Rediscovering Sculptures from Tebtynis at the Museo Egizio in Turin

The present article is the result of a collaboration between the Museo Egizio in Turin, the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa and the Università degli Studi di Padova. It aims to offer some preliminary results of an ongoing research project focusing on the sculptures and sculptural fragments discovered at Tebtynis by Carlo Anti (Villafranca di Verona, 1889 – Padua, 1961), professor of Archaeology at the Università degli Studi di Padova and director of the Missione Archeologica Italiana in Egypt (1928– 1936). The project aims to retrace the post-excavation history of these sculptures and provide an indepth analysis of their features and archaeological context. The investigation is being conducted using an interdisciplinary approach combining a thorough stylistic analysis with the study of the archival records related to Anti’s fieldwork at Tebtynis now preserved in Padua and Venice. This paper presents three case studies from this ongoing research project. More specifically, it examines three sculptures discovered in 1931 in the area near and around the entrance to the temenos of the temple of the god Soknebtynis (Fig. 1), namely: Alexandria, This article presents three case studies from an ongoing research project on the statues and sculptural fragments from Tebtynis, discovered by Carlo Anti in the years 1930-1936 in the temple dedicated to the god Soknebtynis. Specifically, it examines the following three statues: Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum inv. no. 22979, Turin, Museo Egizio S. 18176, and a non-royal statue which one of the authors has recently identified as Turin, Museo Egizio S. 19400+S. 19400/1. The authors combine stylistic analysis with a study of relevant archival records currently kept in Padua and Venice, Italy, to shed light on these sculptures and retrace their post-excavation history.

The paper is divided into three main sections and two catalogue entries. The first section describes the discovery of the statues and the archaeological context as they emerge from the archival records related to Anti's fieldwork at Tebtynis. The three statues are discussed here in order of discovery, following Anti's report on the 1931 season. Two blocks of limestone and a Greek inscription are also taken into account to test Anti's hypothesis -put forward in notes written mostly after the excavation -of an original link between the statues and these elements.

Discovery and archaeological context
The ancient village of Tebtynis, present-day Umm el-Breighât, is located in the southern area of the Fayum. It was probably founded during the Middle Kingdom, around 1800 BC, but it flourished during the Graeco-Roman period as an agricultural and religious centre with a great temple, devoted to the god Soknebtynis. 5 It was continuously inhabited until the 11th century AD, when it was abandoned because of the advance of the desert.
This area was already mentioned in 1819 by Giovan Battista Belzoni,6 but was first explored only in 1899 by Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt. 7 It was later investigated by Otto Rubensohn, 8 in 1902, andEvaristo Breccia in 1929. 9 The site was then systematically excavated by his assistant Gilbert Bagnani from 1930 to 1936. After the Second World War, it remained abandoned for decades, until 1988, when the Università degli Studi di Milano and the IFAO resumed work at the site. One of the first aims of the French-Italian team was to study the documentation from previous excavations, notably the folders related to the fieldwork at Tebtynis preserved in the Anti archive at the Università degli Studi di Padova. 10  He was appointed to this position in 1928, after the death of the previous director, Ernesto Schiaparelli.
After the first few years, which he devoted to studying the work previously done by the Italian mission, and a first excavation in Ptolemais (Menschiah) in 1929, 13 he decided to work in Tebtynis in collaboration with the Istituto Papirologico (currently Istituto Papirologico "G. Vitelli", Florence). This collaboration was made possible by an agreement with Girolamo Vitelli and Evaristo Breccia. 14 Anti personally directed three campaigns (1930)(1931)(1932) Finally, Anti did not speculate about the position of the non-royal statue (Cat. 2). However, the archive documents indicate that all its fragments were found inside the vestibule; it is thus likely that this was also the original location of this sculpture. G.D.

Post-excavation history
The archival documentation also sheds light on the post-excavation history of the sculptures. The records reveal that the three sculptures went separate ways immediately after their discovery 51 and allow us to retrace the history of the two statues sent to Italy. More precisely, a private letter sent from Gilbert Bagnani to Carlo Anti and a second letter written by the latter to Guido Calza reports that the non-royal sculpture was displayed in an exhibition held in Rome in 1932. 52 The title of the exhibition is not In February   tion of the picture from Anti's archive showing the head of the non-royal sculpture from Tebtynis ( Fig.   26) was hung on the right side of the inner case.
The removal of the protective wrap revealed the poorly preserved body of the non-royal statue from Tebtynis (Fig. 14).
terized by toes with squared nails are well preserved.
The identification of this fragment with the body of the statue discovered by Anti is thus certain. 65 G.C.   The connection between the block with the inscription dedicated to Ptolemy XII and the statue Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum inv. no. 22979 remains possible, but is far from certain. According to Anti's notes on the discovery of the block, it was found on the west side of the entrance to the vestibule, whereas the statue was found on its east side. 83 According to Anti's records, as mentioned above, two square blocks made of two different varieties of limestone were also found on the east and west sides of the entrance to the vestibule (Fig. 10). 84 The Italian archaeologist hypothesized the presence of two statues, one for each side of the entrance, and did not link the inscribed block with the royal statue now held in Alexandria. 85 Anti's hypothesis that another, now lost statue of Ptolemy XII stood at the entrance of the vestibule and that the inscription was relative to this statue is certainly appealing. The two limestone blocks are very similar in shape and dimensions, 86  The research is still ongoing and a number of issues need further investigation. 91 We will be carrying out additional work in the context of this multidiscipli-nary approach and study the entire corpus of sculptures discovered by Anti at Tebtynis. We will further analyse the archaeological context, the possible link between all the sculptural elements found in the area of the temple (including limestone blocks and inscriptions), and the original setting of the statues.

