Art and Society

Ancient and Modern Contexts of Egyptian Art

Proceedings of the International Conference held

at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 1315 May 2010

Edited by
Katalin Anna Kthay

Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 2012

Editor: Katalin Anna Kthay
Proof-reading: Adrian Hart
Graphic design, prepress work and photo editing: Eszter Balder

Editorial Coordination: Timea Trk

Printed by: EPC Nyomda, Budapest

Publisher: Dr. Lszl Ban, General Director

Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 2012

Cover illustration: Female statue, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, inv. no. 51.2048

ISBN 978-963-7063-91-6

The publication of this volume was supported by the Hungarian National Culture Fund.
 5

Contents

List of Contributors 7

Foreword 9

Discourses about Works of Art in Ancient and Modern Times 13

Maya Mller

Theban Tomb Graffiti during the New Kingdom. Research on 23

the Reception of Ancient Egyptian Images by Ancient Egyptians
Alexis Den Doncker

Egyptian Pyramids in an East European Landscape 35

Joachim liwa

Interaction of Three-dimensional and Two-dimensional Art 45

Helmut Satzinger

The Four Schools of Art of Senwosret I. Is it Time for a Revision? 47

David Lorand

Handmade Terracotta Figurines with Hands Secured behind 57

the Backs. The Potential Use of an Art Historical Method in
the Research of Egyptian Minor Arts
Mt Petrik

Privatplastik im Wandel der Zeiten. Skulpturen als 73

Kunsthistorisches Bildmedium
Edith Bernhauer

Kunst und Gesellschaft in der Libyerzeit. Beobachtungen 79

an Knigsstatuen der Dritten Zwischenzeit
Helmut Brandl

Stratgie dpure et stratgie dappogiature dans les productions 109

dites artistiques lusage des dominants. Le papyrus dit rotique
de Turin et la mise distance des domins
Pascal Vernus

Eine Frage des Geschmacks Anmerkungen zur Grabdekoration 123

auf dem Teti-Friedhof von Saqqara
Gabriele Pieke
6

Hierarchy of Women within Elite Families. Iconographic Data 139

from the Old Kingdom
Vera Vasiljevi

Theban Tomb Painting during the Reign of Amenhotep II 151

(14271400 BC). Investigation into an Artistic Creation in
its Historical and Sociocultural Context
Maruschka Gathy

Behind the Mirror. Art and Prestige in Khas Funerary Equipment 159
Marcella Trapani

The Bull Coming out of the Mountain. The Changing Context 169
and Connotations of an Iconographic Motif
va Liptay

sS qd wt The Attestations from the Middle Kingdom and 185

the Second Intermediate Period
Danijela Stefanovi

Tracking Ancient Egyptian Artists, a Problem of Methodology. 199

The Case of the Painters of Private Tombs in the Theban Necropolis
during the Eighteenth Dynasty
Dimitri Laboury

Pour une approche matrielle et exprimentale de la peinture thbaine 209

Hugues Tavier

Thebanische Totenstelen der 3. Zwischenzeit. 217

Zur ihrer Produktion und Verwendung
Marc Loth

The Gamhud Artisans 235

Katalin Anna Kthay

The Burial Ensemble of Tasenet from Gamhud and the Ptolemaic 257
Coffin style in Northern Middle Egypt
Gbor Schreiber

Imitation of Materials in Ancient Egypt 265

Manuela Gander

Plates 273
 47

The Four Schools of Art of Senwosret I. Is it Time for a Revision?

David Lorand

1 Vandiers Four Schools of Art

In 1958, the French Egyptologist Jacques Vandier published the third volume of his monumental
Manuel darchologie gyptienne, volume dedicated to the royal and private statuary in ancient Egypt.1
The introduction of the second chapter dealing with royal statues and heads from the Middle King-
dom mentions that:

La question des coles est trs importante la XIIe Dynastie, beaucoup plus importante qu
lAncien Empire Au Moyen Empire on compte, au moins, quatre coles, trs diffrentes les
unes des autres, lcole du Delta, lcole Memphite, lcole du Fayoum et lcole thbaine.2

From Vandiers point of view, the numerous royal statues of Senwosret I belong to various schools
of art, which would explain the stylistic variations he pointed out himself.

