water erosion, the nose is damaged and the uraeus is missing. Only the head is preserved. The ruler wears a plain nemes headdress with a fringe of hair protruding underneath, a Greek not Egyptian feature. The face is broad with a flat appearance, the mouth is full with down-turned lips and the chin has a prominent line below the lips, which is a typical feature oflate second and first century BC Ptolemaic royal portraits. The eyebrows are rounded in appearance and the eyes have welldefined lids in the usual late Ptolemaic fashion. The portrait has been identified as Octavian but the similarity to the Turin queen (Cat. 38), identified here, as Cleopatra VII on stylistic and iconographical grounds would support a re-identification of the head as an image of Caesarion. The style of the hair in short waves, combed towards the centre of the forehead compares well to the other representations of first century BC royal princes. Kiss in Goddio et al (1999) 175-78 [Octavian]; Foreman (1999) 154. Photograph: Reproduction courtesy of Franck Goddio and Hilti Foundation.

66

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

2.7 University College London, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology UC 14521

Limestone, H 52 cm, W 22 cm, TH 21 cm Excavated at Koptos First century BC There is superficial damage to the sides and around the sun disk. The cow's horns are broken at the base and the heads of the right hand and middle cobra are missing. The top right square edge of the back pillar is missing and there superficial damage to the surface. On the back pillar is a hieroglyphic inscription in two columns, now worn, especially the lower left column; the lower section is missing. The inscription reads: 1. Hereditary noble, great praise, mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt, contented.... 2. King's daughter, king's sister, great royal wife, who satisfies the heart of Horus ....

No cartouche is preserved but it has been suggested that the queen to whom the titles refer is Arsinoe II, sister and wife of Ptolemy II, who was indeed daughter of a king, sister of a king and royal wife. Furthermore the crown was found between the second and third pylons of Isis at the temple dedicated to Min and Hathor/Isis at Koptos, rebuilt by Ptolemy II. The crown consists of a sun disk, decorated with three cobras, and cow's horns with two stylised plumes. However, the identity of the statue, which once supported this crown, is questionable because Arsinoe II is not known to have worn this type of crown, nor is she associated with the triple form of uraeus. The titles: "king's daughter, king's sister and royal wife" are applicable to several of the Ptolemaic queens including Cleopatra VII, who was married to both of her siblings and was the daughter ofa king. As noted, the site was patronised by Ptolemy II, and there is later evidence of royal patronage by Ptolemy VIII, Ptolemy IX, Ptolemy XII, and Cleopatra VII, who dedicated a bark shrine at the site. Unfortunately it is not know when Cleopatra made additions to the site, but is often assumed that it was during her trip with Julius Caesar down the Nile. Because the triple uraeus and this more general crown is unusual for Arsinoe II, it seems more likely that this particular statue represented Cleopatra VII and was perhaps dedicated during the building of the bark shrine at the temple complex. Petrie (1896) 21 f., pl. 26.3; Sethe (1904) 73, no. 17; Porter and Moss (1937)123; Stewart (1983) 38, pl. 28, no. 146; Quaegebeur (1998) 73-108; Gabolde in Galliano et al eds. (2000) 77, no. 41. Photograph: Reproduction courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London.

67

Appendix 3: Examples of Greek-style royal portraits in hard stone? This appendix catalogues hard stone portraits which are not obviously either Greek or Egyptian in style. There are two further images one unpublished but badly damaged from the Petrie Museum (UC 49923), representing a queen or goddess. The second is in the Benaki Museum, Athens and is published by Kyrielies (1975) 75, H 14.

3.1 Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum of Art 70.91.3

Green steatite, h: 11.8 cm; w: 5.0 cm; d: 5.5 cm. Provenance unknown. First century BC The nose is damaged and the front of the chest is missing. There are further surface scratches. Greekstyle portrait of a third century ruler, originally for insertion in a statue. The subject wears a narrow, twisted diadem, with short, wavy hair that is tousled along the brow. The face is square in appearance, with a small, thin-lipped mouth and small nose. The brow is prominent and the eyes are relatively small and deep-set. The chin is slightly pointed towards the end. Unpublished Photograph: Reproduction courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum of Art.

