Ashmawy, Aiman, Simon Connor, and Dietrich Raue 2019. Psamtik I in Heliopolis. Egyptian Archaeology 55, 34-39.

Psamtik I in Heliopolis On 7 March 2017, the Egyptian-German Mission in Heliopolis found fragments of a colossal quartzite statue in the area of Suq el-Khamis, the western perimeter of the temple precinct of Matariya, where once stood a temple of Ramesses II. These fragments show an exceptional quality of manufacturing. They belong to the largest statue known so far of a king of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, write Aiman Ashmawy, Simon Connor and Dietrich Raue. Torso of the colossal statue of Psamtik I found at Matariya. Photo: S. Connor 34 The Egyptian-German Joint Archaeological Mission at Matariya continued the investigation of the great sun temple’s structure and chronology in three areas: the first temple along the dromos after entering the temple precinct from its western monumental gate, the immediate surroundings of the temple close to the obelisk of Senusret I, and the south-eastern fringe of an approximately square structure that had been first discovered by the Italian Mission under Ernesto Schiaparelli in 1903–06. The latter was mapped by Petrie and has been identified by now as a large enclosure of the 16th–15th century BC. This tremendous construction was designated by Petrie as a ‘Hyksos Fort’, while it most probably has to be identified with a large enclosure or embankment that is mentioned on several stelae of Thutmose III in his 47th regnal year (1432 BC). Ongoing construction projects forced to resume the work in the westernmost part, the so-called Suq el-Khamis. Due to risen groundwater, drains had to be dug to document the statue bases that were found there between 2006 and 2009 by the Supreme Council of Antiquities. In 2017, the workmen of our team reported a quite unexpected discovery: a large polished stone that soon turned out to be the colossus of a pharaoh made of beige-brown quartzite (image B, following page). Its location in front of the remains of a Ramesside gate left at first several options for the identification of the represented king. With ongoing work and after the extraction of two major fragments (9 tons in total) from about 3 m under groundwater, more observations became possible. Later work in 2017 and 2018 produced 6,500 fragments in a radius of about 15 m all around the statue base (A) – the colossus once stood on a rectangular pedestal consisting of a mass of limestone blocks, framed by slabs of quartzite. This podium was part of the series of statue bases installed in front of the Ramesside pylon. The statue’s back pillar provided us with the complete titulature of Psamtik I (664–610 BC). However, in the first days after the torso’s discovery, the colossus had been the object of intense discussion concerning the identification of the represented king, and doubts still remain in the mind of some scholars. Due to the colossal size of the statue and the archaeological context (in front of a Ramesside temple, according to all the inscribed blocks found in the area), one would have expected this to be a statue of Ramesses II (1279–1213 BC). Furthermore, the granite statues whose fragments were also found in front of the pylon’s remains can by their style be quite clearly attributed to the early Twelfth Dynasty (1991–1802 BC). They were probably ‘usurped’ or ‘re-activated by Ramesses II. This presence within the same context initially suggested that the newly discovered colossus, too, might have been such a Middle Kingdom piece reused by Ramesses II. Nevertheless, the untouched and exquisitely carved inscription on the back pillar, as well as the stylistic analysis leave no doubt that the colossus is a Twentysixth Dynasty monument, which makes it the largest sculpture ever found from this period of Egyptian history. Relatively few royal statues are preserved from this period. They are rarely complete and usually quite small, which makes it difficult to securely date this mighty colossus through comparison with securely dated pieces. Various stylistic elements may point out to different phases of Egyptian art history. Considered individually, they would indicate contradictory dating, but their combination allows us to identify these features as ‘archaisms’ and ascertain that the statue is indeed contemporary to the back pillar’s inscription. The king’s white crown (E) bears two characteristic features that might give dating criteria: the absence of uraeus and the shape of the lappet around the ear. As far as we know, the white crown is without uraeus in the Old Kingdom and on most of the early Middle Kingdom corpus. It then systematically appears on royal statues of the following dynasties, with some exceptions during the reign of Amenhotep III (between 1391 