The Fayum School

Most of the statues gathered under the so-called Fayum School were found during the excavation of
the kings funerary complex at Lisht. They are basically characterised by a neat idealisation of the face
of Senwosret I. The production of the school is mainly illustrated by the ten famous limestone statues
found by J.-E. Gautier and G. Jquier in a favissa in December 1894 within the outer enclosure of
the royal pyramid (Plate 10.1). Representing the seated king wearing the nemes headdress and the
shendyt kilt, the statues are now part of the Egyptian Museum Cairo collection (CG 411 CG 420).3
Following Vandier, the face of the king is young, with a smiling expression; the eyes are dominated
by slightly curved eyebrows and show vivid eyelids. The strong chin is well cut, and the mouth has a
basic design, albeit somewhat hieratic. In contrast to this the sculpture of the nose and the phyltrum
is described as subtle and delicate. Vandier sees the young and calm pharaoh as unfortunately being
deprived of an essential element: the inner life.4
The stomach and the chest are carved, as is the entire body, with realism and good transitions
between the muscles. The greywacke statue of the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York
(MMA 25.6)5 shares the same characteristics even if the French Egyptologist admits that the latter
probably belongs to another series within the group of Fayum works. The treatment of the body
contours of the Osiride statues coming from the Lisht pyramid causeway has received less atten-
tion (Plate 10.2).6 Their display in architectural niches instead of a space in the open air could have
influenced the sculpture of the statues, argues Vandier.7 The same idealistic tendencies specific to
the Fayum group are, however, observed on the works, displaying respectively the White Crown
of Upper Egypt (southern niches) and the Red Crown of Lower Egypt (northern niches), even if
the eyes are smaller and carved horizontally (the inner and outer canthi being at the same level).
The Osiride granite colossus of Abydos8 probably belongs to the Fayum School, according to
Vandier (Plate 11.1). Found in the Middle Kingdom porticoed courtyard of the temple of Osiris-
Khentimentiu in February 1859,9 the almost 4 meters high statue represents the king with the Osiride
shroud and the White Crown of Upper Egypt. The French Egyptologist concludes that the Abydene
48 David Lorand

sculpture, taller than the previous Osiride statues (c. twice their size) and, stylistically speaking,
more conventional (especially for the stylised eyebrows) could have been carved in Abydos under the
supervision of a Fayum artist.10
The two last statues listed among the works produced by the Fayum School are the two wooden
statuettes from Cairo and New York found in 1914 in a serdab-like room of the Imhotep funerary
complex at Lisht, just north of Senwosret Is causeway.11 The king holds a long crooked staff in his left
hand, with his left leg forward, and wears a divine kilt instead of the traditional royal shendyt kilt.
Following Vandier, the carving of the bust is quite simple, yet elegant. The king has a round face, a
serious protruding mouth and curved eyebrows, changing the usual expression of his look. Lacking
any inscription, the statuettes are attributed to Senwosret I by Vandier because of their provenience
and their alleged similarity with known statues of the king.12

The Delta School

Four seated statues of Senwosret I come from the Delta, three from Tanis (the broken statue Cairo
RT 8/2/21/1;13 the Berlin throne M 7265;14 the fragmentary statue Cairo JE 3746515) and the
fourth one from Alexandria (bust Cairo CG 384; Plate 11.2).16 When preserved (Cairo CG 384
and Cairo JE 37465), the faces show significant damage that make difficult any comparison with
other statues dated to the reign of Senwosret I. Vandier notes, however, that the head is, generally
speaking, closer to that of the Amemenhat I colossus from Tanis (JE 37470)17 than to Senwosret
Is statues from Lisht. The faces are indeed quite similar in their construction, the mouths have the
same expression perhaps more serious for Senwosret I but Vandier recognises that the shape of the
eyes, which are wide open with heavy eyelids, is probably specific to Senwosret I. The eyebrows are
also particular in the works originating from the Delta, carved in mid-high relief and following the
curve of the eye on the temporals.18 The bodies are strong and powerful, with elegant and nervous
legs according to Vandier, the artists of the Delta almost equalling their colleagues from Lisht, and
certainly surpassing their local predecessors.19

The Memphite School

Following Vandier, the kneeling king in gneiss from Berlin (gyptisches Museum 1205; Plate 12.1)20
and the bust in granodiorite from London (British Museum EA 44; Plate 12.2)21 are the two most
beautiful statues of Senwosret I, both wearing the nemes headdress and the shendyt kilt. Both were
found in Memphis. They are, stylistically speaking, very different from those found in Lisht, showing
more prominent cheekbones and horizontal eyes deeply modelled into the face. The face itself is more
angular, and the mouth more serious, almost sad, especially on the statue preserved in Berlin. Vandier
describes the shaping of the chin, mouth and cheeks as admirable and full of life, so much so that the
French Egyptologist states that the main difference between the works of the Fayum School and those
of the Memphite School is the exquisite human expression of life seen on the faces of the statues from
Memphis. In comparison, the tendencies of the Fayum School are clearly idealistic.22
The bodies are modelled with care and softness, seeming less powerful but more elegant. The head
of the king, deeply hunched between his shoulders, could have been an actual detail of the physiog-
nomy of Senwosret I. The realism shown by the Memphite School is probably linked to the realistic
school of the Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty after Vandier, but there is no convincing evidence of
such a direct influence he admits, nor any kind of filiations with the brutal realism of the Theban
Eleventh Dynasty. The author argues that a brilliant artist probably emerged during the reign of
Senwosret I and created these works of art.23

