Collection Ægyptiaca Leodiensia 10

(Re)productive Traditions
in Ancient Egypt
Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Liège,
6th-8th February 2013

Todd GILLEN (ed.)

Presses Universitaires de Liège

2017
 “His image as perfect as the ancestors”

On the transmission of forms in non-royal sculpture

during the First Millennium B.C.

Campbell PRICE
The Manchester Museum
University of Manchester, UK1

In this essay I examine three non-royal temple monuments which shed some light on the process of
the transmission of sculptural forms, addressing both the means and the motivation for replication.
These pieces all date to between the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Sixth Dynasties, the period most
commonly associated with archaising tendencies in Pharaonic high culture.

1. ARCHAISM
The term ‘archaism’ is widely used in Egyptology, but its range of meanings and recognition in
surviving sources remains problematic.2 For convenience, I follow Claus Jurman’s useful formulation3
and define ‘archaism’ here as:
A conscious going back to cultural modes of the past that are not linked to the time of re-
appropriation through a chain of traditional transmission. Archaism thus circumvents tradition, the
major distinction between the two being the gap of time that separates the individual attestations of a
stylistic or typological trait. This chronological gap sets archaism also apart from simple conservatism
with which it has otherwise in common the aspect of choice.
The art historian Whitney Davis has raised some important issues concerning the interpretation of
archaism in Egyptian art, notably identifying the phenomenon as an aspect of modernism.4 This is a
useful analytical position. Much of elite visual culture produced during the First Millennium BC is
characterised by a combination of styles derived from a range of older models. This mixture formed a
new style in its own right, something distinctively modern, but one which required knowledge of older
styles from producer and viewer. Davis5 also rightly emphasises the maintenance of a canon of forms

1. I am grateful to the editor and anonymous referees for comments, and to Cynthia Sheikholeslami for comments and
discussion.
2. For a recent discussion of the First Millennium BC, reviewing most earlier literature, see Jurman 2010: 73–118.
3. Jurman 2010: 76.
4. Davis 2003: 31–35.
5. Davis 1989.
396 CAMPBELL PRICE

throughout Pharaonic history—resulting, for example, in the striking invariance of representation of

the human figure—as a social institution.
While I do not claim to employ the rigorous art historical methods of other fields here, I do
believe that it is possible to interrogate more closely the workings of such a system of (re)production
in ancient Egypt. It is most profitable to explore the interactions between individuals and works of
‘art,’ such as elite sculpture, by evaluating the evidence of the monuments themselves—their forms
and in particular their texts. These two traditionally separate approaches can be effectively combined
to give a significant insight into the intentions of archaism in Egyptian visual culture.
Egyptian sculpture is well-suited to such an examination because it is sensitive to changes in form,
style and motifs; in the restricted, elite world of the temple these changes are likely to have been more
meaningful to observers than in other contexts. To ensure the continuous well-being of the individuals
they commemorate, elite temple monuments are motivated by the need to actively engage passers-by:
the living, the dead and the gods. Archaism is an apt tool because it is ostentatious, and demands
attention. It self-consciously asserts itself to the initiated onlooker; but knowledge of other works is a
pre-requisite for the fullest understanding of an archaising piece. The real problem for modern
interpretation, therefore, lies in gauging the response of an ancient viewer.6 What feature(s) might
stand out? What would passers-by register as the ‘extra meaning’ that characterises archaising
practices?7 To identify such meaningful visual games in a partial dataset, one must balance the
tendency to see connections between works from the perspective of a modern scholar—privileged
with a detailed global overview of surviving works from different places and periods—with the reality
of viewing works and making associations in one ancient context.
Assessing the potential impact of the statues is further complicated by preservation. While the
Karnak Cachette, for example, is likely to be a fairly reliable indication of the sort of stone sculpture
displayed at Karnak,8 wood does not survive nearly as well as it does at other sites and limestone is
prone to weathering due to the Cachette’s water-logged conditions.9 Statues which may have stood out
as markedly innovative when first set up—such as those shown wearing conspicuously Kushite or
Persian garments—are likely to have been more susceptible to wilful damage and destruction.10 The
erasure and later reinscription of cartouches on some private statues during the Twenty-Sixth
Dynasty11 indicates the political sensitivity with which such temple monuments might have been
viewed at this time. It should be borne in mind, therefore, that archaising sculptures may once have
stood in contrast to a greater range of alternatives, and that reformulating older styles could have
represented a more deliberate choice than is apparent today.

6. Numbers of initiated viewers are likely to have been very restricted. Compare, for example, the comments of Baines
(2007a: 334), for whom those who might comprehend archaism in the Late Period were a “small, learned minority
[…] probably a smaller group than in the New Kingdom” and Kemp (2006: 373), for whom the “potential impact of
going back to the past in this way must have been rather limited.”
7. Baines 2007b: 193.
8. Leahy 2006: 181; it should be allowed that other Cachette-type deposits once existed, or await discovery.
9. Price 2011: 14–18.
10. See, for example, Hallmann 2009: 15–27 for Kushite sculptures and Chimko 2003: 28–33 for Persian ones. Chimko
notes (2003: 31) the possibility of differential survival because of targeted attack on ‘foreign’ traits.
11. For the erasure of the cartouches of Necho II, see Gozzoli 2000: 73–76.
 “HIS IMAGE AS PERFECT AS THE ANCESTORS” 397