and 1351 BC). The Late Period white crowns all attest a uraeus, but they are too few to provide statistics. On the Suq el-Khamis colossus, the front lappet ends with a straight horizontal line, while the rear one draws a curve surrounding the whole lobe. This motif (with variations in the shape of the lower lappet’s curve) is also specific to the Old and early Middle Kingdom. In the New Kingdom, the rear part of the crown draws a regular, almost horizontal, curve from an ear to the other. This combination (absence of uraeus and form of the lappets) suggests, therefore, that the crown of the Heliopolis colossus is stylistically closer to the Old and early Middle Kingdom. Nevertheless, the lappets’ shape is again attested on some reliefs of the 1st millennium BC and may therefore have appeared also on this sculpture. The torso (image opposite page) shows a par ticularly developed musculature. The accentuated modelling of the pectoral muscles, the wide shoulders and the deep ver tical depression on the abdomen make this statue a proper colossus, in all senses, expressing the supernatural strength of the pharaoh. Such massiveness, with prominent pectoral muscles and shoulders, is reminiscent of the body shape of the colossal statues of the Fourth (c. 2613– 2494 BC) and of the early Twelfth Dynasties. The colossi’s bodies of the Thirteenth Dynasty kings, of Amenhotep III and of Ramesses II show the same monumentalisation, but less naturalism in the musculature’s rendering. The massiveness and naturalism come back in the musculature of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty’s style (744–656 BC), with a deep median line, clear referent of the Middle Kingdom, and is very well-attested by numerous (particularly non-royal) examples. On the colossus, the clavicles are inclined and prominent, a feature which is common in Late Period sculpture, while in the earlier periods, they remain almost horizontal. A striking peculiarity is the strongly developed proper left nipple. There are no known parallels, perhaps EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY ISSUE NO 55 AUTUMN 2019 35 PSAMTIK I IN HELIOPOLIS A: Fragments of shoulder and other body parts south of the base. B: Torso and crown of the colossus of Psamtik I north of the base. C: Fragment of the face. D: Offering scene on the back pillar, the king presenting wine to Atum. E: Right ear and lappets of the white crown. F: Detail of the offering scene, showing the king’s head. G: An iconographic detail so far unparalleled: the left hand of the king placed under the navel. due to the fact that no other colossus has been preserved, but smaller sculptures of the Twentysixth Dynasty usually show well-defined nipples, linked to a particular attention to the rendering of the torso’s modelling. The face shows an oval and elongated shape, with rounded cheeks, smiling lips and two deep circular holes to mark the corners of the mouth, in line with Twenty-sixth Dynasty styles. Despite the damage to the lips, the characteristic Late Period smile is still clearly noticeable. The ear is carefully modelled and detailed, again a frequent feature in the Late Period’s refined style. The left eye and eyebrow are preserved on a large fragment and show the most characteristic elements of the style of Psamtek I’s period: both are in sharp relief and run almost horizontally towards the temples after a slight curve. The concavity of the eye socket is also particularly emphasized at the level of the inner corner of the eye. The facial shape, the affected smile with deep corners of the mouth and the sharp make-up lines (C) are all characteristic of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty style and fit with the dating provided by the back pillar’s inscription. Several elements speak against a reuse of a Middle or New Kingdom colossus. The preserved surface does not show any evidence of modification, nor any irregularity in the polishing. Fur thermore, if some features, considered individually, may refer to earlier periods, their combination creates unavoidable anachronisms, while they all fit with the Saite period’s style. The absence of uraeus on the crown and of holes in the lobes argue against an identif ication of this colossus as a representation of Ramesses II, while the A statuary so far (G) – the closest examples are two statues of Amenhotep III in a heb-sed garment and an embonpoint (Cairo 33900 and 33901), but in those cases both hands are placed under the abdomen. The back-pillar is another exciting combination of innovation and classicism from the rulers of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty and their claim to a renaissance of Egypt’s territorial unity and regional hegemony. The top shows a unique symmetrical distribution of the hieroglyphs