The Southern School

The pieces gathered in the so-called Southern School by Vandier are somewhat disappointing, or
so confesses the French Egyptologist. They no longer propose the peculiar brutality of the previous
 David Lorand 49

Eleventh Dynasty, yet they still do not show the impressive sensibility of the statuary of Senwosret
III or Amenemhet III yet. However, he is forced to recognise that some statues do actually have an
interesting vigour in their shaping, and at least avoid conventionality.24 Compared to the granite
Osiride colossus of Abydos (Cairo CG 38230), the statue from Karnak (Cairo JE 48851; Plate 13.1)25
has a strongly modelled face, with neat anatomical features, the eyes deeply set in the face and a seri-
ous mouth, the whole set creating a real individuality. The style of the colossus is reminiscent of the
production of the Eleventh Dynasty, as well as of the style of two other colossi of Senwosret I, in red
granite, found in front of the alabaster chapel of Thutmose III in the VII pylon courtyard of Karnak
(Plate 13.2).26 Vandier points to the fact that these two colossi efficiently combine a vigorous shaping
and an elegant design of the bust, a young smiling face and an impression of dignitas.27
The famous sphinx head preserved at the Egyptian Museum Cairo (CG 42007) also comes from
Karnak and was discovered by G. Legrain in 1903.28 The head shares some characteristics with the
production of the Fayum, like the eyes with high outer canthi and horizontal eyebrows. The dif-
ferences are mainly constituted by the broad round face with full cheeks, a short nose and a sensi-
tive horizontal smiling mouth. Following Vandier, the head could, a priori, belong to the Fayum
School being closer to the Lisht statuary than to the Theban one. However, it remains difficult to
ascertain that an artist from the Fayum produced it at Thebes.
Finally, the French Egyptologist mentions a fragmentary statuary group found in Ermant in
19351937 by R. Mond and O. Myers,29 similar to the red granite hexade of Thutmose III from
Karnak and preserved in the British Museum in London (EA 12).30 He evokes a possible usurpation
of the London hexade by Thutmose III. The base found in the Kamutef precinct of Karnak by H.
Ricke31 probably belongs to the reign of Senwosret I, as well as the small group with Hathor and the
king from the Middle Kingdom Courtyard of the temple of Amun-Ra.32

Conclusion

Following Vandier, the royal statuary of Senwosret I is distributed as follows: a conventional group
comprising of the various statues found in the Delta; an idealistic group with the statues from Lisht
and, probably, the Osiride colossus of Abydos; a realistic group located in Memphis; and, finally, an
undefined group of Upper Egyptian statues.

2 Discussion

My recent research on the royal statuary of Senwosret I33 allowed me to establish a catalogue of the
pieces of art realized during his reign comprising of 73 items, thus much more than the mere 36 as
listed by Vandier half a century ago.34 This gap is of course partly attributable to new discoveries but
for the most part it is explained by a careful reattribution of a number of statues. On the other hand,
some misattributed works have left the catalogue. For example, the two wooden statuettes from
Lisht (Cairo JE 44951 and New York MMA 14.3.17), usually said to be representations of the king
as Lord of Upper and Lower Egypt, are most probably datable to the reign of his son, Amenemhet
II, and should be understood as images of funerary gods protecting the Imiut of Anubis instead of
as images of the pharaoh himself.35 The hexade of Ermant (JE 67430) is inscribed with the name of
Wehem-mesut Amenemhet I and cannot be a work of Senwosret I. The mistake is probably due to an
error in the publication of Mond and Myers36 and a mix up with another statuary group (three statues
instead of six) bought by Mond and Myers at Ermant and actually bearing the name of Senwosret I.37
Moreover, the Karnak hexade of the British Museum (EA 12) clearly dates Thutmose III. In addition,
the fragments of three statues from the so-called Delta School (Cairo CG 384, Cairo RT 8/2/21/1
and Berlin 7265) seem to belong to two statues only.38

But the main problem of Vandiers classification cannot be attributed to an inappropriate or a non-
up-to-date identification of the statues. In fact, the stylistic criteria used to define the Four Schools
50 David Lorand

of Art of Senwosret I does not take into account the history of each statue, the way they were produced
by potentially mobile artists,39 and obviously overlooks the fact that Senwosret I ruled Egypt for 45
years, meaning nearly three generations of artists and as many potentially different styles. Such a clas-
sification erroneously considers the reign as a whole static era without any evolution, differences being
only geographically based and not due to changes in stylistic patterns or human practices.
Vandier himself is aware of these difficulties, especially those dealing with the concept of a Delta
School while statues of the group bore the name of the city capital of Memphis on their throne
panels. But the French Egyptologist denies a possible Memphite provenience for several reasons.40
The main one is as follows: statues of Senwosret I were found both in the Delta (mainly in Tanis)
and in Memphis, but they are totally different, stylistically speaking, so they cannot belong to the
same school of art. Following Vandier, the Memphite epithet of Anubis in Cairo JE 37465 (Anubis-
upon-his-mountain) is not specific to Memphis, and the references to the Sed-festival occurring in
Memphis only are without any geographic relevance for the statues, the city being mentioned be-
cause of the Festival and not because of the actual location of the monument. Finally, all the statues
labelled under the Delta School have been found in the Delta and not in Memphis, and it is highly
improbable, says Vandier, that there were two schools in Memphis, one devoted to the production
of pieces of art for the city of Memphis itself (Memphite School), the other one exporting all of its
works to the Delta (Delta School).

