Glencairn Museum News | Number 3, 2024
An ancient Egyptian ka-statue in the Egyptian gallery at Glencairn Museum (E1162).
The wooden figure of a man stands contemplatively in the corner of the Egyptian Gallery at Glencairn Museum. It is a statue which was part of the funerary assemblage for the afterlife of an unknown individual, and it would have been placed inside his tomb. The owner of the statue lived and died in the third millennium BCE, probably during the late Old Kingdom (c. 2345–2160 BCE) or First Intermediate Period (c. 2160–2055 BCE) of pharaonic Egypt. Although the artifact has suffered some damage due to the wrath of time, its dignified figure and melancholic eyes still hold a riveting tale to tell.
Statuary, in stone, wood and metal, pervaded ancient Egyptian culture. These artifacts served as representations of royal power and guardianship (Figure 1), as votive objects offered to appease and ingratiate the gods (Figure 2), and as desired items to include in royal and non-royal tombs (Figure 3). The earliest royal statues, made of stone, were discovered in what archaeologists call “foundation deposits.” These were underground caches of votive objects, ceremoniously buried during the initial construction of temples to ensure divine favor (Figure 4). Statues began to appear in tombs of ancient Egyptian royals and their courtiers during the 3rd Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (c. 2630 BCE) in the necropoleis of the capital city of Memphis, but there are indications that they could have been part of the funerary equipment even earlier. These early statues were mostly made of local limestone and would have been covered in plaster and painted over with vivid colors symbolizing solar power and regenerative forces.
Figure 1: (Left) Statue of King Khafre in anorthosite gneiss, a rare, hard stone from Nubia, with the falcon god Horus. This statue, which stood in Khafre’s valley temple in Giza, is emblematic of the pharaoh as the embodiment of the archetypal “living king” which the god Horus represented, visually reinforcing royal might and divinity. Giza, 4th Dynasty, c. 2558–2532 BCE. Egyptian Museum, JE 10062=CG14, Cairo. (Right) Statue of King Senwosret III depicted as a sphinx, also in anorthosite gneiss; this type of statue lined the causeways or avenues of temples emphasizing the fierce, protective nature of kingship. Probably Thebes, Karnak, 12th Dynasty, c. 1870–1831 BCE. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 17.9.2, New York.
Figure 2: Statue of the funerary priest Hetepdief, in red granite. The kneeling pose of the statue indicates an attitude of worship and hints at its votive function. Mit Rahina, Memphis, 2nd–3rd Dynasty, c. 2890–2613 BCE. Egyptian Museum, JE34557, Cairo.
Figure 3: Group of life-size funerary statues in limestone from the tomb of Sepa, showing the deceased and his wife Nesa. Saqqara, 3rd Dynasty, c. 2686–2613 BCE. Musée du Louvre, N37 (main number), Paris.
Figure 4: King Khasekhem/Khasekhemwy wearing a ceremonial robe and the White Crown, which symbolized his rule over Upper Egypt. Discovered in the foundation deposit of the Temple of Horus in Hierakonpolis. Hierakonpolis, 2nd Dynasty, c. 2770 BCE. Ashmolean Museum, AN1896–1908.E.517, Oxford.
Figure 5: The seated statue of King Djoser, looking out of the serdab-room, adjacent to the north facade of his Step Pyramid. Saqqara, 3rd Dynasty, c. 2667–2648 BCE. Egyptian Museum, JE 49158, Cairo.
One of the earliest examples is the statue of King Djoser (Figure 5): it was discovered in situ inside a chamber called the serdab. Serdabs were hidden, closed rooms, usually situated near the offering chapels of Old Kingdom tombs; the only opening was a small hole or slit in one of the walls from which the statue of the deceased could look out to ensure a constant supply of offerings and prayers. At this time royal officials and their family members began to have increasingly decorated tombs, with key architectural elements such as false doors, offering tables and statue niches exclusively conceived for the performing of the funerary cult, which entailed rites of prayers and alms (Figure 6). Statues also began to be disengaged from the serdab-room, now freely standing in the offering chapels and specifically designed niches (Figure 7).