of Psamtik’s throne name (image p. 39). It is followed by a ritual scene carved with the highest refinement (D, F), showing the king kneeling in front of the creator-god Atum, lord of Heliopolis. The ancient main deity of the sun temple receives wine from the king, a motif known from other colossi of the Ramesside era. Two parallel columns display the five names of Psamtik I. Two follow-up seasons in autumn 2017 and spring 2018 brought further insights into the original setting of the monument and the history of its destruction. The statue was placed on a solid stone foundation of six layers of limestone blocks. They were originally designed for another building and reused by Psamtik I for his monument. Near this, another G Photo: S. Connor E F Photo: S. Connor B Photo: D. Raue 36 musculature is far too developed for a colossus of Amenhotep III. The noticeable absence of a collar also argues against an identification as Amenhotep III or Ramesses II. An early Middle Kingdom dating must be rejected too, since the make-up lines of the eyes and the shape of the face and of the smile do not fit with the stylistic features of that period but clearly point to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. The apparently early Middle Kingdom characteristics have therefore to be considered as archaising features, common in the ‘renaissance phase’ of the beginning of the Late Period, but not as evidence of reuse. Despite the massiveness of the torso and the large dimensions of the piece, the statue is striking for the extreme care given to refined anatomical detail (ear, eyebrow and eyelid, clavicles, nipples) and the high quality of the hieroglyphs on the back pillar and the admirable polishing of the surface. All testify to the search for formal perfection that strongly characterises the style of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. The Matariya quartzite colossus will have to be considered a landmark of Late Period sculpture. Like other dynastic founders, Psamtik I probably sought the blessing for a long reign through the support of the sun and creatorgod at Heliopolis. A desire to demonstrate legitimacy clearly shines through the revival of a 550 year old type of colossal statuary (image p. 38). Nevertheless, for his 10.5 m high colossus (or colossi, since they usually function by pairs), Psamtik did not only use archaisms, but introduced also a striking, not yet understood new feature: the position of the left arm, with the hand placed under the navel, in a gesture not attested in Egyptian D C Photo: D. Raue Photo: D. Raue Photo: S. Connor Photo: S. Connor EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY ISSUE NO 55 AUTUMN 2019 37 PSAMTIK I IN HELIOPOLIS Right: a reconstruction of the statue. 38 pedestal of Ramesside date was discovered close to a modern residential area at the limit of the excavation site to the east. It is interesting to note that the base of Psamtik’s statue was set up intentionally between two statue emplacements of the later second millennium BC in front of the stage of a large Ramesside festival temple. Eight sections were dug, again up to 3 m below the groundwater level. Most fragments were found on the rear side of the base in a foundation trench that was deprived of its stone layers at an unknown date. The fill of this trench contained several hundred fragments of a seated colossus of red granite. An inscription at its pedestal names Ramesses II but it cannot be excluded that it once carried an earlier sculpture, e.g. of the Middle Kingdom. All in all, four colossal royal representations can be located in front of the western pylon wing of a temple that followed a north-south orientation. A number of other fragments were found together with the quar tzite fragments of Psamtik’s statue and the fragments of the Ramesside red granite colossi. The earliest pottery finds date to the Early Dynastic Period, the youngest part of this assemblage are no later than the early Roman era. Together with vast amounts of potsherds, other items from the temple were found, among them a head of a private sculpture of a Twelfth Dynasty official as well as a number of fragments of a 4th century BC healing statue. In association with Psamtik’s statue, a pit contained the paw of a sphinx as well as fragments of a colossal falcon, both of red granite. The sphinx’s length can be estimated at up to 18 m, and it might have been up to 10 m high. Such monumental representations were still seen by early travellers in that part of the temple. Their sketches show the name of Ramesses II on the sphinx’s shoulder. Four teen years ago, an Egyptian-German joint venture discovered a large fragment of such a sphinx in Suq elKhamis with a cartouche of Merenptah. It can therefore not be ruled out that more than one