2.1. Patronage
Commissioning sizeable sculpture was a privilege of the elite. Regular access—both physical and
intellectual—to most inscribed private statues in temples is likely to have been limited to the priestly
contemporaries of the individuals represented, and their successors in temple office.12 Large religious
sites, such as the Karnak complex, allowed several different focal points for ritual interactions, and
provided the opportunity for individuals with access to sufficient resources to establish a greater
presence in the form of multiple monuments. In creating a new statue, the process of selection of
works for emulation may have in part been due to the awareness and initiative of individual artisans
but, especially in the case of non-royal commissions, it is likely to have been driven by a patron.13
The “Chief Lector” Petamenope is a good example of one such individual who is identifiable in the
archaeological record. As far as inscriptional evidence permits us to say, it was Petamenope himself
who commissioned his own monuments. None bear dedication inscriptions—by a son or other
relation—of the type that are relatively common for the lower elite at this period.14 Like several of his
high-ranking contemporaries,15 Petamenope was well-placed to commission a large number of statues
using his personal resources during his own lifetime, rather than being commemorated posthumously,
as seems to have been more usual at Karnak at this time.16
Petamenope was, quite clearly, a ‘knower.’ His apparent antiquarian interests are well-attested in
his monuments and imply genuine personal involvement in the creative process.17 Of at least 12
statues attested for him, his œuvre includes contemporary forms that were commonly used to
represent elite men—naophorus and block statues—but also types which were less usual in the
Twenty-Sixth Dynasty and were probably more highly-regarded for being able to stand out. Two of
Petamenope’s statues, both from the Karnak Cachette, are frequently cited for their overt emulation of
ancient forms. One statue, in quartzite, depicts Petamenope as a squatting scribe with close-cropped
hair in a manner strongly reminiscent of Old Kingdom examples.18 In the other, of calcite-alabaster,
he is shown seated on a cube ‘throne’ in a pose often encountered in sculptures of Old or Middle
Kingdom officials, with a wig of Middle Kingdom type.19

12. Klotz (2012: 143–144) discusses specialised priestly knowledge of cryptographic texts on some temple statues of the
Thirtieth Dynasty; the implication here is of deliberate literary interest for a viewer/reader.
13. For a general discussion of the factors involved in statue creation, see Kjølby 2007, I: 53–56. On a commemorative
‘strategy’ realised through multiple monuments, see Leahy 2011: 197–223.
14. Discussed with reference to Late Period statues from the Karnak Cachette in Price 2011: 100–101.
15. See, for example, the sculpture of Montuemhat (Leclant 1961), Harwa (Gunn & Engelbach 1931: 791–815),
Akhamenru (Lichtheim 1948: 163–179), Somtutefnakht (Leahy 2011: 197–223), and Horudja (Leahy 2016). The
statues of each of these men all lack dedication inscriptions.
16. Price 2011: 124–137.
17. A good example is the ‘Perovski Tablet,’ from Petamenope’s tomb (TT 33) (Säve-Söderbergh 1994: 337–354). This
blue-green slab of polished stone is inscribed with chapters 26, 30 and 64 of the Book of the Dead, and makes a play
between the content and heart-scarab-like format of the inscription: Hagen 2013: 206–208. For an overview of the
‘scholarly’ nature of the texts within the tomb, which specifically address interested visitors, see Traunecker 2014:
205–234.
18. JE 37341 = CG 48615. For full bibliography, see now: Karnak Cachette Database/446.
19. JE 36578 = CG 48620. For full bibliography, see now: Karnak Cachette Database/11. The selection of calcite-alabaster
is very unusual at this period and would have stood out in contrast to other, darker stones. For the significance of a
Thirtieth Dynasty-early Ptolemaic use of calcite-alabaster-travertine for a strongly archaising royal statue, see Baines
& Riggs 2001: 104–105.
398 CAMPBELL PRICE

Another of Petamenope’s statues also makes marked reference to past forms, but is comparatively
little-cited in the literature. This standing sculpture is made of sandstone and also comes from the
Cachette (fig. 1).20 In the earliest discussion of the statue in print, Grégoire Loukianoff21 noted the style
of the sculpture as “archaïsant s’inspirant de la manière du Moyen Empire.” Subsequently, however,
comments made about the archaising features of the statue have generally concerned biographical
elements in its texts.22 The visual appeal of this statue may have been overlooked because of its
comparatively small scale: it is broken at the ankles, but when complete would have stood, with a base,
at about 1 metre tall. Petamenope is depicted wearing a bag wig and stands with his arms extended,
palms placed flat on a long kilt, in a pose well-attested in Middle Kingdom private23 and royal24
sculpture. The newly-installed statue would have looked unusual at Twenty-Sixth Dynasty Karnak,
and reference to specific older statues standing within the temple complex may have been intended.
For example, the same pose is adopted in a standing statue of well-known Amenhotep son of Hapu,25
which itself appears archaising in the context of Eighteenth Dynasty sculpture.26 A fragmentary
parallel exists in a Twenty-Sixth Dynasty statue now in Copenhagen.27 This strongly echoes the
Amenhotep son of Hapu piece, pointing towards the deployment of the same archaising pose in other
sculptures at this time. Even allowing for the vagaries of preservation, however, such forms are not
likely to have been common; an important factor that contributed to their visual impact.
The first column of inscription on the long kilt asserts the statue to have been “given as a favour of
the king” (di m Hswt nt xr nswt). This is the last attested example of a formula which first appears on
the statues of high officials at the end of the Middle Kingdom.28 The ‘favour formula’ almost always
appears as the opening statement of a longer inscription in a prominent position, making the assertion
of royal favour visually salient. The formula’s pattern of use is instructive. Around ten attestations are
known from the late Middle Kingdom. Examples from the Eighteenth Dynasty number around a

