The fragmentary statue Suppl. 19482 of the famous Neshor called Psamtek-Menekhib from Mendes (a well-known Saite official of the 26^th Dynasty), currently housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin, has been recognized by specialists and philologists since the beginning of the 20^th century as a remarkable example of the period. The main role of Neshor was to supervise, and ensure security at, the Egyptian borders. In addition to his honorific titles and epithets, his many administrative offices show that he played a leading role in the Egyptian army, and represents a good example of the military face of the Egyptian administration in the late Saite Period.

While this statue has been previously published,1 its modern history still needs to be clarified. After 1947, when it was identified for the first time in an antiquities shop in Cairo, the statue suddenly disappeared from the antiquities market to resurface only in 2002, when the Museo Egizio acquired it at Venetian border customs. It was then kept for some years in the storerooms of the Museo Egizio, before again attracting the attention of Egyptologists in 2010. An important monument for the late 26^th Dynasty, the statue is now fragmentary, missing its lower part and back pillar. The presence of a modern face representing a pharaoh reveals the impact of modern history on the appearance of such objects.50-51

This article aims to present the artistic features of this statue, which is a good example of a Late Period private monument, as well as to present a series of archival photos together with new facsimiles and translations of its autobiographical texts. Finally, we will trace the journey of the statue through the Egyptian-antiquities market for over fifty years, bringing new contributions to the understanding of the networks, attitudes, and approaches of the actors in this market, which deeply impacted the formation of the great museum collections of Egyptian art.

Among the artworks today displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin is a fragmentary statue (Suppl. 19482) of a famous official, Neshor named Psamtek-Menekhib (Fig. 1), dating from the 26^th Dynasty. In its extant character, as well as in its details, the statue is a fitting example of the artistic trends of the period. Originally thought to be carved in basalt, a favorite Late Period material for sculpture, a closer inspection reveals that it is of granodiorite.2 With a polished surface typical of Late Period sculptures, the bust is modeled with great attention to certain details of anatomy.

Fig. 1

Statue Turin S. 19482 in its present state. Photo: Museo Egizio, Turin.

Its dimensions, in its current state, are:

Whole statue: h 42 cm; w 32 cm; d 20.5 cm (26 cm including the modern face);

Fig. 2

Statue Turin S. 19482 after Rosenbaum removed its modern face (see below, section 3.4). Photo: Michel Valloggia.

The first characteristic of this figure that catches our attention is the modern face that has been added where the original was missing (Fig. 2). The restored part of the face can easily be distinguished, even though it seems to have been carved in the same material as the ancient fragments (Fig. 3).3 The modern fragment has been joined with the two ancient ones using a resin that was painted on its surface in a dark52 color to match the stone. The new face of the statue was inspired by royal images and reproduces the face of a young king, identifiable by his uraeus and false beard (fragmentary). It is difficult to single out a specific source of inspiration, as the new face does not imitate any existing model directly, rather taking its inspiration from portraits such as that of Akhenaten, the Eighteenth Dynasty monarch, as well as those of Nubian kings from the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. Yet the proportions of the face do not match the Egyptian models, resulting in a face too narrow for the rest of the statue and appearing gently squashed when viewed in profile. These aspects of the modern face, combined with the fact that the plaster lines were not disguised, suggest that this addition may have been designed merely to fill in a missing part as a means to increase the statue’s market price, rather than to deceive a potential collector as to its authenticity.

Fig. 3

Statue Turin S. 19482 with its modern face. Photo: Vincent Pelisson/Maxence Garde.

Of the original part of the head and torso, apart from the noticeable ears and round wig, not many features have survived. Set well under the neck, we can see the right collarbone, carved as an obliquely curving ridge, although slightly more discreet than other examples from this period.4 This particular feature has been widely discussed as an element indicating a geographical provenance from Lower Egypt during the Late Period. While most examples from this period from Lower Egypt show slanted collarbones like on our statue,5 they are not present on every sculpture from the Late Period,6 keeping us from definitive conclusions. Under the collarbone, we perceive the upper part of the rounded pectorals, and the side view shows their projection emphasized by the receding line matching the fracture. An inscription written with modern Egyptian numbers can be seen on the broken surface of the right shoulder of the statue. The outlined number is painted in black and reads ٧١٨ (718), while there is a second inscription drawn with white paint and visible on the lower part of the same shoulder, reading 5. We will get back to these two inscriptions later in our article.

