Alexander the Great provided a role model for Ptolemaic rulers. His conquest of Egypt seems to have been more of a spiritual journey for a ruler who was keen to adopt the traditions of non-Greeks. No statues of Alexander have been identified due the lack of inscriptions during this period. The Macedonian appears as an Egyptian king on the walls of a shrine at Luxor temple, illustrating his close bond with Amun and the continuation of a long tradition of representing kings. Furthermore, Alexander’s journey across the Libyan desert to Siwa to visit the Oracle of Amun (Greek Ammon) and his desire to be buried there indicate a strong sympathy with Egypt and its religious traditions. Although this desire was never realized, Alexander’s body was eventually laid to rest in Alexandria, and the associated sanctuary became a focal point for the Ptolemaic royal cults.
Early Ptolemaic statues share some of the characteristics of the statues of the Thirtieth Dynasty, most notably the facial features, as characterized by a rounded face, almond-shaped eyes, and a forced smile. Numerous limestone and plaster sculptors’ models suggest that the royal image was carefully controlled from a central source (Tomoum 2005). This attention to Egyptian precedent was mirrored by the Ptolemaic royal family’s programme of financing temples. Indeed it is possible that the two go hand-in-hand and that Ptolemaic promotion of Egyptian culture mirrored religious developments that would tie the foreign dynasty and its culture to established Egyptian tradition. Even early dedications at ostensibly Greek sanctuaries such as the Sarapieion in Alexandria included Egyptian-style representations of the ruling house. At this particular site the statues took the form of two colossal sphinxes, which were most likely placed at the entrance to the sanctuary (Ashton 2001: 21). Their inclusion is significant for two reasons: firstly it shows a commitment to the role of the rulers as kings of Egypt and secondly because it links the dynasty with the Thirtieth Dynasty kings. To what extent the latter point was lost on the predominantly Greek audience is not known. However, the overall message of acculturation with Egyptian tradition must have been apparent even to the most uninformed Greeks who used that sanctuary.
The rulers continued to be presented in this traditional manner. It would be tempting to see these purely Egyptian-style statues as early representations of the Ptolemaic royal house, with the later rulers adopting Greek-style features, as described below. A representation of Kleopatra VII as Isis, which belonged to a dyad showing the queen with her son, indicates that the two styles co-existed (Ashton 2004b: 549) and that a strong Egyptian tradition continued in spite of developments elsewhere in statuary. The royal women continued to be presented in the same manner as their Egyptian and Nubian predecessors. Like earlier royal women Arsinoe II was depicted with a double uraeus (cobra) on her brow. This phenomenon seems to have distinguished principal royal women from others in the harem but in the case of this particular queen most probably also distinguished her from her brother’s first wife, Arsinoe I (Ashton 2005). The majority of royal women wore a single cobra, no doubt because Ptolemaic royal men, with the exception of Ptolemy VIII, typically had only one official wife. There was no need, therefore, to distinguish the principal wife.
In the second or first century bc the triple uraeus appeared on statuary. Specialists disagree over the identification of the queen and, indeed, whether this characteristic was associated with a single royal woman (Ashton 2004b). The Egyptian-style statues of royal women represent both the role of consort and of goddess. For the former the queens typically wear a crown consisting of a sun-disc, double plumes, and cow’s horns, and wear a cobra on their brow. There is an exception to the crown in the case of Arsinoe II, who appears with a distinctive crown based on that of the god Geb (Dils 1998). When depicting a goddess the Egyptian artists continued to utilize their usual iconographic repertoire. For deified queens a vulture headdress was added to the attributes mentioned above. Such statues are rare, and it seems that divine status was assumed along with the role of royal wife.
Private statuary continued to be produced and is evidence of the close bonds between the royal house and the Egyptian elite. Closest to the Ptolemaic Egyptian royal images are the so-called ‘‘egg-heads’’ on account of their prominent skulls (figure 42.1). Like the royal statues, this particular group is difficult to date because stylistically they are similar to the ‘‘portraits’’ found on royal statuary of Thirtieth Dynasty as well as the Ptolemaic Period. Indeed, it is not impossible that such statues were produced during both periods. An inscribed example identifies the subject as a ‘‘prophet of Horemheb’’ (Bothmer 1960: 127). Other statues, generally dated to the second and first centuries bc, have portrait features that differ from the standard royal image. There has been a considerable degree of debate concerning the extent of outside influences on such statuary (Ashton 2004b: 546-8). The faces are non-idealized in that they are not uniform. The rounded youthful faces are replaced by images of men with lined faces, often with heavy eyelids and prominent cheekbones that are reminiscent of statues of Senwosret III in the Twelfth Dynasty. A survey of this group (Bothmer 1960; Bianchi 1988: 125-39) shows a group of individual portraits, perhaps in a literal sense, and, whilst some officials still preferred to be depicted in a more traditional manner, mimicking the ‘‘portrait’’ of the ruling king, some may have preferred a more autonomous and perhaps realistic style of representation. The idea that realistic representation existed in Egyptian sculpture is controversial, and it could be argued that this group of statues formed part of an archaizing phenomenon that harked back to the Middle Kingdom. It is worthwhile considering whether the similarity of facial features is not simply characteristic of the Ancient Egyptians as a race of people, and an image type that the Greek rulers aspired to even though they had no ethnic or racial connection.
More stylized statues appear in the later Ptolemaic and early Roman Periods (Walker and Higgs 2001: 178-83). The idea that their portraits are realistic representations seems less plausible than it is for the aforementioned group. However, many of the representations include the depiction of natural hair - a characteristic that owes more to Greek than Egyptian tradition. Some examples still include lined faces, and, with the exception of the natural hair, the statues are Egyptian in form. The subjects were Egyptian officials, including the governor of Tanis during the reign of Ptolemy XII, the governor of Dendera during the reign of Kleopatra VII, and a priest named Hor also from the reign of Kleoptra VII. During the Roman Period more stylized versions of these private dedications were manufactured. As a group
Figure 42.1 Fragment of a meta-basalt statue of an Egyptian priest. The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge E.3.1946. Courtesy the FizwilUam Museum.
They indicate that, although Egypt was under foreign administrations, Egyptians maintained their culture and still wished to be represented in a traditional manner.
Non-royal women were also represented during the Ptolemaic Period. Examples range from private individuals who wished to make a personal offering of a statue to their god (Bothmer 1960: 118-19) to women who held an official position. One such example is the statue of Heresankh, who was a priestess of the cult of princess Philoteira, sister of Arsinoe II (Walker and Higgs 2001: 70-1). Women typically wore a plain sheath-like dress and a tripartite wig. They can be distinguished from royal women by the lack of a cobra on their brow and also because these statues often depict the subjects with their hands laid flat against their thighs, whereas royal statues have clenched fists holding a bar.
World History