However, it must be borne in mind that the city of Tanis was erected some nine centuries
after the reign of Senwosret I so that his statues may not have reached the city before the Twenty-
first Dynasty, probably by way of Per-Ramesses after their first reuse under the reign of Merenptah
(Nineteenth Dynasty). Moreover, many monuments from the Delta actually come, directly or not,
from Heliopolis and the vast region of modern Cairo. So, there is obviously a big difference between
the city where the statues were found, and the place they were intended for, which is an important
nuance not taken into account by Vandier. It does not mean that the Delta cannot be the original
location of the statues of Senwosret I at all, various Middle Kingdom settlements being known in the
area of Ezbet-Rushdi for example,41 but we cannot reject a Memphite-Heliopolitan origin anymore.
In addition to the aforementioned, the existence of a Memphite statuary corpus forming a Mem-
phite School can be challenged. Indeed, the statue bust preserved in the British Museum (EA 44)
does not come from Memphis as is usually thought, but from the precinct of Amun-Ra-Kamutef in
Karnak, where R. W. H. Vyse discovered it in December 1836 and then presented it to the Trustee
of the British Museum in 1838.42 The other statue, from the Berlin Museum collections (M 1205),
was brought from Egypt by H. Brugsch in 1871, and is only said to come from Memphis, no proper
context having ever been mentioned. Thus the Memphite School does not, so to speak, exist from a
geographical point of view. Even Vandier admitted that:

Ces deux statues, si elles navaient pas t trouves Memphis, auraient pu tre attribues
une cole du sud; elles annoncent, en effet, les admirables statues de Ssostris III, trouves en
Haute Egypte.43

The only coherent school of art delineated by Vandier seems to be the Fayum School, if the two
wooden statuettes discussed earlier are disregarded, as, most probably, the granite Osiride colossus of
Abydos. This is probably due to the fact that the statues in that group were actually produced for the
funerary complex of Senwosret I at Lisht, at one time (or more precisely during a restricted period in
the reign), by just a few workshops and artists. It basically reveals that the statuary program of the fu-
nerary complex is coherent and was conceived as a whole, and produced as such.44 It does not indicate
anything about a hypothetical tradition maintained in a school for generations in one place. Indeed,
is it plausible that a school of art did not change its style over forty-five years, or over almost three
generations? And finally, are the different styles recorded by Vandier contemporaneous (four schools
producing statues over forty-five years, each one with its own style, without any change), or diachronic
(four styles being indicators of an artistic evolution within the reign of Senwosret I)? Or both?
 David Lorand 51

Thus, to answer the question in my title: The Four Schools of Art of Senwosret I. Is it Time for
a Revision?, I would say: Yes, it definitely is. Especially since other scholars, such as Aldred45 or
Manniche,46 seem to admit the existence of a temple/palace style (mainly identified in Thebes) and
a funerary style (influenced by Memphis) based on the loci where statues were found. But this is
another way of creating schools of art solely on the basis of geography, without considering dia-
chrony. Nonetheless they observe that the style within these two groups is directly influenced by
the purpose of the statue (seen or hidden), its type (colossus or small) and the nature of its archi-
tectural environment (cultic, palatial, funerary).47 This multi-scale approach for the definition of the
style is certainly fundamental to better understand and discriminate intended ideological factors
and human freer interventions and impacts.

3 Solutions?

The study of the historical and architectural contexts of the royal statuary of Senwosret I seems to
be the most relevant method for defining the style(s) practiced during his reign, whether they are
synchronic styles in various schools or a diachronic evolution of style(s). It would then be possible
to know what style was practised in a given place at a given moment, and make comparisons between
statues within these precise historical and architectural contexts.