The fragmentary condition of the piece keeps us from identifying further characteristics, and also from telling whether the statue was originally standing or kneeling.7 This information would have been interesting as, while Neshor is known through all of five monuments,8 indicating his leading role during the reigns of Psamtik II (595-589 BC) and his son Apries (589-570 BC), of these monuments only two are complete enough to show the attitude in which he was portrayed.9 A high official from the army and part of the royal administration, Neshor was in charge of the customs operating at Egypt’s border. His military role might explain the fact that Neshor dedicated monuments in various locations throughout his whole career.10 The autobiographical inscription on the back pillar of our statue mentions Mendes (modern Tell el-Rub’a), a Delta city that achieved its greatest political prominence during the Late Period.11 During the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, King Apries built the southern part of the local temple (established in the Eighteenth Dynasty and rebuilt during the Ramesside period), installing four monumental granite naoi placed on limestone bases.12 These naoi were dedicated by Amasis to the gods Shu, Re, Osiris and Geb and demonstrated the importance of the city for the Saite rulers. This justifies Neshor’s choice to dedicate one of his statues to the city and its deities, the ram-god Banebdjedet, the fish-goddess Hatmehit, and their son Harpakhered, as does the fact that Mendes was the most important center of the nome where he was established.

While being a significant example of a private53 statue of a high-ranking Saite official, this fragmentary bust, with its addition of a modern face, does not seem to be a particularly eloquent document for this period. The sculpture is well-known within the Egyptological community, having already been discussed in a number of publications,13 but, since it is now part of the Museo Egizio’s collection, it is time to bring together different aspects of the ancient and modern history of the piece, alongside a new study of its inscriptions, in order to reveal the proper significance of this monument.

The hieroglyphic inscription preserved on the back pillar is laid out in six vertical columns on the back and a column on the left and one on the right side. All eight columns are incomplete, and the junction of the third and fourth column of the back pillar has been damaged by the splitting of the statue into two fragments (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Virtual reconstruction of Turin Suppl. 19482 with the now missing third fragment. Photos: Vincent Pelisson/Maxence Garde.

Our transliteration and translation of the texts on the back pillar take into account ancient photos, notes and drawings coming from the archives of B. Bothmer, J.-J. Clère and J. Yoyotte,14 other previous publications – from that of O. Perdu15 to the recent one by H. Bassir16 – as well as our own facsimile of the surviving parts, based on recent photographs and an epigraphic survey in the storerooms of the Museo Egizio in Turin (Fig. 5). The parts of texts on the lower fragment of the left half, today lost, are indicated inside double brackets [[ … ]]. Notes are given for some words and excerpts that still present difficulties in translation or epigraphic issues.

Fig. 5

Facsimiles of the inscriptions of the back pillar, by Matteo Lombardi (surviving parts, black) and Jean Yoyotte (missing parts, red). Montage by Matteo Lombardi.

I. Back side, 6 columns, right to left:

(1) (j)rj-pa(t) HA(tj)-a xtmt(j)-bjt(j) smr-wat(j) mw-mSa hrw aHA aA-jb hrw dmDjt sHtp jbw w[[n qnd nb Hzwt Hr jpt nb(t) 54 (jmj)-r(A) mnfjt […] ]]

(2) n nb=j njswt-bjt(j) 1aa-jb-Ra sA Ra WAH-jb-Ra anx-Dt dwA.n=j nTr sDm.n=j (nTr) [[xpr(.n=j) st n Aw gAjwt n(w)t BAw-Wrw n-zp [mj]tt […] ]]