20. JE 37389. For full bibliography, see now: Karnak Cachette Database/249.
21. Loukianoff 1937: 224.
22. Affara 2005: 5–15 (citing Old Kingdom phraseology and orthography); Heise 2007: 101–102, 336, 339 (citing Middle
and New Kingdom parallels for biographical formulae). For the entire corpus of Petamenope’s monuments, see now
Gundlach 2013. Recently, both Gundlach (2013, I, 93) and Traunecker (2014: 210, n. 28), note the similarity of JE
37389 to Middle Kingdom models. I am grateful to Meg Gundlach for access to her unpublished dissertation.
23. See, for example, the less-than-lifesize statues of Amenemhatankh (Louvre E 11053; Delange 1987: 69–71) and an
unnamed man (Louvre A77; Delange 1987: 89–90). The looped protrusion above Petamenope’s belt is also a standard
feature of Middle Kingdom male sculpture (Simon Connor, personal communication).
24. For example, the over-lifesize statue of Amenemhat III, reused by Merenptah, in the same pose (Berlin 1121; Wildung
2003: 66). This pose is less frequently encountered in New Kingdom royal sculpture.
25. CG 551; Varille 1968: 54–56, pl. 11.
26. Sourouzian 1991: 347–348. Saite veneration of the sage is illustrated in an appeal to him by a daughter of Psamtek I on
a statue base (Wild 1958: 406–413).
27. Copenhagen ÆIN 84 (statue of Paefherihes, with two columns of inscription on kilt); Jørgensen 2009: 68–70. Another
parallel is the roughly contemporary standing image of an official named Psamtek beneath the chin of a Hathor cow,
from his tomb at Saqqara (CG 784; Russmann 1989: 185–188). Bothmer (1969: 32) notes the rarity of inscription on
the kilt of standing figures, citing four further examples with hands held at the sides (CG 902; CG 42248; JE 37442;
Louvre 13106).
28. Price 2011: 138–159; Delvaux 1998, unseen by me, discusses the formula extensively.
 “HIS IMAGE AS PERFECT AS THE ANCESTORS” 399

dozen and are also restricted to statues of the very high elite, including several each for Senenmut29
and Amenhotep son of Hapu.30 Use of the formula disappears from non-royal sculpture during the
Ramesside Period, only to reappear in the Twenty-Second Dynasty where it occurs on statues of
individuals holding a wider variety of titles.
In view of the huge number of inscribed private monuments known, the use of the favour formula
was clearly very sparing.31 To assert that a monument was given as a royal favour vaunts status
through closeness to the king. The worn laps of several New Kingdom scribal statues bearing the
formula attest to their continued ability to attract attention long after they were set up.32 These statues
are very likely to have remained accessible and to have enjoyed some ongoing form of attention even if
not of active, regular ritual. As a result, private statues marked as given by favour of the king are
among the most likely to be perceived as successful within the temple. It is not surprising, therefore,
that such a statue could have been chosen as a model by Petamenope or his artisans.
Petamenope’s use of the favour formula is separated from its nearest precursor by over a century.
This does not seem likely to be a real assertion of closeness to the king, which would be very
uncharacteristic for Petamenope, who never mentions a king by name on any of his monuments.33
Another statue from the Karnak Cachette, belonging to a Twenty-Sixth Dynasty High Priest of
Heliopolis named Horudja, son of Harwa, has an inscription stating that “His Majesty gave his statues
from the royal workshop (wabt nswt) […] given as favour of [the king].”34 This assertion is surely to be
connected to Psamtek I, named elsewhere on the statue, and implies the possibility of genuine royal
provision at this period.35 However, in Petamenope’s case the selection and use of the favour
formula—arranged prominently as an initial statement, in the same manner as it appeared on Middle
Kingdom statues—provided an additional stamp of affected antiquity to an already conspicuously
archaising sculpture. This would potentially allow two distinct levels of understanding. While the
statue type could be recognised as a rare and old-fashioned one by individuals familiar with such
forms, the use of such a specific text formula would only be recognised by more informed ‘scholars.’
These allusions to forms of the distant past had one main desired effect: visual impact. Despite the
less-than-lifesize scale of the piece, the statue’s unusual form would make it stand out from
contemporary styles common in the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty and perhaps associate it with old pieces
still standing at Karnak. The purpose of the combination of archaising form and inscription was to
arrest the attention of knowledgeable passers-by and to optimise the possibility of interaction with
them.