However, establishing the chronology of the royal statuary is a particularly difficult task. First of
all because none of these statues bears an indication of date, which was actually quite common in
ancient Egypt. Secondly because we have virtually no evidence for known statues being mentioned
in dated epigraphic documents, as in the newly discovered Heliopolitan Annals of Senwosret I from
Bab al-Tawfiq in Cairo.48 The statues said to have been dedicated by the king (seated statues and
sphinxes) are still to be discovered, while other colossi excavated by the Egyptian-German expedition
in Heliopolis and datable to the reign of Senwosret I49 are not attested to in the ancient literature.
Finally, because they are made out of stone, the statues could be tentatively linked to various dated
expeditions to quarries. But storerooms probably existed, and thus the sculpture of statues did not
necessarily follow the expeditions directly. Indeed, a gap of several months, or even years (to say the
least), could have existed. Moreover, if we are somewhat pessimistic, we will then have some trou-
ble establishing a firm link between a statue in a given material and a dated expedition to a specific
quarry if the resource was under exploitation for a long time and knew several expeditions within the
same reign!
The best evidence for dating a statue is its architectural context, mainly, of course, for architec-
tural statues such as Osiride pillars, while other statues, and even the biggest ones, can be removed
or added after the completion of a temple or palace.50 Few contexts are dated for the reign of Sen-
wosret I: the construction of a new temple dedicated to Amun-Ra in Karnak (year 10)51 and the
building of the funerary complex at Lisht (year 10 to 24, building works in the causeway contain-
ing the Osiride statues were finished around year 25).52 The new temple of Osiris-Khentimentiu at
Abydos certainly dates to year 9 following the dates mentioned in several stelae, especially those
of Mery53 and Mentuhotep54 which describe the works in the Abydene sanctuary. The interpreta-
tion of the transformations in the temple of Atum at Heliopolis referenced by the Berlin Leather
Roll in year 3 is problematic in many ways.55 Nevertheless, placed in a timeline, the architectural
statues from Karnak, Lisht, Abydos or Heliopolis show that their stylistic differences could also be
explained by a chronological framework and not exclusively by schools of art established in vari-
ous cities or areas.

These results could be crosschecked and evaluated by stylistic comparisons, probable clues for
an evolution of stylistic patterns during the reign of Senwosret I. Unfortunately, the royal statuary
of Amenemhet I56 and Amenemhet II57 is not well known, the main part of their statuary corpus
comprising works datable or attributed to their reign, only a few of them being definitely images of
52 David Lorand

these kings. But if we look at the two statues of the father of Senwosret I, Amenemhet I, bearing the
latters name (Cairo JE 37470 and Cairo JE 60520),58 we can observe some similarities in stylistic pat-
terns with the granite Osiride colossus from Abydos (CG 38230) and the sphinx head from Karnak
(CG 42007) of Senwosret I. The rounded face, with full cheeks and a neat smile, showing elongated
eyes with high outer canthi are quite comparable in these four works of art also characterised by
synthetic or geometric volumes. It should not appear that surprising if it is considered that the
colossus from Abydos and the sphinx of Karnak are statues erected in temples built at the end of the
first decade of Senwosret Is reign.
On the other hand, the statues of the so-called Delta School previously mentioned show a sty-
listic proximity with statues usually dated from the reign of Amenemhet II, such as the bust from
Semna preserved in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston (MFA 29.1132),59 a second bust from a private
collection60 and the Louvre Sphinx (A 23).61 They share the two distinctive features identified by B.
Fay for the statuary datable to the reign of Amenemhet II: the treatment of the eyes and the mouth.
The design of the eye is a large eye, with a horizontal lower eyelid and a semi-circular shaped upper
eyelid, surmounted by an eyebrow in low relief starting from the root of the nose and extending far
on the temporal. The mouth is wide, horizontal, with sharp lips rims. The corners of the mouth go
slightly downward. Moreover, the statue of Senwosret I of the Egyptian Museum Cairo (JE 37465)
and the Louvre Sphinx (A 23) datable from the reign of Amenemhet II are, as Fay rightly pointed
out, certainly from the same royal workshop and were produced at a small distance, demonstrating
an uninterrupted stylistic transition between the two reigns.62

Following these comparisons with the statuary of both Amenemhet I and Amenemhet II, and
keeping in mind the date of the statues deduced from their architectural context, it is probably now
possible to propose a new scheme for the various stylistic patterns of the royal statuary of Senwos-
ret I. Briefly, we recognize as a main stream an evolution from the beginning to the end of the
reign, from rounded, massive and geometric statues (an inheritance of Old Kingdom and Eleventh
Dynasty features), to more subtle, powerful and naturalistic works of art (premises of the statuary of
Senwosret III and Amenemhet III). Such an evolution is also manifest in reliefs, from detailed but
flat reliefs63 to fully modelled bodies and muscles.64 Some additional parameters may have influenced
the progressive modulation of stylistic patterns during the reign, as the use of statuary in an ideologi-
cal context of kingship renewal and pharaonic power reassessment.
In conclusion, the seventy-three statues of Senwosret I listed today were certainly produced by
several schools or workshops with different stylistic patterns, but these differences are most
probably due to a multifactor evolution during the forty-five year long reign, and not the conse-
quence of the existence of Four Schools of Art working at the same time, but in different cities,
as Vandier stated.
 David Lorand 53