(3) 1r WAH-jb wnn Hzw(t)=j xr nb tAwj m jsw n nn jrj.n(=j) Hnk.n Hm[[=f jxwt sxpr.n(=j) m awj[=j] Ds(=j) bt (?) wHAt (?) […] ]]

(4) (irp?) nfr[wy](?) n [wHAt rsyt(?) k r(?)] n wa nb(?) [h(?) …]

(5) Hr wD n jnr n bxn smn.tw=f m Hwt-nTr […]

(6) m Smsw 1r-pA-Xrd nTr aA Hrj-jb 9dt […]

(1) The noble and prince, the seal-bearer of the King of Lower Egypt, the sole friend, the wake for the army^(A) on the day of fighting, the great of heart on the day of the fray^(B), the one who pacifies hearts [[becomes furious, possessor of favors on all accounts, the overseer of the menefit troops^(C)[...] ]]

(2) for my Lord, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Haaibre, Son-of-Re, Wahibre, living forever. I praised god and listened to him. [[ I completed^(D) the chapels of the Great Bas. Never was the [li]ke

[…] ]]

(3) Horus, Wahib. It is before the Lord of the Two Lands that my favors exist, in exchange for this that (I) have done. His Majesty presented gifts [[ which (I) created with (my) own arms [ (?) … oasis (?) ... ] ]]

(4) [the very] good (?) (wine?) [of the southern oasis (?), for every (?)^(E) [...]

(5) on a stela of greywacke stone, which was set up in the temple [...]

(6) as a follower of Horus-the-Child, the Great God who resides at Mendes [...]55

Right side, 1 column, right to left:

(1) [... nj]swt (?) Ns-1r Dd=f s nb jr.t(j)=f(j) pna m pr Wsjr-1apj m nn ntt m sSw HDj.[[tj=fj tjt=f Xntjw=f dj.n=f st n kjj xtj=f [st (?) ...] ]]

(1) [... the Ki]ng(?) Neshor, he says: As for every man who will cause disorder in the temple of Osiris-Hapy concerning those things which are in the writings, and who will dam[[age his image, and his statues, having given them to somebody else so that he (re)inscribes [them(?) … ] ]]

III. Left side, 1 column, right to left:

(1) ntt prj(t) m pA Htp-nTr n BA-nb-9dt n [...]

(1) which comes from the divine-offering of Banebdjed and of [...]

Notes:

^(A) The epithet mw-mSa is discussed with references in Bassir, ÉtudTrav 29 (2016), p. 22, n. 3. We translate the word mw with “wake”, following Perdu, BSFE 118 (1990), p. 40 (“sillage”), which to us makes more sense as a “heroic” title emphasizing Neshor’s role in leading his troops to victory in the middle of the battle.

^(B) As for the group , the sign of the star has been widely discussed and two values have been proposed, viz., dwA and dmDjt: for a summary, see Bassir, ÉtudTrav 29 (2016), p. 22, n. 4. We retain the second one, which seems to us more appropriate in the context of this passage concerning Neshor’s qualities as a soldier and leader of troops. The expression hrw (n) dmDjt is often attested in texts concerning battle and battling between men or gods: see for example Wb. V, p. 461 and Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, pp. 1197-98. Another possibility would be to read the star as a graphical variant or pun for grH (night: see Wb. V, pp. 183-85). In this case, we should translate this passage as “great of heart day and night”, once again alluding to Neshor’s gallantry on the battlefield.

^(C) For the military title (jmj)-r(A) mnfjt, see Bassir, ÉtudTrav 29 (2016), pp. 22–23, n. 7.

^(D) For the reading dwA.n=j nTr sDm.n=j (nTr) xpr=st n Aw, see Perdu, BSFE 118 (1990), p. 42; Spencer, in Bareš et al. (eds.), Egypt in Transition, p. 457; Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften der Spätzeit, IV, p. 392 n° 115. Bassir and Heise read instead dwA.n=j nTr sDm=j n xpr.t=sn arq.n(=j) (…), “I praised god that I heard (things) before they came to pass. (I) finished up …”: Bassir, ÉtudTrav 29 (2016), p. 23; Heise, Erinnern und Gedenken, 2007, p. 203. In this case, the sign is to be understood as a graphical variant of the verb arq “to complete” (proper of sacred monuments): see for example Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, p. 167.