3.2 London, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology UC 49930

Steatite h: 5.3 cm; w: 3.3 cm Provenance unknown First century BC The back of the neck is damaged and only the head survives. This Greek-style portrait shows an image of a youthful male, wearing a twisted diadem which sits on short, straight hair radiating from a central spot on the crown of the head and combed forwards to form a fringe. The head is inclined slightly to the right, which would suggest that this piece is more likely to be Greek rather than Egyptian in style of manufacture. The face is oval in shape with a squared chin and straight mouth and the nose is straight with slightly flared nostrils. The eyelids are prominent and the brows follow the curve of the upper lid, onto a flat forehead. Unpublished Photograph: Reproduction courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London.

68

Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt

3.3 London, British Museum GR 1926.4-15.15

Greywacke? h: 17.5 cm Said to have come from Egypt Second century BC Only the head survives. The right side of the hair and the top of the head including most of the crown are damaged. The back of the sculpture is missing. The angle at which the back of the head has been removed would suggest that this portrait was originally part of an Egyptian-style statue, representing a Ptolemaic queen or princess. The subject has two rows oflocks at the side of her head, parted down the centre and pulled to the back of the head to form a bun. On the top of her head the subject once wore an Egyptian crown. The face is rounded with a short nose and a small mouth with fleshy lips. The eyes are deep-set, with lines at the comers of the eyes. Stylistically the piece possibly dates to the early reign of Ptolemy VI. Arslan (1997) 96 no. III.2 [Isis]; Ashton in Walker and Higgs eds. (2000) 76, 1.65 [Cleopatra I or II]. Photograph: Reproduction courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

3.4 Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 25264

Greywacke (?)* h: 8.5 cm. Provenance Unknown Second century BC Description Only the head survives. The nose is damaged, as is the right side of the hair and neck and there are further abrasions to the surface and the crown is missing. The traces of a back pillar at the hairline indicate that this portrait of a Ptolemaic queen or princess was Egyptian in style. The subject wears her hair in corkscrew locks at the sides, with a central wave of hair parted down the middle and gathered at the sides of the head, above the ears. On the top of her head is a drilled hole, for the insertion of a crown or headdress, she also wears a thin diadem. The face is rounded with wide, slightly down-turned eyes, accentuated by the lids and a curved brow. The mouth is down-turned, suggesting a late second century BC date. *Bothmer (CLES) calls the stone basalt, but the green appearance would suggest that it was greywacke. Adriani (1939) 345, 347, fig. 7; Wildung et al. (1979) no. 132 [late second to first century BC].

69

Abbreviations AA AF AGWG AJA Alexandria and Alexandrianism

AM AMGR ANMSMN AntCl AntK Arch.Cl. AS ASAE AsAtene ASP BdE BdA BES BHM BICS BIE BIFAO BJRL BMA BMFA BMMA BMNHBA BmusLyon BSAA BullCom CAA CAHVII CAJ CdE CEA DiE EPRO ET FIFAO GLECS GM GMJ HCS Hefte Inscr. Philae JARCE JBM JDI JEA JHS J. Int.Arch. Num. JJP JMFAB JNES JPK JRS

