This statue belongs to a category known as "pseudo block": the arms and hands are shown, rather than integrated with the body (see for a "true" block statue 07.228.25). The feet, which also would have been visible, are missing, along with the front of the base. The sides of the base and the back pillar are finished, but were never inscribed with the name of the owner.
No image available
Open Access
As part of the Met's Open Access policy, you can freely copy, modify and distribute this image, even for commercial purposes.
API
Public domain data for this object can also be accessed using the Met's Open Access API.
This image cannot be enlarged, viewed at full screen, or downloaded.
Artwork Details
Use your arrow keys to navigate the tabs below, and your tab key to choose an item
Title:Unfinished pseudo block statue
Period:Late Period (Saite)
Dynasty:Dynasty 26
Reign:reign of Psamtik I
Date:664–610 B.C.
Geography:From Egypt
Medium:Diorite
Dimensions:H. 39.6 cm (15 9/16 in.); W. 17.1 cm (6 3/4 in.); D. 17 cm (6 11/16 in.)
Credit Line:Museum Accession
Object Number:X.85
This unfinished pseudo-block statue of breccia[1] can be dated to Dynasty 26.[2] Egyptian sculptors of the Late Period were not shy in quoting from great works or in embracing styles of earlier times. But Late Period work is far more than a farrago of borrowings. Indeed, much of it is inspired, imaginative and unmistakable in its own right. But because the sculpture of the Late Period can exhibit elements of pastiche, it can be difficult to characterize or date. For this reason, a description of a piece is often key to understanding it or establishing its date of fabrication.
This is certainly true of X.85, which was never finished and suffered considerable damage to the lower legs and base. X.85 is uninscribed and unprovenanced; even the circumstances surrounding its acquisition by the Department of Egyptian Art are unknown. It was "discovered" in the course of routine storeroom clearance in 1916 and hence its X classification. In the absence of information that might help date it, this figure invites the application of the principles of connoisseurship—the painstaking comparison of a piece alongside dated or datable[3] works—to decide its place in the larger context of Late Period sculpture. Though it may have nothing to tell us about name, rank or family connection, X.85 deserves such minute study for it includes a number of rare anatomical features.
X.85 is an example of what is sometimes referred to as a "pseudo" block statue. In the classic block statue, the body is enveloped in a cloak, although hands and feet may be left bare depending on the sculptor's intentions.[4] But in the pseudo block statue, the figure wears a loincloth or kilt, the waistband of which is often indicated by a pair of incised lines or a band of relief or hieroglyphs. Very finished examples from early Dynasty 26 (Psamtik I) often omit any suggestion of the waistband and thus convey an impression of nudity. Examples of pseudo block figures abound.[5] Interestingly, of the forty-nine Late Period statues discussed in Josephson and Eldamaty, Statues of the XXVIth and XXVth Dynasties, CGC vol. 77 (1999), twenty-seven are block figures. Nine of these are kilted / pseudo block figures. Specific examples are treated by Russmann,[6] and Tiradritti.[7] The pseudo block figure is dealt with in Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period 700 B.C.- A.D. 100 (ESLP) as a kilted figure.[8]
The Metropolitan figure is virtually nude. The only suggestion of a garment is the substantial hem visible between the shins. This creates the illusion of a taut fabric panel between the legs. Had the figure been finished, this surface would have been ideal for an inscription, a relief scene, or even a naos or divine image in shallow relief.
The bag wig[9] framing the face is deftly carved. Its brow band is carefully rounded—neither abrupt nor particularly thick. A gentle transition from brow band to forehead is characteristic of early Saite sculpture and is particularly svelte in the best examples. From the Persian period onward, the transition zone tends to be sharp, and the border often undercut so as to stand out.[10] On X.85, the swelling of the wig mimics a weighty mass of hair plunging to the shoulders. The wig's bulkiness around the ears has pressed them forward and outward. Overall, the wig is smooth and simple, quite consistent with other examples of the bag wig from early Dynasty 26.[11] The back edge of the wig is indicated all the way round the shoulders by a narrow channel. The back pillar stands out slightly from the back of the figure. From behind, the figure displays a high-waisted, violin-like profile. The pad of material on which the figure crouches may be a rudimentary cushion.[12]
The face has surely not received its final polish and there is some damage to the nose. But one can nonetheless discern brow ridges and relief lines defining the eyes. The proper right eye is distinctly slanted and lower than the left. A comparable example, also from the reign of Psamtik I, is offered by a seated statue of Basa, the Prince of Mendes.[13] Here the slanting of eyes is particularly noticeable; although both are tipped, the effect is more pronounced in the right eye. Bothmer used this trait to help distinguish realistic from idealizing features and he associated its occurrence, at this time, with work in the round from northern Egypt. This may offer some clue to the origin of X 85.[14] High delicate cheekbones and a broad nose lend variety and interest to an otherwise full and slightly chubby face. The area of the philtrum is unfortunately damaged. A short beard connects the chin to the chest.