29. Dorman (1988: 173 and n. 53) lists seven statues with the formula including one variant with an unnamed ‘god’s wife’
as donor. Another example of this variant for Senenmut has recently been identified on a previously unrecognised
statue of him in Manchester Museum (Price forthcoming a).
30. Varille 1968: 9.
31. The connection between statues bearing the formula and the concept of favour in the First Millennium BC will be
explored in a future study (Price forthcoming b). The rarity of occurrences of the formula and the apparent literal
force of its assertion make the suggestion by Galán (2003: 222) that the formula is a variant of the Htp-di-nsw
unsustainable.
32. See for example, Ashmolean 1913.163 (Amenhotep Huy); Gardiner 1913: 33, pl. 79.
33. See recently, Gundlach 2013, I: 50–51; Traunecker 2014: 227. The strong impression of Petamenope is as an
independent agent, free from direct royal control or the obligation to acknowledge this.
34. JE 37403 + T. 13/1/21/167; Leahy 2016.
35. Leahy 2016, makes a good case and cites parallels for this arrangement within continuous text.
400 CAMPBELL PRICE

2.2. Process
Another statue from Karnak attests to the process by which sculptural forms are likely to have been
transmitted during the First Millennium BC. The almost-lifesize seated pair statue of the Eighteenth
Dynasty mayor of Thebes Sennefer and his wife Senetnay, a royal wet-nurse, is well-known and well-
illustrated (fig. 2).36 It is of high-quality workmanship and most likely derived from a royal
workshop.37 A secondary inscription on the side of the statue (fig. 3), originally interpreted as an
artisan’s signature,38 was correctly identified by Marianne Eaton-Krauss39 as a much later re-
dedication by two Twenty-Second Dynasty draughtsmen.
Pair statues of a man and wife together are unusual in a temple context because they are associated
with the conjugal relationship more appropriate for the tomb.40 Eaton-Krauss cautiously suggests41
that Sennefer and Senetnay’s statue was reinterpreted in connection with the worship of Osiris and
was relocated to the Osirian area of north Karnak some time after the New Kingdom. It seems
plausible that this would have happened during the Third Intermediate Period, around the time the
re-dedication was added. The possibility exists that the dyad of Sennefer and his wife may originally
have been set up in their tomb chapel (TT 96b). The statue closely follows the iconography of the
couple in the chapel’s painted scenes,42 in many of which Sennefer wears the same prominent double-
ib and Gold of Favour jewellery that appears on his statue form. In some scenes, the tomb owner,
sometimes accompanied by his wife, is subject to purification rites from the Opening of the Mouth, a
ritual known to have been performed on statues “in the House of Gold.”43
If the dyad was originally set up in their tomb chapel, at some point in ancient times a decision
was made to bring it across the river to Karnak. Other Eighteenth Dynasty funerary monuments from
the west bank have been discovered at Karnak,44 although it is not clear at what point these were
transported or in what context they were reinterpreted. Movement of Sennefer and Senetnay’s statue
from their tomb chapel may have coincided with a renewed level of activity in and around the nearby
Valley of the Kings during the Twenty-Second Dynasty.45 It is uncertain how well-known Sennefer
himself was after the statue was first set up or when the abrasion began. Eaton-Krauss speculated that
the “imposing appearance of the group, not least the Gold of Favour worn by Sennefer, was
responsible for attracting the attention” of the Twenty-Second Dynasty draughtsmen.46 However, in

36. JE 36574 = CG 42126. For full bibliography, see now: Karnak Cachette Database/1.
37. Bryan 1987: 9.
38. Legrain 1906: 78.
39. Eaton-Krauss 1999: 115.
40. Price 2016.
41. Eaton-Krauss 1999: 119, n. 35.
42. See, for example, Hodel-Hoenes 2000: 112–139. On the probability that the variously named wives in the tomb chapel
represent the same woman, see Eaton-Krauss 1999: 113, n. 2. For the family and the involved female figures compare
also Laboury 2007: 43–52.
43. Otto 1960, II: 34; Fischer-Elfert 1998: 32.
44. For example, the granite falsedoor of Amenhotep from his tomb found on the east bank (Traunecker 1980: 197–208)
and, more recently, that of Useramen discovered in 2010 (Boraik 2010: 181–191).
45. Taylor 1992: 186–206.
46. Eaton-Krauss 1999: 121. It is worth citing the example of a late Eighteenth Dynasty statue with gold-of-favour collars,
reused by a Twenty-Second Dynasty man named Sheshonq (JE 36988 = CG 42194). For full bibliography, see now:
Karnak Cachette Database/193.
 “HIS IMAGE AS PERFECT AS THE ANCESTORS” 401