1 J. Vandier, Manuel darchologie gyptienne III. Les grandes poques. La statuaire, Paris 1958.
2 Vandier, Manuel III, 170.
3 See, among many others, PM IV, 8283; J.-E. Gautier and G. Jquier, Mmoire sur les fouilles de Licht, MIFAO
6, Cairo 1902, 3038, figs 2337, pls IXXIII; L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Knigen und Privat-
leuten, CGC Nos 11294, Berlin 1925, II, 2129, Bl. 67; K. M. Dohrmann, Arbeitsorganisation, Produktions-
verfahren und Werktechnik eine Analyse der Sitzstatuen Sesostris I. aus Lischt, doctoral dissertation, Gttingen
2004.
4 Vandier, Manuel III, 173.
5 W. C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt. A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in The Metropolitan Museum
of Art I. From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom, New York 19904, 181, fig. 110; Dorothea Arnold,
The Statue Acc. No. 25.6 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art I. Two Versions of Throne Decorations, in D. P.
Silverman W. K. Simpson J. Wegner (eds), Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom
Egypt, Philadelphia New Haven 2009, 1743.
6 Statues Cairo CG 397 CG 402 and New York MMA 08.200.1, MMA 09.180.529. See PM IV, 82; Gautier
Jquier, Licht, 16, 3842, fig. 38; L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten II, 1416, Bl. 65; Dieter Arnold, The Pyramid
of Senwosret I: The South Cemeteries of Lisht I, PMMAEE 22, New York 1988, 2122, pls 67.
7 Vandier, Manuel III, 174.
8 Statue Cairo CG 38230 (= CG 429), PM V, 41; G. Daressy, Statues de divinits, CGC Nos 3800139384, Cairo
1906, I, 66, pl. XII; L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten II, 3334, Bl. 70.
9 A. Mariette, Abydos. Description des fouilles excutes lemplacement de cette ville II, Paris 1880, 29, pl. 21a-c.
10 Vandier, Manuel III, 174.
11 Statuettes Cairo JE 44951 (White Crown) and New York MMA 14.3.17 (Red Crown). PM IV, 84; S. B. Johnson,
Two Wooden Statues From Lisht: Do They Represent Sesostris I?, JARCE 17 (1980), 1120; Dieter Arnold, Middle
Kingdom Tomb Architecture at Lisht, PMMAEE 28, New York 2008, 35, pls 47 and 58a.
12 Vandier, Manuel III, 174175.
13 PM IV, 18; W. M. F. Petrie, Tanis I. 18831884, MEES 2, London 1885, 5, pls II 5ac and XIII 34; W. M. F.
Petrie, Tanis II. Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneh (Tahpanhes), MEES 4, London 1888, 16; H. G. Evers, Staat aus dem
Stein. Denkmler, Geschichte und Bedeutung der gyptischen Plastik whrend des Mittleren Reichs, Munich 1929, I, pl.
39; H. Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, SDAIK 22, Mainz am Rhein 1989, 94, nos 4546.
14 PM IV, 18; H. Brugsch, Uebersichtliche Erklaerung aegyptischer Denkmaeler des koenigl. neuen Museums zu Berlin, Berlin
1850, 1113; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein I, pl. 41; Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, 93, no. 44b, pl. 7b.
15 PM IV, 18; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein I, pl. 37; G. Goyon, Trouvaille Tanis de fragments appartenant la statue de
Sanousrit Ier, n 634 du muse du Caire, ASAE 37 (1937), 8184; H. Sourouzian, Standing royal colossi of the Middle
Kingdom reused by Ramesses II, MDAIK 44 (1988), pl. 75; Sourouzian, Les monuments du roi Merenptah, 93, no. 43.
16 PM IV, 3; J.-J. Rifaud, Voyage en gypte, en Nubie et lieux circonvoisins, depuis 1805 jusquen 1828, Paris 1830, pl.
126; L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten II, 34, Bl. 60; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein I, pl. 36; Sourouzian, Les monu-
ments du roi Merenptah, 93, no. 44a.
17 H. Sourouzian, Features of Early Twelfth Dynasty Royal Sculpture, Bulletin of the Egyptian Museum 2 (2005), pl. I.
18 Vandier, Manuel III, 175.
19 Vandier, Manuel III, 176.
20 PM III, 863; K. H. Priese, gyptisches Museum. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Mainz am Rhein 1991, 4849, cat. 30;
P. Junge D. Wildung, 5000 Jahre Afrika gypten Afrika. Sammlung W. und U. Horstmann und Staatliche Museen
zu Berlin, Berlin 2008, 53.
21 PM II, 176; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein I, pl. 44, II, 9799, 641652; D. Wildung (ed.), gypten 2000 v. Chr. Die
Geburt des Individuums, Munich 2000, 76, 179, no. 18; E. R. Russmann T. G. H. James, Eternal Egypt: master-
works of ancient art from the British Museum, London 2001, 9293, no. 21.
22 Vandier, Manuel III, 176.
23 Vandier, Manuel III, 176177.
24 Vandier, Manuel III, 177.
25 See, among many others, PM II, 89; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein I, pl. 35a; Cl. Vandersleyen, Das alte gypten, Pro-
pylen Kunstgeschichte 17, Berlin 1985, 234235, no. 153; L. Gabolde, Le Grand Chteau dAmon de Ssostris Ier
Karnak. La dcoration du temple dAmon-R au Moyen Empire, MAIBL 17, Paris 1998, 8690, pls XIXXX.
54 David Lorand