Stylistic analysis
The resulting comprehensive study will shed light on the cultural and artistic function of these statues inside the temple area.
Cat. 1. Royal statue (Fig. 21  Cat. 2. Private statue (Fig. 12,  This poorly preserved non-royal limestone sculpture was found broken in three fragments -top of head to neck, neck to knees, and knees to base, respectively -all discovered in the vestibule. 106 The The individual portrayed wears a type of draped garment that is widely attested during the Ptolemaic Period. 110 The clothes cover most of the body, in  that only the lower part of the right arm, the right forearm, the wrists, ankles and feet are exposed. The garment is composed of a short-sleeved undergarment with a round neck, a skirt tied around the lower part of the body and a fringed cloak draped around the torso, but leaving the right shoulder and right pectoral exposed. The shoulders are disproportionately narrow with respect to the head and the neck. Of the fingers of the right hand, only the downward stretched thumb is visible. The left hand holds the outer edge of the cloak; its knuckles are clearly visible and its thumb is stretched horizontally. The skirt does not seem to be fringed. 111 The clearly visible anatomical details are the right arm and its elbow pit, the hands, the right pectoral, the left leg, the an-       fig. 11; Rondot,Tebtynis II,275, Giulia Deotto (G.D.) authored the first section ("Discovery and archaeological context"). She has worked on Anti's archive and provided all the references to Anti's documents in the text. The author of the second and third sections ("Post-excavation history" and "Stylistic analysis") and of the catalogue entries is Giorgia Cafici (G.C.). She investigated the Tebtynis statues in Turin as part of her doctoral research -a study of Ptolemaic private portraiture -and is the author of the section about the rediscovery of the non-royal statue. The introduction and the "Final Considerations" are co-authored. This article presents an in-depth analysis of the three sculptures. However, some aspects could not be covered. At present, the possible link between all the elements found in the area of the temple (including limestone blocks, inscriptions and the reliefs carved on the walls of the vestibule) cannot be securely defined. The original position of the statues in the temple also remains uncertain. Research on these issues is still ongoing. This paper thus presents only the first results of the authors' ongoing joint research. 5 Gallazzi, in Carlo Anti: giornate di studio; Gallazzi, in Casini (ed.), Cento Anni in Egitto. 6 Belzoni, Viaggi in Egitto e Nubia. 7 Grenfell and Hunt, The Tebtunis Papyri; Grenfell and Hunt, The Tebtunis Papyri, Part II; Grenfell and Hunt, The Tebtunis Papyri, Part III. 8 Rubensohn, JDAI 20 (1905). 9 Breccia, ASAE 31 (1931). 10 Gallazzi, BIFAO 89 (1989); Gallazzi, Tebtynis I. 11 Zanovello and Deotto, in Zanovello and Ciampini (eds.), Egitto in Veneto. 12 Deotto, The University of Padova in Egypt. 13 Anti, Atti Ven 89 (1929-1930. 14 Bastianini and Deotto, in Zanovello and Ciampini (eds.) 40 Cf. supra and infra, nn. 25 and 42. 41 "Nell'angolo tra la porta del tempio e il muro ovest della via processionale, nel piccolo spazio tra la figura di leone e il detto parapetto erano due blocchi di pietra, che evidentemente erano stati gettati là alla rinfusa. Quello maggiormente nell'angolo è il parallelepipedo con un dente che sporge ad una delle estremità." (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 1, no. 1). The inscription can be identified on the basis of information provided in Anti's journal, which includes a drawing of the inscribed face of the block and some remarks on its material "…data anche la qualità del calcare, il blocco non può provenire dalla facciata del tempio, ma appartiene con ogni probabilità alla base che sporge dal parapetto vicino all'angolo dove è stato trovato il blocco." (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 1, no. 1). The inscription is also documented by photographs (MSA, Anti archive, no. inv. 289, photo 001). 42 "Presso la base est che è composta di blocchi molto ben squadrati, venne trovata in pezzi ma completa una grande statua faraonica, alta m. [sic.]