sculpture of this size was placed in front of the Ramesside temple. The quartzite colossus of Psamtik I, the first monument of that size ever found from the 1st millennium BC, revives the idea of the divine nature of pharaonic kingship by performing its ritual presence in the temple of the creator god in supernatural format. hieroglyphs are beautifully preserved. Should we incriminate invaders of Heliopolis, perhaps the Persians, considering the destruction of Psamtik’s statue, as a war symbol? Many questions currently remain. The early Roman finds from the deposition context do not give a precise date for the destruction of the statue that may have taken place many decades or even centuries earlier. For the burial of the fragments, the finds from the trenches offer merely a terminus post quem. It cannot be ruled out that this mixture of debris was discarded at an even later date in Late Roman or early Islamic times, using open trenches left by later stone robbers. Indeed, the subsequent covering layers of debris contain Late Roman material. If the burial of all these fragments took place at the archaeologically earliest possible occasion, one might consider the transport of obelisks to Rome by Augustus as a par t of destructions in the precinct of Heliopolis. No major royal investment in the great precinct of the sun god has yet been identified for the Ptolemaic Period. While other temples of Egypt continued to flourish in the Roman era, in Matariya the national solar cult had come to an end. Its monuments were available for transportation to Alexandria as furnishing and construction material, while they can also be found in other cities of the Roman Empire and especially in Rome itself. Left: a reconstruction of the back pillar. Images: Chr. Breninek Slightly smaller statues of about 6–7 m are described by Herodotus and Diodor in the temple of Memphis. The statue of Matariya is of far-reaching interest for another area of the cultural history of Egypt and its neighbours: most scholars have agreed that Egyptian statuary of the 2nd millennium BC gave the decisive impulse for the innovation of Greek sculpture in life-size and in hyper formats in the Archaic Period during the late 7th century. We may therefore suggest that Greek merchants and mercenaries, attracted by the possibilities of the Nile Valley, not only saw colossal representations of the past but also of their own current commander-in-chief, pharaoh Psamtik I. The dismantling of the pylon cannot yet be precisely dated. Several of the temple blocks and statue fragments found in Suq el-Khamis bear clear marks of intentional cutting, in preparation for reuse in later constructions. As is often the case with statues found in sacred pits (see the Karnak cachette), the statue was mutilated before being buried, perhaps in order to ‘de-activate’ it: the mouth shows clear traces of systematic pounding. The reason for the statue’s breaking may have been an intentional de-sacralisation during the abandonment of the temple and the gathering of construction materials. However, no parts of the body seem to be missing and no tool marks could be identified on the breaks, perhaps because the hardness and weight of its material made it unsuitable for reuse. Another interpretation could be war damage, perhaps by fire. If the upper part of the s t atue is vir tually completely re constructible from large fragments, the legs were found reduced into several thousands of small quar tzite chips, many of them apparently burnt. Let us note that there is no trace of damnatio memoriae and that all • The Egyptian-German Mission is grateful for the continuous support, attendance and interest in our fieldwork at Matariya by the Minister of Antiquities, Dr. Khaled el-Enany and the General Assembly of the Minis tr y of Antiquities. Representing the archaeologists and restorers of the Inspectorate of Antiquities of Matariya and Ain Shams, we would like to thank Khaled Abu al-Ela, Hoda Kamal Ahmed, and Iman Riad. Extractions and transpor ts to the Egyptian Museum at Tahrir Place were undertaken by specialists from that institution (Moamen Othman and his colleagues) and the Grand Egyptian Museum (Osama Abu Kheir, Eissa Zeidan, and Nassef Abd el-Wahed), and by the workmen from Quft in Upper Egypt under reis Ashraf elAmir Kamil Seddiq. We owe the illustrations for the reconstruction of the sculpture to Christopher Breninek. The mission is grateful for funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Fondation Michela Schiff Giorgini, the Fonds Khéops pour l’Archéologie, the Egyptology Forum of the University of Zurich, Mr. Sameh Sawiris and the European Foundation for Education and Culture of the Rahn Dittrich Group. EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY ISSUE NO 55 AUTUMN 2019 39