view of the scarcity of pair statues at Karnak, the dyad form might have been a cause of attraction in
itself.
The institution to which the draughtsmen were affiliated is read by Eaton-Krauss as the “Two
Treasuries of Amun,”47 although she notes Helck’s comment that this is the only instance of this
designation in a title. More plausibly, the hieroglyphs can be read as a writing of the “House of Gold”
(Hwt-nbw). Older renderings of this term focus on the economic aspects of a ‘Treasury,’ with reference
to temples and palaces.48 Yet an important function of the House of Gold appears to have been as a
workshop, an institution into which artisans had to be initiated.49 This is the location specified as the
one in which statues are enlivened as part of the “Opening of the Mouth” ritual.50 Surprisingly little
has been written about the latter aspect of this intriguing institution, and an attempt to account for the
apparently diverse nuances of the term is presently lacking.
It is worth citing in this regard a scene from the tomb chapel of the early Ramesside Vizier Paser
(TT 106).51 Paser praises artisans in the House of Gold:
Hsi T(w) PtH pA sanx
nfr nfr pAi twt n nb ir.n=k
im xpr=f mi pA iswt
xr.tw m pr-aA anx wDA snb
May Ptah praise you, sculptor!
Really perfect is this statue of the lord which you have made.
“Let it become as one of ancient times!”
so said Pharaoh, l.p.h.
The nuances of this text are open to interpretation but it seems clear that the replication of a
sculptural form from ‘ancient times’ is viewed in very positive terms. It is important that Paser’s scene
is captioned as taking place in the House of Gold. This provides a rare representation of what might go
on in this institution, whose workings seem in other contexts to be kept deliberately obscure. The
context of Paser’s scene is the production of royal sculpture. A Twenty-Sixth Dynasty official named
Wahibre-Wennefer holds the titles “Overseer of all Royal Works, Overseer of the Royal Workshop,
Controller of the House of Gold” (imy-r kAt nbt nt nswt imy-r wabt nswt xrp Hwt-nbw),52 implying a
link between these institutions in the First Millennium BC.
The association between the two Twenty-Second Dynasty draughtsmen who added their text to
the dyad of Sennefer and Senetnay and the House of Gold is, therefore, significant. It provides a
material connection with the process of transmission which simply does not survive (or is not made
explicit) in other sources. Eighteenth Dynasty inspiration for Twenty-Second Dynasty sculpture is
well-known.53 The House of Gold—rather than the House of Life, often cited as the chief seat of

47. Eaton-Krauss 1999: 115 and n. 19.

48. Schott 1977: 739.
49. See, with reference to the late Eighteenth Dynasty stela of Hatiay (Leiden V1), Kruchten 1992: 116–118; Willems 1998:
232–234.
50. See Traunecker 1989: 108–110; Otto 1960, II: 34; Fischer-Elfert 1998: 32.
51. Assmann 1992: 43–45.
52. Alexandria no. 435: Mahfouz 2007: 128–129. It may be significant that the owner of the statue bore these titles and
chose this archaising style to represent his family. See below, §2.3. For a statue “given as favour of [the king]” from the
wabt nswt, see Leahy 2016, text note l.
53. See, for example, Leahy 2006: 182–184; Morkot 2003: 93–95.
402 CAMPBELL PRICE

learning and knowledge transmission—must have played an important role not just in the creation
and activation of statues but in the formulation of their designs. This need not have been just a
physical building,54 but accords well with the social institution for maintaining canonical forms
proposed by Davis.55

2.3. Motivations
The third and final monument that I wish to discuss is a family group statue, showing six figures
within a niche or naos shrine (fig. 4).56 It comes from Memphis, most probably from the temple of
Ptah. The niche form is rare after the late Middle Kingdom, at which time it is primarily found in the
setting of a tomb chapel.57 The niche type reappears in temple contexts during the Late Period,
especially during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. The appearance of the figures here seems to allude
directly to the Middle Kingdom, with the Hathoric wigs of the women being particularly marked.
Again, the main problem of interpretation lies in the extent to which meaningful allusions are
intended. It is worth mentioning in this context the existence of a tomb chamber close to Memphis, at
Saqqara, investigated by the Egypt Exploration Society. This originally dates to the Old Kingdom and
contains a frieze of rock-cut statues set within a niche which, their excavator noted, “appear to have
been restored and painted in the Late Period.”58 The resurgence in the family group statue form in the
Late Period displays a particular concern with genealogy and lineage typical of temple society at that
period. It is no coincidence, therefore, that most examples with preserved texts carry long
genealogies.59
Indeed, the texts on JE 36728 have mainly attracted genealogical interest,60 but it is the series of
statements regarding the monument’s dedication that seems most worthy of comment. The text on
the top surface of the niche is divided into six sections, each of which relate to one of the figures
carved in front. This format is, to my knowledge, without parallel for a statue.61 In form, the text is an
extended and elaborate dedication inscription tailored to each figure. It is voiced from the perspective
of Ankh-Sheshonq, the dedicator, and commemorates (in addition to himself) his grandmother,
father, mother, son and wife. Each caption uses a different verb to describe the statue-form of every
individual, each a variation on a standard statement of dedication that is well-attested on private
statues at this period.62 Most interesting is the final part of Ankh-Sheshonq’s dedication for his son:

54. For the Hwt-nbw of Tuthmose III at Karnak, see Traunecker 1989: 89–111.
55. Davis 1989: 2, 105.
56. JE 36728; Vernus 1976: 3–15. A partial parallel, with four figures and apparently also dedicated at the temple of Ptah,
recently came to light in a restitution case of objects returned to Egypt from Germany: http://www.enca.com/africa/
stolen-egyptian-artifacts-returned.
57. Mahran 2010: 268–285. For a collection of late Middle Kingdom examples with mummiform figures, see Whelan
2007: 144–154; cf. the comments of Jurman 2010: 83, on chronological distribution of examples.
58. Emery 1965: 6. Compare the comments of Mahran (2010: 281), who does not propose a direct link between Old
Kingdom examples and Late Period emulations of the niche form.
59. See, for example, those cited in Mahran 2010: 275, 279.
60. Morkot & James 2009: 29, n. 99 for references.
61. Although one may compare the Nineteenth Dynasty monument of Amenemipet (Vienna 1069), showing 25 figures in
a family group, though only captioned with names and titles (Trapani 1998: 1165–1176).
62. Price 2011: 100–101.
 “HIS IMAGE AS PERFECT AS THE ANCESTORS” 403