The arms of X 85 are shown bare and neatly folded atop the knees, right over left, as is customary. The hands are open and flat.[15] Unlike their treatment in many other block figures of this period, the hands are far more than thin wafers of carving. They have a palpable, fleshy quality; but there is no suggestion of any underlying skeletal structure. What may seem a cursory and anatomically negligent treatment of the hands is really the rule. There is often more attention paid to the modeling of the legs than the upper body.[16] The area delineated by the crossed forearms, shoulders and the region of the clavicles forms a tidy plateau.[17] The manner in which the forearms and shoulders have been rounded down to this depressed area suggests that the sculptor was content with this portion of the figure and may not have intended further work. Aesthetically there seems little necessity to excavate more material back towards the clavicle region since the margins of the plateau area are treated uniformly. The pseudo block statue of Pa-di-ese treats this negative space in a fashion very like X.85.[18]
It is in examining the torso of the figure that we encounter special and rare features. The negative space between the figure's chest, thighs and underarms forms a nearly equilateral triangle. On both left and right sides, the pectoral area has been compressed so that it bulges slightly to the side. This is due to the pressure of the legs against the abdomen and thorax. The realistic elaboration of torso musculature is not unheard of in the Late Period.[19]
The treatment of the long muscles of the lower leg, however, is not typical. On both legs the peroneus longus and gastrocnemius muscles appear as prominent ridges. The former is often emphasized to signal power and virility, a sculptural shorthand that dates back to the Old Kingdom. The calf muscle especially is evident as a bulging cord of flesh. But the squashing of the calf muscle against the thigh is quite rare and occurs for the most part only in well-crafted work from the reign of Psamtik I.[20] Such vigorous and dynamic treatment of the lower leg contrasts with the bland and soft treatment of the arms. This sculptural approach is not confined just to early Dynasty 26. An example forthcoming from the reign of Psamtik II/ Necho II is Liebieghaus Museum Inv. No. 715.[21] Another, BM 134, is a kneeling figure in highly polished basalt showing bunching of the calf muscle. The figure belonged to a man named Henta, whose "great" name—Men (Khnum-ib-re)—suggests a date in the reign of Amasis (570-526 B.C.).[22] The practice actually persists through late Dynasty 26 and resurfaces as an "archaistic" feature in the fourth century.
Another characteristic of X.85, one shared by most pseudo block statues of the Late Period, is the negative space between the crossed forearms and the knees. Since the right arm invariably passes over the left, the triangle thus formed slants a bit left at the top. Vandier first identified this separate treatment of the forearms in his discussion of the pseudo block statue. He notes that it interrupts the cubic form and "accentue encore l'absence de fusion geometrique de la partie superieure du cube."[23] The triangle's base is formed by the kilt edge passing across the kneecaps.
The slight concavity of the front panel is interesting. Although any block statue can have a hollow running down the front to mark the space between the shinbones, the kind of "dishing" seen on MMA X.85 is more often observed in pseudo block statues. In this instance, the concavity matches what is seen on with other examples datable to Dynasty 26.[24] In the center of the kilt panel on X.85 is a small area of polished stone, suggesting that the front panel was prepared to receive an inscription. Because the back pillar and sides of the base also have their final polish, it is fair to assume that inscriptions were imminent on front, back and sides. Organizing the text on a block statue in this fashion is fully consistent with the early Dynasty 26. Indeed, much work from this period shows admirable restraint between the figure as three-dimensional entity and any identifying legends. It does not, for example, exhibit an abhorrence of empty space. By contrast, every available surface is inscribed on some examples from the Ptolemaic period.[25]
John McDonald, Andrew W. Mellon Fellow, 2003
Endnotes
[1] This and all other stone identifications have been confirmed by Dr. George Wheeler of the Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation. The break along the front of the base reveals a brown-black matrix with pinkish-brown inclusions that give the stone a brecciated look.