Figure 6: False door representing the threshold between the living and the dead and an offering table in front of it. Architectural and cultic elements from the tomb of the Vizier Mereruka, a high ranking official of the 6th Dynasty king Teti. Saqqara, Teti Cemetery, 6th Dynasty, c. 2345–2181 BCE.
Figure 7: Semi-engaged funerary statue in limestone of the Vizier Mereruka, appearing to step out of its wall niche. Saqqara, Teti Cemetery, 6th Dynasty, c. 2345–2181 BCE.
Figure 8: The extraordinary statue of the chief lector-priest Ka-aper, made of sycamore wood; the eyes are inlaid, with the pupils and irises in rock crystal, the sclera in opaque quartz and the outline of the eyes in copper. Saqqara, north of the Step Pyramid, 4th-5th Dynasty, c. 2613–2345 BCE. Egyptian Museum, CG, Cairo.
Wooden statues such as the one in the Glencairn Museum collection usually date to the later part of the Old Kingdom, whether by fortuitous accident of preservation or as testimony to the trend of the time. An early example is that of the wooden statue of Ka-aper, a masterpiece of skill and artistry. This statue is also known as “Sheikh el-Balad,” which, in Egyptian Arabic means “the chief of the village.” The locals who helped excavate the tomb, upon the unearthing of the wooden artifact, shouted out in disbelief at the resemblance that the statue held to the sheikh-in-residence (Figure 8). The statue of Ka-aper comes from Saqqara, the desert areas west of Memphis and the main cemetery field along with the Giza plateau, which lies north.
It is in Saqqara that the bulk of wooden statuary was discovered in tombs of the late 5th and 6th Dynasty (from c. 2375–2181 BCE), with the occurrence of wooden statue groups increasing in size and number during the reign of King Pepy II (c. 2278–2184 BCE). Funerary wooden statues and statuettes continued to be popular in burial traditions during the First Intermediate Period (c. 2160–2055 BCE), a century marked by geo-political fragmentation and the demise of centralized power. It was during this historical period that Memphite artistic styles and funerary customs can be found throughout Egypt, localized in the provincial towns which had acquired unprecedented importance.
Having covered some of the historical background and context of wooden statuary in the early period of pharaonic Egypt, it is time to examine the compelling artifact in Glencairn Museum. The history of the Egyptian collection at Glencairn has been thoroughly researched by Ed Gyllenhaal, the curator of the Museum, in “From Parlor to Castle: The Egyptian Collection at Glencairn Museum” (in Millions of Jubilees: Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman, 175–203. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2010); some information can also be found on the Glencairn Museum website and in a 2015 issue of Glencairn Museum News (“The Purchase of the Lanzone Egyptian Collection (1878)”).
Regrettably, the details of how and when the Egyptian wooden statue was acquired are lost. The remarkable piece was originally in the possession of Theodore Pitcairn, Raymond Pitcairn’s brother and, like him, an enthusiastic collector of fine art. In 1974 Theodore’s widow, Maryke Urban Pitcairn, bequeathed the Egyptian piece to the Academy of the New Church in Bryn Athyn, PA. The wooden statue was part of a small group of objects identified in the letter of bequest as “Exhibit A” of the Oriental and Egyptian Artifacts (Figure 9).
Figure 9: (Left) The original letter of bequest submitted to the Academy of the New Church in 1974 by the Guardian of the Estate of Maryke Urban Pitcairn, Richard G. Nelson. (Right) A portrait photo of Theodore Pitcairn.
The statue is labeled as object number E1162 and on its file card the given description is: “Early Carved Egyptian Figure/Wooden Male” (Figure 10). Unfortunately, its provenance is unknown. It is dated to the period between the 6th and the 9th Dynasties, and the label also lists its height. It is a statue of medium size, c. 75 cm (29.5 in) tall from the top of the head to just above the ankle of the proper right leg, the rest being missing (Figure 11). This measurement was obtained through direct use of a ruler over the statue in person but also through photogrammetry. The latter is a diagnostic digital technique which has been developed over the last decade and which uses a set of photos taken from all directions and angles to compile a 3-D model of the object (click here to see 3-D model).