^(E) Bassir and Heise do not try to give a translation of this very badly preserved excerpt of column 4: see especially Heise, Erinnern und Gedenken, 2007, p. 204 and n. 515. We take into account the hypothetical restoration given in Perdu, BSFE 118 (1990), p. 44 and p. 45, fig. 2(a): , with a nfrwy nisba to be referred to a reconstructed word irp (wine) at the end of column 3, and followed by a restored “n wHAt rsyt”. This “very good wine of the southern oasis” appears written with a similar sequence of hieroglyphic signs in the texts of another Neshor statue coming from Elephantine, now in the Louvre Museum (Louvre A 90): Perdu, BSFE 118 (1990), p. 44 and p. 45, fig. 2(b). As for the expression “southern oasis” (wHAt rsyt) to indicate Kharga or Dakhla, see for example Osing, in Posener-Kriéger (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, 1985, pp. 179–82 and 189. As for the following , the preserved traces of hieroglyphic signs remain difficult to understand: is to be intended as a capacity measure for a wine offering, as Perdu proposed? It is worth remarking that Yoyotte’s transcription gives a basket instead of a .

As is well-known, the collecting of ancient Egyptian sculpture began significantly prior to the development of archaeology and philology. Consequently, much material is out of context, even today.17 Furthermore, a great majority of ancient Egyptian figurative art is fragmentary, with the owner’s inscription lost or incomplete. Historians must then depend on the clues offered by iconography and style in order to establish the authenticity of an object and date it.18 When iconography has been unfortunately altered, making an object’s overall appearance oddly distorted, our role is to understand when these changes occurred. A new field of study, called “provenance research”, has recently arisen around this role, which retraces the modern history of artworks and their chain of ownership in order to recover additional information that might have been lost along56 the way.19 Studying the statue of Neshor’s modern history as a collectible helps us to understand how its identity shifted from ancient monument to antique in a private collection, and finally to museum object. In the larger sense, its history raises questions about the roles of scholars and dealers in legitimizing and marketing antiquities at a crucial moment in the development of Egyptian art collections.20

This paper traces this sculpture’s provenance history to examine the art market and collecting practices of the early twentieth century, when collectors’ new interest in objects as historical documents made antiquities with a known provenance all the more valuable. Fragments such as this, acquired on the Egyptian antiquities market, are particularly important for what they reveal about market trends and acquisition practices in the Middle East during the second part of the twentieth century, when major changes occurred within the international antiquities market. A proliferation of fakes and copies in the European market during this period undoubtedly led to rising concerns about the authenticity of objects.21 Collectors traveled outside Europe to enlarge their collections by purchasing antiquities in large numbers at low cost from local dealers.22 This statue representing Neshor emerged at a unique moment in the practice of collecting antiquities in Egypt and Europe. From the 1930s, the relationships between Egyptologists and dealers slowly evolved into a role of monitoring, photographing, and taking notes on any object likely to be of interest for their scholarly research or for the collections of the museums they collaborated with. Their visits were mainly directed to Cairo and Luxor, the two main antiquities trade centers in Egypt. Precisely for this reason, our investigation starts in Cairo.

Our investigation of the “long voyage” of Neshor’s statue through 20^th century Egypt and Europe, from the Nile Delta to Turin, has given us the opportunity to rediscover a significant page of the Egyptian67 antiquities trade, bringing to light interactions between Egyptologists, collectors and antiquities dealers during the second half of the 20^th century.

It has also raised the question of restoration of antiquities for aesthetic reasons, even to the cost of diminishing the scientific value of an object. If our conclusion is correct that the restoration happened while the sculpture was with the owners of the shop “Sons of Farag el Chaer” in Cairo, these modifications reflect the shifting attitudes of antiquities dealers towards objects during the 1970s. The relationship between dealers and objects was decisively transformed when potential clients were no longer prestigious private collectors or institutions bent on collecting genuine and meaningful antiquities, but modern buyers brought by the recent development of tourism.