ki=f nfr mi tpyw-a diw n=f snw m Hwt-ptH

His image as perfect as the ancestors to whom offering-loaves are given in the temple of Ptah
Here is a simple statement of the function of the monument: the statue-form of Ankh-Sheshonq’s
son is likened to those of antiquity; specifically, those who receive offerings in the temple. This is a
subtle but clear acknowledgement that some statues are more successful than others, some stand out
better and receive more attention. Given the resemblance of Ankh-Shoshonq’s monument to older
models, might this application of the term nfr—to be compared with the text of Paser, cited above—be
an appraisal of the qualities worthy of reproduction?
In his commentary on the monument’s inscriptions, Vernus63 recognises that Ankh-Sheshonq’s
title of “Overseer of Artisans” (Hry-Hmww) was not merely an honorary one in relation to the cult of
Ptah. Interpreted alongside mention of Ankh-Sheshonq’s responsibilities for works in the temple, it is
more likely a reflection of his practical involvement in the creation and maintenance of monuments.
Ankh-Sheshonq’s title “Keeper of Secrets of the House of Gold” (Hry-sStA Hwt-nbw) is therefore
significant in connection with the strongly archaising form of his own monument. He is someone who
would have witnessed the longevity—or impermanence—of old monuments within the temple; he
would have known which ones still drew the attention of passers-by and which did not. It is tempting
to see Ankh-Sheshonq’s own hand in the creation of this statue. Regardless of his possible
participation in, or direction of, its carving, it is certainly plausible to observe in the composition of
the statue’s texts Ankh-Sheshonq’s understanding of the power of replication of past models in
causing the names of his family members to live.

3. SUMMARY
Elite temple sculpture of the First Millennium BC provides an interesting test case with which to
estimate the impact of archaism. In doing so, interpretations should attend to hard evidence and not
become overly concerned with semantics. The rich dataset—such as the still under-exploited
sculptural material from the Karnak Cachette—allows something positive to be said about patterns of
deliberate selection and redeployment, and about the nature of that process and also its motivations.
For those wealthy enough to commission a number of temple statues during the Late Period, the
reformulation of ancient sculptural forms was à la mode. As such, along with Davis, archaism ought
best to be viewed as an aspect of modernism. To the extent that the process of reproduction was
regulated in any organised way, it is possible to suggest the House of Gold as a kind of institutional
sponsor of research into past forms and reformulation of them. The reality is, however, likely to have
been haphazard, and driven by the desires and interests of a patron such as the Chief Lector
Petamenope.
The evidence shows the motivation behind archaising reformulations to be a practical one. Rather
than merely emulating the prestigious forms of older works, these uses seek to actively repeat the
perceived effects of successful statues from the past. The aim seems not to have been to replicate a
statue so as to convince an audience that it was much older than it actually was (though this effect still
results in confusion today), but rather to vaunt access to skilled labour and connoisseurship of past
motifs. Temple sculpture should be viewed within the reality of a competitive environment. While the
original positioning of most sculpture is difficult to gauge, it is likely that several statues (of potentially

63. Vernus 1976: 8. Vernus (1976: 10, n. j) notes the function of the “House of Gold” as the place where statues are made
and activated, although he does not relate this to the unusual form of the statue.
404 CAMPBELL PRICE