Figure 10: The Glencairn Egyptian statue and the specifications found on the file card of the artifact.
Figure 11: Images of the wooden statue created through Polycam, a photogrammetry app that can quickly create a 3-D model by means of a cell phone.
The statue is missing both arms, the ankle and foot of the proper right leg and all of the left, striding leg just below the knee. Other than the arms, which would have been joined to the statue with wooden dowels, the entire figure is carved out of a single piece of wood. The type of wood is undetermined. Henry George Fischer, a prominent Egyptologist, examined the statue in June 1972 and suggested that the wood might be sycamore, although acacia wood could be a viable alternative as it was frequently used for these types of statues; both trees are indigenous to Egypt. The geographical configuration of the country, mostly desert with a riverine, cultivated valley, does not include lush forests and significant timbered areas, making wood a precious commodity.
The statue at Glencairn, which represents a male figure, would, in fact, have typically represented a deceased royal official, part of the elite of the time. The individual is in the standard “active” pose, striding forth with the left leg as is customary for stone and wooden statues. The missing arms would likely have hung parallel to the statue’s sides, hands clasping a Steinkern, German for “stone core,” a perhaps erroneous term for what has been largely interpreted as a piece of folded cloth. The positioning of the dowel for the attachment of the arm seems to be also parallel to the line of the body, which favors the theory that the arms were pendant (Figure 12).
Figure 12: The Glencairn statue, on the left, juxtaposed with a statue (all the way to the right) of similar fashion and originating from the same time period (possibly also the same site, Saqqara). The statue on the right depicts the royal official Metjetjy, whose tomb contained an important set of wooden statues. In the center of the image, it is shown how the positioning of the dowel on the Glencairn statue can help to infer the attitude of the arms that are now lost. For Metjetjy: Saqqara, Unas Cemetery, end of 5th Dynasty, c. 2340 BCE. Brooklyn Museum, 53.222, New York.
The head of the statue is large, with protruding jowls and wide, carved eyes, the pupils painted in. The ridges of the eyebrows, created by subtle modeling, are also painted. The anonymous royal official’s head is adorned by a short wig of the “echelon-curl” type, where layers of rectangular locks are arranged diagonally (Figure 13). The figure is wearing a knee-length, simple kilt, although wrap-over kilts were more popular at the time. The body appears shrunken in comparison to the head, and it lacks carving to show any muscular definition. The nipples would have probably been inlaid originally and are now missing. On the statue there are visible residues of white plaster and red paint.
Figure 13: The “echelon-curl” wig, with its layers of rectangular locks arranged in diagonal fashion.
More intriguingly, the artifact also appears to be covered sparsely with a black substance (Figure 14). There have been suggestions by scholars such as I.E.S. Edwards and Arielle Kozloff that black resin was applied to wooden statues to increase the potency of the regenerative magic of these objects, or that perhaps, as was suggested by a student of Kozloff, the resin was observed to ward off white ants. Imaging and PXRF (portable x-ray) analysis, both non-invasive steps, would be needed to characterize the unknown residue with certainty.
Figure 14: Images showing the mysterious black substance sparsely covering the statue.
Another fun fact about the Glencairn statue regards the large vertical crack in the wood which starts below the statue's neck by the clavicles, and which is partially filled in (Figure 15). Upon inspecting photos of the statue, Molly Gleeson, a conservator at Penn Museum, noticed that the fill material was painted over with red pigment. This means that if the red paint is original, then the filling substance, a type which Gleeson had never seen the likes of, was applied to the wood fissure before the statue was painted over. This could provide insight into the socio-economic position of the owner of the statue, indicating that the material used for his funerary statue was not quite “prime choice.”
Figure 15: A close up of the chest area of the Glencairn statue where the filling material and the red paint above it are clearly discernible.