Finally, this study compels us to reaffirm the importance of developing research on museum collections in storerooms, where lots of antiquities are still waiting to be rediscovered. Some objects may not be selected to be displayed because they feature modern additions; on the contrary, they should be, because their modified appearance tells us an interesting story about their “modern history”. Bernard Bothmer pointed out that “[…] over the years too many controversial pieces have come to the attention of experts, curators, scholars, and having been spurned have forever disappeared from sight, often without even having been properly recorded with notes and photographs.”68 Neshor’s statue has avoided this fate, thanks to the connected work and research of this generation of scholars.

We are grateful to Federico Poole for his invitation to publish this statue and his continuous support, as well as for the valuable input of the two anonymous reviewers.

Maxence Garde: I would like to thank Diana Craig Patch and Marsha Hill who welcomed me at the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I was fortunate to start my research on the statue during my fellowship there and I would like to thank them for their support throughout that year. This article is part of my Ph.D. research under the direction of Laurent Coulon and Vincent Lefèvre. I would like to thank them for their support and advice. I wish to express my gratitude to Alain Zivie, who kindly contributed his knowledge to this research.

Finally, I wish to thank Vera Rondano, Robert Mosher, Guillaume Fabius, Sophie Leromain and Anna Millers for their support and friendship.

Matteo Lombardi: I would like to thank Olivier Perdu, Elisa Fiore Marochetti, Matilde Borla, Neri Mannelli and Cristina Meli for their kind collaboration and support. The information and data they shared with us has been much appreciated. I also would like to express all my gratitude to Paolo Gallo, my teacher, for having transmitted to me over the years his passion for the study of the Late Period Egypt. Despite the difficult times we endured during the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper is evidence that Egyptologists can continue to share skills, interests and passion for the discipline.

Antiquities sale of April, 26^th 2012, Christie’s, London 2012.

Bakhoum, Soheir and Marie-Christine Hellmann, “Wilhelm Froehner, le commerce et les collections d’antiquités égyptiennes”, in Journal des Savants 1 (1992), pp. 155–86.

Bassir, Hussein, “Self-Presentation of the Late Saite Non-Royal Elite: The Texts and Monuments of Neshor Named Psamtikmenkhib and Payeftjauemawyneith” (doctoral dissertation, John Hopkins University), Baltimore 2009.

Bassir, Hussein, Image and Voice in Saite Egypt: Self-Presentations of Neshor Named Psamtikmenkhib and Payeftjauemawyneith, Tucson 2014.

Bassir, Hussein, “ ‘Protecting the Temple of God’: On the Self-Presentation of Neshor on His Mendes Statue”, in ÉtudTrav 29 (2016), pp. 19–32.

Bierbrier, Morris, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 1995⁴, p. 305.

Blattner, Elwyn, Le Mondain Egyptian (The Egyptian Who’s Who), 1939.

Borchardt, Ludwig, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo, Nr. 1-1294, Teil 2: Text und Tafeln zu Nr. 381-653 (Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire), Berlin 1925.

Bothmer, Bernard, “Scope and Progress of the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture”, in: Denis Sinor (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 21st-28th August, London, 1954, London 1956, pp. 69–70.

Bothmer, Bernard, “The Head That Grew a Face: Notes on a Fine Forgery”, in Miscellanea Wilbouriana I, Brooklyn 1972, pp. 25–31.

Bothmer, Bernard, “Herman de Meulenaere, the CLES and Mendes”, in: Luc Limme and Jan Strybol (eds.), Ægyptus Museis Rediviva: Miscellanea in honorem Hermanni De Meulenaere, 1993, pp. 1–6.

Capart, Jean, “Nécrologie: Maurice Nahman”, in CdÉ 22/43 (1947), pp. 300–01.

Chevereau, Pierre-Marie, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens de la Basse Époque, Paris 1985.