Archaologischer Anzeiger Archiiologische Forschungen Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Gottingen American Journal of Archaeology The J. Paul Getty Museum, Alexandria and Alexandrianism: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by The J. Paul GettyMuseum and The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Held at the Museum, April 22-25, 1993(Malibu, California 1996). Athenische Mitteilungen Annuaire du Musee Greco-Romain L 'Antiquite Classique Antike Kunst Archeologica Classica Ancient Society Anna/es du Service des Antiquites de l 'Egypte Annuario de/la regia scuola archeologica di Atene American Studies in Papyrology Bibliotheque d'etude Bolletino d'Arte Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar Bulletin of the Hermitage Museum Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin de l 'Jnstitut de l 'Egypte Bulletin de l 'Jnstitut Fram;ais de l 'ArcheologieOrientale Bulletin of the John Rylands Library The Brooklyn Museum of Art The Boston Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin du Musee National Hongrois des Beaux-Arts Bulletin dies musee et monuments Lyonnais Bulletin de la societe royale d'archeologique d'Alexandrie Bulletino de/la commissione archaeologica comunale di Roma Corpus Antiquitatum Aegypticarum Cambridge Ancient History VII. I: The Hellenistic World (2 nd ed. 1984) Cambridge Archaeological Journal Chronique d'Egypte Connaissance de l'Egypte Ancienne. Discussions in Egyptology Etudes Preliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain Etudes et Travaux Fouilles de l'Institut Franr;ais de l'Archeologie Orientale Comptes Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d'Etudes Chamito-Semitiques Gottinger Miszellen The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal Hellenistic Culture and Society Hefte des Archaologischen Seminars der Univeritat Bern Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal international d' archeologie numismatique Journal of Juristic Papyrology Journal of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jahrbuch Preussischer Kulturbesitz Journal of Roman Studies

70

Ptolemaic Royal Scuplture from Egypt

LA LIMC MA MDAIA MDAIK MDAIR MIE MIEAA MIFAO MMA MMJ MNCG MRAH MVAG OGIS ()Jh OLA OXM OM OMRO OrAnt

PAAR PGNC PISA PLB P.Oxy. PpK PULSHAP RA RdE RHR ROM SA SAGA SAK SH SSEAJ Studi Adriani

TCAMAPS

zAs ZPE

Lexikon der Agyptologie Lexicon lconographicum Mythalogiae Classicae (1981- ) Monumenta Aegyptiaca Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen lnstituts, Athenisches Ableitung Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen lnstituts, Abteilung Kairo Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen lnstituts, Abteilung Rom Memoires de l'lnstitut d'Egypte Mongraphs of the Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology Memoires Publies par !es Membres de l 'lnstitut Fram;ais de l 'Archeologie Orientate Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York The Metropolitan Museum of Art Journal Meddeleserfra Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek Musees Royaux d' Art et d'Histoire, Brussels Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft Dittenberger, W. (1903). Orientis Graeci lnscriptiones Selectae I Jahreshefte des 6sterreichischen Archiiologischen lnstituts in Wien Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Oxbow Monographs Orientalia Monspeliensia Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijkssmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden Oriens Antiquus Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians Publications de la Glyptotheque Ny Carlsberg Pubblicazioni dell 'lstituto di Storia Antica Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava The Oxyrynchus Papyri (1898-) Propyliien Kunstgeschichte Publications Universitaires des Lettres et Sciences d'Aix-en-Provence Revue Archeologique Revue d'Egyptologie Revue de l 'Histoire des Religions Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto Studia Aegyptiaca Studien zur Archaologie und Geschichte Altagyptens Studien zur Altiigyptischen Kultur Studia Hellenistica Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities Journal Alessandria e ii Mondo Ellenistico-Romano: Studi in onore di Achille Adriani, 3 vols. Istituto di Archeologia, Universita di Palermo, Studi e Materiali 4-6. vol. 1=Studi e Materiali 4 (Rome 1983); vol. 2=Studi e Materiali 5 (Rome 1984); vol. 3=Studi e Materiali 6 (Rome 1984) Travaux du Centre d'Archeologie Mediterraneenne de l'Academie Polonaise des Sciences Zeitschrifi for Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrifi for Papyrologie und Epigraphik

71

Sally-Ann Ashton

Bibliography Adriani, A. (1934). Annuario de! Museo Greco-Romano 1932-3. (Alexandria). Adriani, A. (1938). 'Sculture del Museo Greco-Romano di Alessandria, V: Contributi all' iconografia