Figure 16: The statue of the royal official Tjetety, displaying the fine rendering of the wig and facial features of the statue along with the idiosyncrasies of the Second Style. Saqqara, Teti Cemetery, 6th Dynasty, c. 2345–2181 BCE. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, MMA 26.2.8, New York.
The proportions of the statue appear slightly disharmonious, with the head being larger than natural size and bearing strikingly heavy jowls. One might think that it is the missing limbs and the lack of extremities which thwart the perception of the proportional ratios. However, the changes in the representation of body parts and their relative sizes are probably representative of an innovative style of the late Old Kingdom called the “Second Style.” The first scholar to isolate and examine this group of incongruous statues, which overtly departed from tradition in terms of artistic style, and which were dated to the 6th Dynasty, was Edna Russmann, a now retired Egyptologist who specialized in art. She coined the term “Second Style” for this statuary.
These were, for the most part, wooden funerary statues discovered while excavating tombs of the Teti and Unas cemeteries in Saqqara, which ranged from the late 5th Dynasty to the First Intermediate Period. Due to its historical placement in the final period of the Old Kingdom, when the decentralization of royal power began to take effect and administrators of the provinces acquired increasing relevance, scholars originally dismissed the statues as being representative of low-quality craftsmanship and disappearing royal workshops.
Nonetheless, Russmann noted that the statuary in question exhibited fine details and carving techniques which could only have been carried out by the best artists and with intention (Figure 16). The artifacts had common characteristics which appeared consistent, such as: overly large heads, reduced foreheads, and wide-set, large eyes (Figure 17); pronounced nasolabial folds, canthi and philtra, as well as full lips (Figure 18); elongated limbs and exaggeratedly long fingers and toes; and lack of muscular definition. Russmann also noted that examples of this style were not relegated solely to the Memphite area but could also be found in provincial cemeteries, and that the Second Style appeared in private funerary statues but also occurred in royal ones of the same period. An example is the statue of Pepy I that is at the Brooklyn Museum (Figure 19), and in the same collection, an alabaster statuette of Pepy II in his mother’s lap visibly displaying the facial physiognomic traits common to the Second Style (Figure 20).
Figure 17: Examples of wooden statues showcasing the Second Style characteristics: overly large heads, shallow foreheads and unnaturally sizeable eyes.
Figure 18: (Left) The red arrow points to the marked nasolabial folds which characterize the innovative style of the late Old Kingdom, the Second Style; (Right) the yellow arrows also point to two other features of said style, that is, the emphasized canthi visible in the inside corners of the eyes and the exaggerated philtrum, above the upper lip.
Figure 19: The statue of King Pepy I, exhibiting the Second Style. Provenance unknown, 6th Dynasty, c. 2321–2287 BCE. Brooklyn Museum, 39.121, New York.
Figure 20: Another example of the Second Style in royal statuary: King Pepy II sitting on the lap of his mother, Queen Ankhnesmeryre II. Provenance unknown, 6th Dynasty, c. 2278–2184 BCE. Brooklyn Museum, 39.119, New York.
In addition to Russmann’s groundbreaking work is the information from Edward Brovarski, who began surveying tomb reliefs and soon identified the Second Style in these as well. The reliefs were found in tombs of the same period as Russmann’s statuary, and displayed common elements of the Second Style, such as the unnaturally large eyes, the shallow crown of the head, the rimmed, luscious lips and the accentuated nasolabial folds (Figure 21). Elongated limbs, and especially fingers, were also common characteristics found in both statues and reliefs. Unique attributes of the reliefs are elongated ears, deep, sunk relief and elaborately carved details in the jewelry, wigs and attire (Figure 22). Specific characteristics can be observed on the Glencairn statue: its unbalanced proportions, with the head and jowls being larger than expected; its gazing, sizable eyes and diminutive body. Along with considerations regarding the type of artifact and its medium, it can be argued that the statue is an example of the stylistic phenomenon known as the Second Style. Current research on the late Old Kingdom is also revealing that the Second Style was but one of the manifestations of a broader ideological movement which encompassed art, religion and language.
Figure 21: Second Style features and attributes showing in late Old Kingdom reliefs.