26 Cairo JE 38286 (White Crown) and JE 38287 (Red Crown). PM II, 173; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein I, pl. 34; C.
Aldred, Middle Kingdom Art in Ancient Egypt. 23001590 BC, London 1969, 4041, no. 27; P. Barguet, Le temple
dAmon-R Karnak. Essai dexgse. Augment dune dition lectronique par Alain Arnaudis, RAPH 21, Cairo
20062, 266.
27 Vandier, Manuel III, 177.
28 PM II, 90; G. Legrain, Statues et statuettes de rois et de particuliers, CGC nos 4200142138, Cairo 1906, 6; B. Fay,
The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II, Mainz 1996, 64, no. 18, pl. 72a; Sourouzian,
Features of Early Twelfth Dynasty, 110, pl. XIIae.
29 R. Mond O. H. Myers, Temples of Armant. A Preliminary Survey, MEES 43, London 1940, 51, 190, pl. XX,12
(S.35). Today in the Egyptian Museum Cairo (JE 67430).
30 See for references the study of D. Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III. Essai d interprtation dun portrait royal
dans son contexte historique, AegLeod 5, Lige 1998, 186189, cat. C 46.
31 PM II, 276; H. Ricke, Der Tempel Lepsius 16 in Karnak, ASAE 38 (1938), 364365; H. Ricke, Das Kamutef-
Heiligtum Hatschepsuts und ThutmosesIII. in Karnak. Bericht ber eine Ausgrabung vor dem Muttempelbezirk, BBA
3/2, Cairo 1954, 56, pl. 5b; M. Seidel, Die kniglichen Statuengruppen I. Die Denkmler vom Alten Reich bis zum
Ende der 18. Dynastie, HB 42, Hildesheim 1996, 9399 (Dok. 41). Now lost (?), location unknown.
32 Both heads are now broken, and Vandier does not devote more than a foot note to this statuary group Cairo CG
42008. PM II, 108; Legrain, Statues et statuettes, 67, pl. IV; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein, 92, fig. 24; Seidel, Die
kniglichen Statuengruppen, 9293, pl. 27ad (Dok. 40).
33 Doctoral dissertation (PhD) at the Universit Libre de Bruxelles under the auspices of the National Fund for Scien-
tific Research (FNRS Belgium). See my revised manuscript D. Lorand, Arts et politique sous Ssostris Ier. Littrature,
sculpture et architecture dans leur contexte historique, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 13, Turnhout 2011.
34 But in 2009 Favry still mentioned thirty statues only. N. Favry, Ssostris Ier et le dbut de la XIIe dynastie, Les Grands
Pharaons, Paris 2009, 220.
35 See the doubts raised by Johnson, Two Wooden Statues From Lisht, 1120; and recently by Dieter Arnold, Middle
Kingdom Tomb, 35. Confirmed by Dorothea Arnold, personal communication and personal study in 2008.
36 They quote both Senwosret I (p. 51) and Amenemhet I (p. 190). Mond Myers, Temples of Armant.
37 Group London Petrie Museum UC14597 and Luxor Carter Magazine (without known inventary number). Mond
Myers, Temples of Armant, 5152, 58, nos S.37 and 191, pls 20/5 and 102/1; Seidel, Die kniglichen Statuengruppen, 8789
(Dok. 38); Sourouzian, Features of Early Twelfth Dynasty, 108109, pl. Xad.
38 Various elements indicate a link between the bust Cairo CG 384, the throne Berlin M 7265 and the foot base
Cairo RT 8/2/21/1 while the bust and the throne Cairo RT 8/2/21/1 form a second statue. For another proposal, not
very convincing, for the bust Cairo CG 384 with the throne Cairo CG 538, see H. Sourouzian, Seth fils de Nout et
Seth fils dAvaris dans la statuaire royale ramesside, in E. Czerny et alii (eds), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred
Bietak I, OLA 149, Leuven 2006, 341344.
39 The French Egyptologist rightly states that artists travelled during the pharaonic era, from one building site to an-
other, spreading stylistic patterns in the whole contry. See his comments about the Abydene Osiride colossus Cairo
CG 38230 sculpted at Abydos by an artist originating from the Fayum. Vandier, Manuel III, 174. See also the stela
of Shen kept in Los Angeles (LACMA 1.5141.50-876): R. O. Faulkner, The Stela of Master-Sculptor Shen, JEA 38
(1952), 35.
40 Vandier, Manuel III, 175 n. 1.
41 M. Bietak J. Dorner, Der Tempel und die Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches bei Ezbet Ruschdi, Grabungsvorbericht
1996, &L 8 (1998), 949.
42 The torso of one of them was near these pedestals, and by the cartouche on the girdle, proved to be that of Oisirtesen
the First. I obtained leave to take it to England, and it is now in the British Museum. The plate illustrating the dis-
covery area shows the lying bust of Senwosret I in the foreground and the upper part of the great hypostyle hall of
Karnak in the background. R. W. H. Vyse, Operations carried on at the pyramids of Gizeh in 1837: with an account of
a voyage into Upper Egypt, and an appendix (containing a survey by J.S. Perring Esq., of the pyramids at Abu Roash, and
those to the southward, including those in the Faiyoum) I, London 1840, 82 (plate between pp 81 and 82).
43 Vandier, Manuel III, 176.
44 There are, however, small stylistic variations between the Osiride statues from the causeway and the limestone
seated statues.
 David Lorand 55