[2] Authority here for specific year dates is Jürgen von Beckerath, Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten: die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332. v. Chr, Münchner ägyptologische Studien, Bd. 46 (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1997), pp. 187–94. [3] The terms "dated' and "datable" are used in these articles according to the usage set down in Brooklyn Museum, Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period, 700 B.C. to A.D. 100 ([Brooklyn], 1960), p. x. A piece is dated on the basis of a fact contained in its inscription or a related document, whereas a piece is datable on the basis of stylistic criteria.
[4] Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne (Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1952), pp. 455–58, considers all figures with bare feet as "pseudo-statues-blocs"; but there are many cloaked figures with bare feet.
[5] e.g., CG 48624, CG 48627, CG 48633, CG 48637 and CG 48648; BMA 64.146 and MFA 68.152, to list but a few.
[6] T. G. H. James et al., eds., Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum (New York: American Federation of Arts and University of California Press at Berkeley, 2001), p. 124 (BM, EA 888).
[7] Francesco Tiradritti et al., eds., Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Vercelli: White Star, 1998, 348-349. JE 37150, an especially fine piece, has since been numbered CG 48624.
[8] ESLP cat. No. 31 and 32 (pages 37 and 38 respectively). The comment on page 37 summarizes the history of the pseudo-block form - from its emergence sometime during the Middle Kingdom through Dynasty 25 and on into the reign of Psamtik I. After a gap, it seems to resurface in the post-Persian and Ptolemaic periods, mirroring a resurgence of interest in the block statue generally.
[9] The designation "bag wig" has become hallowed by long use; but a number of scholars suspect it was a simple headcloth. So Russmann in Eternal Egypt, 239.
[10] The change is diagnostic. So ESLP emphatically declares: on page 100 ("It is one of the tell-tale signs of post-Saite sculpture") and again on page 112 (" .. . , a sculptural convention first observed toward the end of Dynasty XXVII and then occurring more and more frequently in the fourth and third centuries.").
[11] From the mid to late Dynasty 26, the wig often appears with a high, rounded crown. See CG 48648 in Josephson and Eldamaty, 109 and pl. 48. The authors date this example as late as Necho II (620-600 B.C.).
[12] ESLP, 36 observes that cushions are especially common at the end of Dynasty 25 and beginning of Dynasty 26. See MMA 35.9.1 below for an unequivocal example. Another possibility is that the sculptor planned to remove the material but never had the chance to complete his work.
[13] See ESLP, 22–23 and plate 18. Basa's statue is dated to the reign of Psamtik I by virtue of cartouches on lap and back pillar.
[14] Asymmetries in the size or orientation of the eyes are not unimpeachable dating criteria, per se: (e.g., ESLP No 46, dated to 600-575 B.C. but No. 85, dated to Dynasty XXX–XXXI).
[15] With this bit of information in hand, one can apply Bernard Bothmer's typology. of block statues. This appeared posthumously in BdE 106/2 (1994), 61–68, and is included here as Appendix I, together with a typing of all the Metropolitan Museum late period block statues. X.85 conforms to Model One, TypeV-a-3. This designation alerts us that the figure is not fully cloaked, that it possesses a chin beard reaching to the body, that its hands, arms and feet are bare and, finally, that both hands are open. The typology is useful because it doesn't attempt too much or multiply distinctions beyond our ability to generalize.
[16] See Russmann in "The Statue of Amenemope-em-hat," MMJ 8 (1973), 33–46, especially page 41. This article, which treats MMA 24.2.2, is a brilliant examination of a Late Period masterpiece. Many of the author's observations apply to X.85.
[17] In true block statues, this area is covered by the cloak and therefore appears nearly level or as gently shelving down to the forearms.
[18] The Pa-di-ese figure (CG 48648 / Cairo JE 36737) is a good parallel, even though it likely dates to the last years of Psamtik I. See Josephson and Eldamaty, 109 and plate 48.
[19] A kilted figure from a private Egyptian collection shows the breast area and three flesh folds. See Vernus in BIFAO 76 (1976), 1-16, pages 1-3 and plate III especially. Also, De Meulenaere and Yoyotte in BIFAO 83 (1983), l 13-114.
[20] For a discussion of how this muscle is treated in kneeling sculptures of the late period, see, again, Russmann MMJ 8 (1983), 41-43. The modeling of the calf muscle and other efforts to realistically render flesh and skin tend to occur in better quality work of northern origin, according to Russmann. This may be yet another indication of X85's origins.
