Description
Tête masculine représentant le roi coiffé de la mitre blanche Hedjet de Haute-Égypte, ornée d’un uraeus partiellement lacunaire. Le visage est finement sculpté, les sourcils allongés surmontant des yeux en amande, aux paupières ourlées et prolongées d’un trait de fard. Le nez est très légèrement busqué et sa pointe lacunaire. La bouche, aux lèvres pleines, s’étire en un très léger sourire, aux commissures marquées. À l’arrière, un appui dorsal anépigraphe sur lequel repose le sommet de la coiffe, l’espace intermédiaire étant laissé en réserve.
La cassure se situe au niveau du haut du cou ; manquent l’extrémité de la couronne et de l’appui dorsal, de même que le bout du nez et une portion du menton ; le pourtour de l’uraeus et une partie de l’anthélix de l’oreille droite sont entamés.
Haut. : 36,5 cm
Collection Charles Gillet (1879 – 1972), puis par descendance
Thutmose III or Amenhotep II
“In the normal course of stylistic development in ancient Egyptian art, sculpture produced at the beginning of a reign does not differ greatly from that of the preceding king. Sometimes the changes from one reign to the next are so subtle that specialists cannot determine whether a statue represents a particular king or his predecessor.
A problem of this kind arises precisely when one attempts to distinguish between sculptures dating from the end of the reign of Thutmose III and those produced for his son and successor, Amenhotep II.”
Bernard V. Bothmer made these remarks in the 1980s in reference to a head in the Luxor Museum attributed to Thutmose III. He proposed that it should instead be assigned to Amenhotep II, an identification that remains the subject of debate.
The significance of the problem raised by this eminent connoisseur of Egyptian art becomes clear when comparing statues of these two kings, whose faces display a strong resemblance, particularly in the eyebrows, eyes, mouth and ears. Where differences can be observed, they primarily concern the nose: that of Thutmose III is more or less aquiline, whereas Amenhotep II’s is distinctly straight.
In the present case, reaching a definitive conclusion is all the more difficult because the tip of the nose is missing. However, what remains of the nasal bridge suggests that it was slightly convex, as on the statue of Thutmose III in the Museo Egizio, Turin (1376). Nevertheless, the pronounced infraorbital depressions and the low, prominent cheekbones can be recognised as further features characteristic of portraits of this king. It should also be noted that, among the works available for comparison, the head most closely resembling our example is Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Catalogue Général 42067, whose attribution to Thutmose III is not in question.
The study of this piece can draw in particular on two publications:
Dimitri Laboury, La statuaire de Thoutmosis III, Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 5, Liège, 1998.
Luc Gabolde, ‘Une tête royale du début de la XVIIIe dynastie attribuable à Amenhotep II’, in Revue d’Égyptologie 68 (2017–18), pp. 45–60.
OP