Ciccopiedi, Caterina (ed.), Anche le statue muoiono: Conflitto e patrimonio tra antico e contemporaneo (catalogue of the exhibition, Museo Egizio, Turin, March 8 – September 9, 2018), Modena 2018.

Clère, Jacques-Jean, “Three New Ostraca of the Story of Sinuhe”, in JEA 25 (1939), pp. 16–29.

Clère, Jacques-Jean, “Une stèle familiale abydénienne de la XIIe dynastie”, in BIFAO 85 (1985), pp. 77–87.

De Meulenaere, Herman, Le surnom égyptien à la Basse Époque (PIHANS 19), 1966, p. 14, n° 42 and n. 56.

De Meulenaere, Herman and Pierre MacKay, Mendes II, Warminster 1976.

De Putter, Thierry and Christina Karlshausen, Les pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture de l’Égypte pharaonique (Connaissance de l'Égypte ancienne 4), Bruxelles 1992.

Del Vesco, Paolo, “Statua di Neshor”, in: Caterina Ciccopiedi (ed.), Anche le statue muoiono. Conflitto e Patrimonio tra antico e contemporaneo (catalogue of the exhibition, Museo Egizio, Turin, 9 March – 9 September 2018), Torino and Modena 2018, pp. 78–79.

Drower, Margaret, Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology, London 1985.

Feigenbaum, Gail and Inge Reist, Provenance: An Alternate History of Art, Los Angeles 2013.

Gaber, Hanane, “La recherche des faux dans la brève histoire de l’égyptologie”, in: Hanane Gaber, Nicolas Grimal, and Olivier Perdu (eds.), Imitations, copies et faux dans les domaines pharaonique et de l’Orient ancien – Actes du colloque Collège de France-Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 14–15 janvier 2016, Paris 2016, pp. 18–77.

Garde, Maxence, “Les dossiers d’antiquaires de Jacques-Jean Clère – Des bords du Nil aux quais de Seine” (Master dissertation, École du Louvre), Paris 2017.

Gill, David, “Egyptian Antiquities on the Market”, in: Fekri Hassan, Georges J. Tassie, Laurence Owens, Aloisa De Trafford, Joris van Wetering, and Omar El Daly (eds.) The Management of Egypt's Cultural Heritage, II, London 2015, pp. 67–77.

Hagen, Frederik and Kim Ryholt, The Antiquities Trade in Egypt (1880–1930), Scientia Danica. Series H, Humanistica 4, 8, Copenhagen 2016.

Hagen, Frederik and Kim Ryholt, “The Antiquities Trade in Egypt During the Time of Rudolf Mosse”, in Thomas L. Gertzen and Jana Helmbold-Doyé (eds.) Mosse im Museum: Die Stiftungstätigkeit des Berliner Verlegers Rudolf Mosse (1843–1920) für das Ägyptische Museum Berlin, Berlin 2017, pp. 59–74.

Heise, Jens, Erinnern und Gedenken: Aspekte der biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit (OBO 226), Fribourg and Göttingen 2007.

Huemer, Christian, “Crossing Thresholds: The Hybrid Identities of Late Nineteenth-Century Art Dealers”, in: Jaynie Anderson (ed.), Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration and Convergence, Melbourne 2009, pp. 1007–11.

Hyacinthe, Leslie, “Banebdjed : seigneur de Mendès” (Master dissertation, Université de Lille), Lille 2017.

James, Thomas, Howard Carter: The Path to Tutankhamun, London 1992.

Jansen-Winkeln, Karl, Inschriften der Spätzeit. Teil IV: Die 26. Dynastie. I: Psametik I.–Psametik III., Wiesbaden 2014.

Kamber, Peter, Geschichte zweier Leben: Wladimir Rosenbaum und Aline Valangin, Zurich 1990.

Khater, Antoine, Le régime juridique des fouilles et des antiquités en Égypte, Cairo 1960.