Figure 22: More examples of the Second Style in relief: notice the deep sunk relief, the elaborately carved accessories and the elongated ears.
What was the purpose of the Glencairn statue in its ancient context? As previously discussed, funerary statues and statuettes were integral to the performance of the cult of the dead in the Old Kingdom. While early on these statues were located in the serdab-room, as time went by their placement started varying greatly, but mostly remained in the structure above the ground. During the 6th Dynasty, as the number of statues depicting the deceased started to increase per tomb, and wooden statues became dominant, these began to be placed below ground in the burial chambers or, as in the case of statues displaying Second Style characteristics, in special niches within or adjacent to the tomb shafts. The statues of this period are often referred to as ka-statues. The ka was one of the spiritual components of an individual, along with the ba and the akh.
The ka has been likened to one’s “life force,” and was present from birth; it was the spiritual essence which dwelled in the tomb at death and partook of the food and drink offerings. Once it reconciled with the ba, the bird-headed spirit of the deceased which flew in and out of the tomb (Figure 23), and recognized and embodied the mummified remains of the deceased, it would soar to the heavens in a new merged form, that of the akh. The statues of the owner of the tomb are believed to have been vessels for the ka to exist in and through which, by means of spells recited by priests, the spirit could be animated to participate in the functions of the funerary cult.
Figure 23: Tomb scene from the Ramesside Period showing two ba-birds by the entrance of a tomb. Deir el-Medina, Tomb of Irynefer: TT 290, 19th Dynasty, c. 1295–1186 BCE.
The wooden ka-statue at Glencairn must have belonged to a minor official, with access to only lower quality raw materials, seeing as there is the high probability that the wood piece chosen for the sculpture already had a crack in it. Nevertheless, the statue is rather large, and the overall appearance of a crudely fashioned artifact is emphasized by its damaged state and lack of preservation. When examined closely, the carving on the wig and the face allow the beauty of its visage and skill of the ancient craftsman to come alive (Figure 24). The statue served an essential role in the perpetuation of the cult of the deceased and a successful afterlife and is a modern-day testament to the human desire for an enduring and everlasting soul.
Figure 24: A close up of the Glencairn statue showing the penetrating gaze belonging to this unknown court official of the late Old Kingdom.
Valentina Anselmi
PhD Candidate in Egyptology
Department of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures
University of Pennsylvania
Select Bibliography and Further Reading
Assmann, Jan. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. First English-language edition, Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 2001.
Brovarski, Edward. “A Second Style in Egyptian Relief of the Old Kingdom.” In Egypt and Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University, June 2005, edited by Stephen E. Thomson and Peter Der Manuelian, 49–90. Providence (Rhode Island): Department of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies, Brown University, 2008.
Capart, Jean. “Some Remarks on the Sheikh el-Balad.” JEA 6 (1920): 225–233.
Dodson, Aidan and Salima Ikram. The Tomb in Ancient Egypt: Royal Sepulchers from the Early Dynastic Period to the Romas. London: Thames and Hudson, 2008.
Dreyer, Günter, and Jack A. Josephson. “Royal Sculpture of the Predynastic and Archaic Periods.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47 (2011): 45–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24555385.
Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1999.
Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (sanity.io)
Gyllenhaal, Ed. “From Parlor to Castle: The Egyptian Collection at Glencairn Museum.” In Millions of Jubilees: Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman. Edited by Zahi Hawass and Jennifer Houser Wegner, 175-203. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2010.
Harvey, Julia. Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom: A Typological Study. Leiden: Styx/Brill, 2001.
Robins, Gay. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Robins, Gay. Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1994.
Russmann, Edna R. “A Second Style in Egyptian Art of the Old Kingdom.” In Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archāologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, Band 51 (1995): 269–279.
Russmann, Edna. Egyptian Sculpture: Cairo and Luxor. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989.
Shaw, Ian, ed. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Senwosret III as a Sphinx | Middle Kingdom | The Metropolitan Museum of Art (metmuseum.org)
Stevenson Smith, William. A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom. New York: Hacker Art Books, 1978.