45 C. Aldred, LArt gyptien, Lunivers de lart 5, Paris 1989, 127.

46 L. Manniche, Lart gyptien, Paris 1994, 9293.
47 For such an idea, see already D. Wildung, L ge dor de lgypte. Le Moyen Empire, Fribourg 1984, 195.
48 L. Postel I. Rgen, Annales hliopolitaines et fragments de Ssostris Ier remploys dans la porte de Bb al-Tawfiq
au Caire, BIFAO 105 (2005), 229293.
49 D. Raue, Matariya/Heliopolis: Miteinander gegen die Zeit, in G. Dreyer D. Polz (eds), Begegnung mit der Vergan-
genheit. 100 Jahre in gypten. Deutsches Archologisches Institut Kairo 19072007, Mainz 2007, 96, figs 132133;
Y. H. Khalifa D. Raue, Excavations of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Matariya: 20012003, GM 218
(2008), 4956.
50 See Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III, 70.
51 Gabolde, Le Grand chteau dAmon de Ssostris Ier Karnak, 4142.
52 F. Arnold, The Control Notes and Team Marks: The South Cemeteries of Lisht II, PMMAEE 23, New York 1990.
53 Paris, Muse du Louvre C 3: P. Vernus, La stle C 3 du Louvre, RdE 25 (1973), 217234.
54 Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 20539. H. O. Lange H. Schfer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs im
Museum von Kairo, CGC Nos 2000120780, Berlin 19021925, II, 150158, IV, pls 4142.
55 See, for example, the controversy between Ph. Derchain, Les dbuts de lhistoire [Rouleau de cuir Berlin 3029], RdE
43 (1992), 3547; and A. Piccato, The Berlin Leather Roll and the Egyptian Sense of History, LingAeg 5 (1997),
137159.
56 See, for example, Sourouzian, Features of Early Twelfth Dynasty; and the previous attempt to clarify the corpus by
C. Aldred, Some Royal Portraits of the Middle Kingdom in Ancient Egypt, MMJ 3 (1970), 2750.
57 For example the conclusions of B. Fay, The Louvre Sphinx.
58 Sourouzian, Features of Early Twelfth Dynasty, 104, pls III; H. Gauthier, Une nouvelle statue dAmenemht Ier,
in [P. Jouguet] (ed.), Mlanges Maspero I/1, MIFAO 66, Cairo 19351938, 4353.
59 Fay, The Louvre Sphinx, 3234, pls 6162, with additional references.
60 Fay, The Louvre Sphinx, 3435, pls 6364.
61 Fay, The Louvre Sphinx.
62 Fay, The Louvre Sphinx, 5758.
63 See for example the reliefs from the Karnak temple, dated year 10, such as the pillar of the Egyptian Museum Cairo
JE 36809. PM II, 133; G. Legrain, Second rapport sur les travaux excuts Karnak du 31 octobre 1901 au 15
mai 1902, ASAE 4 (1903), 1213; Gabolde, Le Grand chteau dAmon , 8993, 130134, pls XXV, XXVIII
XXIX.
64 As the relief from the Entrance Chapel of the pyramid complex of Senwosret I at Lisht (now in Cairo, JE 63942), is
plausibly the first posthumous representation of the king in a monument sealing the burial corridor after the funeral
of the dead pharaoh. Dieter Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I, 80, pl. 49.
 David Lorand

Plate 10

1 Cairo CG 411. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the SCA.

2 Cairo CG 398. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the SCA.
 David Lorand

Plate 11

1 Cairo CG 38230. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the SCA.

2 Cairo CG 384. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the SCA.
 David Lorand

Plate 12

1 Berlin M 1205. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of bpk / gyptisches Museen zu Berlin.

2 British Museum, EA 44. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
 David Lorand

Plate 13

1 Cairo JE 48851. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the SCA.

2 Cairo JE 38286. Photo: D. Lorand.

Courtesy of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the SCA.