Leahy, Anthony, “Somtutefnakht of Heracleopolis: The Art and Politics of Self-Commemoration in the Seventh Century BC”, in: Didier Devauchelle (ed.), La XXVIe dynastie, continuités et ruptures : actes du Colloque international organisé les 26 et 27 novembre 2004 à l'Université Charles-de-Gaulle – Lille 3 ; promenade saïte avec Jean Yoyotte, Paris 2011, pp. 197–223.

Legrain, George, Statues et statuettes de rois et de particuliers, III, (Catalogue Général du Musée du Caire 24), Cairo 1914.

Limme, Luc, “In Memoriam Herman De Meulenaere (14-5-1923 – 5-6-2011)”, BiOr 68/5–6 (2011), pp. 463–64.

Maget, Antoinette, Collectionnisme public et conscience patrimoniale – Les collections d’antiquités égyptiennes en Europe, Paris 2009.

Osing, Jurgen, “Die ägyptischen Namen für Charga und Dachla”, in: Paule Posener-Kriéger (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar (BdE 97/2), Cairo 1985, pp. 179–93.

Perdu, Olivier, “Neshor à Mendès sous Apriès”, BSFE 118 (1990), pp. 38–49.

Perdu, Olivier, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve section, Paris, 17 décembre 2008 et 7 janvier 2009 : deux leçons données à l’invitation de Christiane Zivie, Directeur d’études, Paris 2009.

Piacentini, Patrizia, “The Antiquities Path: From the Sale Room of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, Through Dealers, to Private and Public Collections: A Work in Progress”, in EDAL 4 (2014), pp. 105–30.

Posener, Geoges, La première domination perse en Égypte : recueil d'inscriptions hiéroglyphiques (BdÉ 11), Cairo 1936.

Pouilloux, Jean, “Allocution à l'occasion du décès de Georges Posener”, in CRAIBL 132/2, (1988), pp. 357–60.

Qahéri, Sépideh, “Archives Jean Yoyotte”, in Archives du Centre Wladimir Golenischeff (EPHE), https://archivescwg.hypotheses.org/57, 2020.

Redford, Donald Bruce and Susan Redford, Excavations at Mendes – II: The Dromos and Temple Area, Leiden 2020.

Rössler-Köhler, Ursula, Individuelle Haltungen zum ägyptischen Königtum der Spätzeit: private Quellen und ihre Königswertung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Erwartung und Erfahrung, Wiesbaden 1991.

Spencer, Neal, “Sustaining Egyptian Culture? Non-Royal Initiatives in Late Period Temple Building”, in: Bareš, Ladislav, Filip Coppens, and Květa Smoláriková (eds.), Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference, Prague, September 1–4, 2009, Prague 2010, pp. 441–90.

Steindorff, George and Gertrude Rosenthal, “Fakes and Fates of Egyptian Antiquities: A Supplement to the Catalogue of Egyptian Sculpture” in The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 10 (1947), pp. 52–59.

Steindorff, George, Catalogue of the Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore 1946.

Vernus, Pascal, “Une statue de Neshor surnommé Psamétik-Menkhib”, in RdE 42 (1991), pp. 241–49.

Steindorff, George, Catalogue of Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore 1946.

Volait, Mercedes, “27 Madabegh Street – Prelude to an Art Movement”, in RAWI. Egypt’s Heritage Review 8 (2016)

Wenke, Robert, “Kom el-Hisn”, in: Kathryn Bard (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 1999, pp. 497–501.

Wild, Henri, “Statue d’un noble mendésien du règne de Psamétik I^er aux musées de Palerme et du Caire”, in BIFAO 60 (1960), pp. 43–67.

Wilson, Penelope, A Ptolemaic Lexikon: A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu (OLA 78), Leuwen 1997.

Zayed, Abdel Hamid, Egyptian Antiquities, Cairo 1962.

Zivie-Coche, Christiane, “Géographie religieuse, le delta oriental : Mendès et la XVI^e sepat de Basse Égypte de l’époque saïte à la XXX^e dynastie”, Annuaire EPHE, Sciences religieuses 117 (2008–2009), pp. 92 –99.