very different types, styles and motifs) were clustered in the same areas where, of necessity, they had to
jostle for attention. The use of archaising features in the Late Period—as, conceivably, at other times—
was driven by a real need to command recognition and elicit response. The ultimate hope for such
self-conscious works was to replicate the continued prominence of monuments of individuals from
the past; that desire has been fulfilled, in a strange way, by the continuing attention of modern
scholars of archaising works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AFFARA, Manal. 2005. A Saite Statue in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (JE 37389), in: DE 62, 5–18.
ASSMANN, Jan. 1992. Ein Gespräch im Goldhaus über Kunst und andere Gegenstände, in: Ingrid GAMER-
WALLERT and Wolfgang HELCK (eds), Gegengabe. Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut, Tübingen, 43–60.
BAINES, John. 2007a. On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art, in: Visual and Written Culture in
Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 298–337.
————. 2007b. Concepts and Uses of the Past, in: Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 179–
201.
BAINES, John and RIGGS, Christina. 2001. Archaism and Kingship: A Late Royal Statue and Its Early Dynastic
Model, in: JEA 87, 103–118.
BORAIK, Mansour. 2010. A Granite False-Door of Vizier Useramun Discovered at Karnak, in: Christian
LEBLANC and Gihane ZAKI (eds), Les temples de millions d’années et le pouvoir royal à Thèbes au Nouvel
Empire, Cairo (= Memnonia supplement no.2), 181–191.
BOTHMER, Bernard. 1969. Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period, 700 B.C.–A.D. 100, 2nd edition, New York.
BRYAN, Betsy. 1987. Portrait Sculpture of Thutmose IV, in: JARCE 24, 3–20.
CHIMKO, Corey. 2003. Foreign Pharaohs: Self-Legitimization and Indigenous Reaction in Art and Literature, in:
JSSEA 30, 15–57.
DAVIS, Whitney. 1989. The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art, Cambridge.
————. 2003. Archaism and Modernism in the Reliefs of Hesy-Ra, in: John TAIT (ed.) ‘Never Had the Like
Occurred’: Ancient Egypt’s View of its Past, London, 31–60.
DELANGE, Elizabeth. 1987. Catalogue des statues égyptiennes du Moyen Empire, 2060–1560 avant J.-C., Paris.
DELVAUX, Luc. 1998. Donné en récompense de la part du roi (djw m Hswt nt xr nsw), unpublished PhD
dissertation, Strasbourg.
DORMAN, Peter. 1988. The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology, London.
EATON-KRAUSS, Marianne. 1999. The Fate of Sennefer and Senetnay at Karnak Temple and in the Valley of the
Kings, in: JEA 85, 113–129.
EMERY, Walter B. 1965. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at North Saqqara 1964–1965, in: JEA 51, 3–8.
FISCHER-ELFERT, Hans-Werner. 1998. Die Vision von der Statue im Stein. Studien zum altägyptischen
Mundöffnungsritual, Heidelberg.
GALÁN, Jose M. 2003. Amenhotep Son of Hapu as Intermediary Between the People and God, in: Zahi HAWASS
(ed.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, vol. 2, Cairo, 221–229.
GARDINER, Alan H. 1913. The Inscriptions of Amenhotep, in: W.M.F. PETRIE et al. (eds), Tarkhan and
Memphis V, London, 33–36.
GOZZOLI, Roberto. 2000. The Statue BM EA 37891 and the Erasure of Necho II’s Names, in: JEA 86, 67–80.
GUNDLACH, Meg. 2013. Typology and Artisanship in Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Theban Shabtis: The Chief Lector
Priest Pedamenope, unpublished PhD dissertation, Swansea.
GUNN, Battiscombe and ENGELBACH, Reginald. 1931. The Statues of Harwa, in: BIFAO 30, 791–815.
 “HIS IMAGE AS PERFECT AS THE ANCESTORS” 405

HAGEN, Fredrik. 2013. Constructing Textual Identity: Framing and Self-Reference in Egyptian Texts, in: Roland
ENMARCH and Verena LEPPER (eds), Ancient Egyptian Literature: Theory and Practice, Oxford, 185–209.
HALLMANN, Aleksandra. 2009. The “Kushite Cloak” of Pekartror and Iriketakana: Novelty or Tradition?, in:
JARCE 43, 15–27.
HEISE, Jens. 2006. Erinnern und Gedenken. Aspekte der biographischen Inscriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit,
Fribourg and Göttingen.
HODEL-HOENES, Sigrid. 2000. Life and Death in Ancient Egypt: Scenes from Private Tombs in New Kingdom
Thebes, Ithaca and London.
JØRGENSEN, Mogens. 2009. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Catalogue. Egypt IV: Late Egyptian Sculpture 1080 BC–AD
400, Copenhagen.
JURMAN, Claus. 2010. The Trappings of Kingship—Remarks on Archaism, Rituals and Cultural Diglossia in
Saite Egypt, in: Aegyptus et Pannonia IV. Acta Symposii anno 2006, Budapest, 73-118.
KEMP, Barry. 2006. Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization, 2nd edition, London.
KJØLBY, Annette. 2007. New Kingdom Private Temple Statues: A Study of Agency, Decision-making and
Materiality, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Copenhagen.
KLOTZ, David. 2012. The Peculiar Naophorous Statuette of a Heliopolitan Priest. Hannover, Museum August
Kestner 1935.200.510, in: ZÄS 139, 136–144.
KRUCHTEN, Jean-Marie. 1992. Un sculpteur des images divines ramessides, in: Michèle BROZE and Phillippe
TALON (eds), L’atelier de l’orfèvre. Mélanges offerts à Ph. Derchain, Leuven, 107–118.
LABOURY, Dimitri. 2007. Sennefer et Aménémopé—une affaire de famille, in: Égypte, Afrique & Orient 45, 43–
52.
LEAHY, Anthony. 2006. A Battered Statue of Shedsunefertem, High Priest of Memphis (BM EA 25), in: JEA 92,
169–184.
————. 2011. Somtutefnakht of Heracleopolis. The Art and Politics of Self-Commemoration in the Seventh
Century BC, in: Didier DEVAUCHELLE (ed.), La XXVIe dynastie : continuités et ruptures. Promenade saïte
avec Jean Yoyotte. Actes du colloque international organisé les 26 et 27 novembre 2004 à l’Université Charles-
de-Gaulle—Lille 3, Paris, 197–223.
————. 2016. A Heliopolitan in the Temple of Amun at Karnak in the Reign of Psammetichus I, in: Laurent
COULON (ed.), La Cachette de Karnak. Nouvelles perspectives sur les découvertes de Georges Legrain,
Cairo (= Bibliothèque d’étude 161), 411–432
LECLANT, Jean. 1961. Montouemhat quatrième prophète d’Amon, prince de la ville, Cairo.
LEGRAIN, Georges. 1906. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire. Statues et statuettes de
rois et de particuliers I, Cairo.
LICHTHEIM, Miriam. 1948. The High Steward Akhamenru, in: JNES 7, 163–179.
LOUKIANOFF, Grégoire. 1937. Les statues et les objets funéraires de Peduamonapet, in: ASAE 37, 219–232.
MAHFOUZ, El-Sayed. 2007. L’objet no 435 du musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie : une stèle-niche d’époque
saïte ?, in: BIFAO 107, 127–139.
MAHRAN, Heba I. M. 2010. The Pseudo-Naos of the Late Period. A Comparative View, in: Ladislav BAREŠ, Filip
COPPENS and Květa SMOLÁRIKOVÁ, (eds), Egypt in Transition. Social and Religious Development of Egypt in
the First Millennium BC, Prague, 268–285.
MORKOT, Robert. 2003. Archaism and Innovation in Art from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-Sixth dynasty,
in: John TAIT (ed.), ‘Never Had the Like Occurred’: Ancient Egypt’s View of Its Past, London, 79–99.
MORKOT, Robert and JAMES, Peter. 2009. Peftauawybast, King of Nen-Nesut: Genealogy, Art History, and the
Chronology of Late Libyan Egypt, in: Antiguo Oriente 7, 13–55.
OTTO, Eberhard. 1960. Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual, Wiesbaden.
406 CAMPBELL PRICE