[21] Gunter Burkard, Liebieghaus Museum Alter Plastik Agyptische Bildwerke, III, Kat.-Nr. 45, 204.
[22] The piece is treated as document IO in Ramadan el-Sayed, "Documents Relatifs a-Sais et ses Divinities", BdE LXIX (1975), 135 ff., and plate 32. Bosse is responsible for connecting this with the reign of Amasis in Die Menschliche Figur, 47, n. 118.
[23] Vandier, Manuel III, 456 and plate 152,3. The example eliciting his comment, OI 10796, is Ramesside, so the innovation had been around for some time. He could just as well have used BM EA 888 as an example of this development that extends back well into Dynasty 18 (Eternal Egypt, 124-125). Yet however early the combination of pseudo clad figures and bare forearms occurs, the form belongs, as Vandier notes, "plutot a Ia Basse Epoque."
[24] The concavity is more pronounced on MMA X.85 than, for example, on the late Dynasty 25 pseudo block statue of Padimahes (BMA 64.146). The statue of Harbes (Copenhagen AEIN 78) is an even better parallel to the dishing on the front of MMA X.85. This piece is dated by cartouche to Psamtik I (Otto Koefoed-Petersen, Catalogue des statues et statuettes égyptiennes, 57 and plate l 06).
[25] A good example is the busily decorated statue of Djedhor (JE 46341) in Russmann and Finn, 195. Russmann rightly characterizes this work as "overcome by the written word."
References
Beckerath, Jürgen von. Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten: die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332. v. Chr. Münchner ägyptologische Studien (Mainz, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany : 1997), Bd. 46. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1997.
Bosse-Griffiths, Kate. Die Menschliche Figur in Der Rundplastik Der Ägyptischen Spätzeit von Der XXII. Bis Zur XXX. Dynastie. Ägyptologische Forschungen, v. 1. Glückstadt ; New York: J. J. Augustin, 1936.
Bothmer, Bernard V. In Memoriam, Bernard V. Bothmer, 1912-1993: Institute OfFine Arts, New York University, 6 February 1994. New York, N.Y.: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1994.
Brooklyn Museum. Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period, 700 B.C. to A.D. 100. [Brooklyn], 1960. http://archive.org/details/egypculptur00broo.
James, T. G. H., Edna R. Russmann, Dorothea Arnold, Marsha Hill, American Federation of Arts, British Museum, Brooklyn Museum of Art, and Toledo Museum of Art, eds. Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum. New York: American Federation of Arts and University of California Press at Berkeley, 2001.
Josephson, Jack A., and Mamdouh Mohamed Eldamaty. Statues of the XXVth and XXVIth Dynasties. Catalogue Général of Egyptian Antiquities in the Cairo Museum, nrs. 48601-48649. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities Press, 1999.
Koefoed-Petersen, Otto. Catalogue des statues et statuettes égyptiennes. Publications de La Glyptothèque Ny Carlsberg, no 3. Copenhague, 1950.
Russmann, Edna R. "The Statue of Amenemope-Em-Hat." Metropolitan Museum Journal 8 (1973): 33-46.
Sayed, Ramadan. Documents relatifs à saïs et ses divinités. Bibliothèque d’étude, t. 69. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale duCaire, 1975.
Schlick-Nolte, Birgit, and Vera von Droste zu Hülshoff. Ägyptische Bildwerke. Wissenschaftliche Kataloge. Melsungen: Gutenberg, 1990.
Tiradritti, Francesco, Araldo De Luca, Neil Davenport, and Mathaf al-Misrī, eds. Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Vercelli: White Star, 1998.
Vandier, Jacques. Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1952.
Vernus, Pascal. "Inscriptions de La Troisième Période Intermédiaire (III)." Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 76 (1976): 1–15.
Found unnumbered in storage ca. 1916, source unknown. Accessioned at that time.
The Met's Libraries and Research Centers provide unparalleled resources for research and welcome an international community of students and scholars.
The Met Collection API is where all makers, creators, researchers, and dreamers can connect to the most up-to-date data and public domain images for The Met collection. Open Access data and public domain images are available for unrestricted commercial and noncommercial use without permission or fee.
Feedback
We continue to research and examine historical and cultural context for objects in The Met collection. If you have comments or questions about this object record, please complete and submit this form. The Museum looks forward to receiving your comments.
The Met's collection of ancient Egyptian art consists of approximately 26,000 objects of artistic, historical, and cultural importance, dating from the Paleolithic to the Roman period.