PRICE, Campbell. 2011. Materiality, Archaism and Reciprocity. The Conceptualisation of the Non-Royal Statue at
Karnak during the Late Period (c. 750–30 BC), unpublished PhD dissertation, Liverpool.
————. 2016. Archaism and Filial Piety. An Unusual Pair Statue from the Cachette (JE 37136), in: Laurent
COULON (ed.), La Cachette de Karnak. Nouvelles perspectives sur les découvertes de Georges Legrain,
Cairo (= Bibliothèque d’étude 161), 485–504.
————. forthcoming a. A New Statue of Senenmut Identified in Manchester.
————. forthcoming b. The Meaning of Favour: The Block Statue Sign as Ideogram and Determinative.
RUSSMANN, Edna. 1989. Egyptian Sculpture, Cairo and Luxor, Austin.
SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, Torgny. 1994. De l’Assassif à Terijoki : La “Pierre Perovski” de l’Ermitage, in: Cathérine
BERGER EL-NAGGAR (ed.) Hommages à Jean Leclant IV. Varia, Cairo, 337–354.
SCHOTT, Erika. 1977. Goldhaus, in: Wolfgang HELCK and Eberhard OTTO (eds), Lexikon der Ägyptologie,
Band II, Wiesbaden, 739–740.
SOUROUZIAN, Hourig. 1991. La statue d’Amenhotep fils de Hapou, âgé, un chef-d’œuvre de la XVIIIe dynastie,
in: MDAIK 47, 341–355.
TAYLOR, John H. 1992. Aspects of the History of the Valley of the Kings in the Third Intermediate Period, in:
Nicholas REEVES (ed.), After Tut’ankhamun; Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes,
London, 186–206.
TRAPANI, Marcella. 1998. The Monument of Imeneminet (Naples, Inv. 1069): An Essay of Interpretation, in:
Christopher EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3–9
September 1995, Leuven, 1165–1176.
TRAUNECKER, Claude. 1980. La stèle fausse-porte du vice-chancelier Aménophis, in: Cahiers de Karnak VI,
1973–1977, 197–208.
————. 1989. Le “Château de l’Or” de Thoutmosis III et les magasins nord du temple d’Amon, in: CRIPEL
11, 89–111.
————. 2014. The ‘Funeral Palace’ of Padiamenope (TT 33): Tomb, Place of Pilgrimage, and Library. Current
Research, in: Elena PISCHIKOVA, Julia BUDKA and Kenneth GRIFFIN (eds), Thebes in the First Millennium
BC, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 205–234.
VARILLE, Alexandre. 1968. Inscriptions concernant l’architecte Amenhotep, fils de Hapou, Cairo.
VERNUS, Pascal. 1976. Inscriptions de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire (III), in: BIFAO 76, 1–15.
WHELAN, Paul. 2007. An Unfinished Late Middle Kingdom Stela from Abydos, in: Wolfram GRAJETZKI (ed.),
Life and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, London,
130–154.
WILD, Henri. 1958. Ex-voto d’une princesse saïte à l’adresse d’Amenhotep fils de Hapou, in: MDAIK 16, 406–
413.
WILDUNG, Dietrich. 2003. Looking Back into the Future: the Middle Kingdom as a Bridge to the Past, in: John
TAIT (ed.), ‘Never Had the Like Occurred’: Ancient Egypt’s View of Its Past, London, 61–78.
WILLEMS, Harco. 1998. The One and the Many in Stela Leiden V1, in: CdÉ 73, 231–243.
 “HIS IMAGE AS PERFECT AS THE ANCESTORS” 407

Fig. 1. Standing statue of Petamenope (JE 37389).

With permission of the Institut français d’archéologie orientale/CLES/Karnak Cachette Database Project.
408 CAMPBELL PRICE

Fig. 2. Pair statue of Sennefer and Senetnay (JE 36574).

With permission of the Egypt Exploration Society.
 “HIS IMAGE AS PERFECT AS THE ANCESTORS” 409

Fig. 3. Detail of inscription added to seat of JE 36574 by Twenty-Second Dynasty draughtsmen

in the House of Gold. With permission of the Egypt Exploration Society.
410 CAMPBELL PRICE

Fig. 4. Group niche statue of Ankh-Sheshonq (JE 36728). With permission of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.