. Il viso è veristico, ma certo non è un imperatore romano e però deve trattarsi di un Tolomeo. Fra i blocchi crollati intorno alla base ovest la quale presenta tecnica analoga a quella degli altari, venne trovato un blocco di materiale identico e quindi certo appartenente con la seguente iscrizione [sic.]. Data la diversità di materiale e di lavoro delle due basi e le loro rispettive caratteristiche è da ritenere che la statua non rappresenti Tolomeo Neo-Dioniso, ma un Tolomeo più antico." (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 3, no. 4). The inscription is also documented by photographs (MSA, Anti archive,no. inv. 289,photo . 001). 43 The block with the inscription is 0.35 m in height, 0.69 m wide, 0.27-0.34 m deep (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 1, no. 1). 44 "Le facce B e C erano viste, date le lavorazioni e dato che su esse si intravvedono dei graffiti, invece il lato posteriore era murato perché restano molte tracce di gesso e la lavorazione è diversa. Dato questo e data anche la qualità del calcare, il blocco non può provenire dalla facciata del tempio, ma appartiene con ogni probabilità alla base che sporge dal parapetto vicino all'angolo dove è stato trovato il blocco." (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 1, no. 1). 45 The width of the front of the block with the inscription was 0.69 m, that of the pedestal 0.94 m. The inscription on the block is 59.5 cm wide. (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 1, no. 1). 46 "…δρόμος: base della statua, stesso livello della base dell'iscrizione? (se l'iscrizione appartiene alla base). Base est completa? Dunque statua? Iscrizione appartiene alla base ovest? Materiale dunque non in relazione con la statua. Base più alta? Statua più piccola? (l'altra?) Le due basi stesso livello? Stessa tecnica? Veramente simmetriche? Cfr. elementi architettonici del cortile con altari" (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 2, no. 22). 47 Cf. supra nn. 43 and 45. "Presso la base est che è composta di blocchi molto ben squadrati, venne trovata in pezzi ma completa una grande statua faraonica, alta m. [sic.]. Il viso è veristico, ma certo non è un imperatore romano e però deve trattarsi di un Tolomeo. Fra i blocchi crollati intorno alla base ovest la quale presenta tecnica analoga a quella degli altari, venne trovato un blocco di materiale identico e quindi certo appartenente con la seguente iscrizione [sic.]. Data la diversità di materiale e di lavoro delle due basi e le loro rispettive caratteristiche è da ritenere che la statua non rappresenti Tolomeo Neo-Dioniso, ma un Tolomeo più antico." (IVSLA, Anti archive, folder 7, dossier 3, no. 4). The inscription was also documented by photographs (MSA, Anti archive, no. inv. 289, photo . 001). 48 Cf. pp. 12-13. 49 Cf. supra nn. 30-32. 50 Cf. infra. n. 91. 51 One royal statue remained in Egypt (Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum inv. no. 22979) while the other two were sent to Italy.  Private letter sent by Gilbert Bagnani to Carlo Anti: "5/6/32/VI, via Pompeo Magno/ Roma/Caro Professore, / le invio a parte le fotografie dei capitelli che spero la soddisferanno. Sono state difficilissime a prendersi in quanto non si trovavano a via Gaeta ma nei magazzini a Villa Giulia. Non sono riuscito a rintracciare gli altri frammenti della statua. / Il Calza mi dice che la mostra sarà certo prorogata oltre la fine di questo mese. Visto però che gli arredi non devono tornare a Pennsylvania gli rimarrebbe una vetrina disponibile e mi domanda se sarebbe il caso di far sostituire gli smalti etc./ Nel caso che lei è contento penserei io a mettere in ordine la vetrina. Mi pare anche che sarebbe una buona occasione per far venire a Roma il papiro che potrebbe venire esposto./ Alla fine della mostra penso che sarebbe bene riportare tutto alle Terme e farlo ivi restaurare./ La statua del sacerdote ha ancora tutte le incrostazioni di sale ed è pure stata danneggiata./ Uno dei capitelli con un bagno d'acqua prolungato potrebbe venir completamente liberato dalle incrostazioni che ne deturpano il collarino./ Mi accorgo che ancora non ho letto abbastanza per poter affrontare il papiro e ho passato il mese traducendo a più non posso testi geroglifici. La mancanza di libri è un disastro! Perdo ore girando le biblioteche e constatando la mancanza di tutto! / Maria Rosa mi ha telefonato dicendomi che era impressionatissima di non aver ricevuto sue nuove e Marconi idem./ Le accludo, dulcis in fundo, il conto. Spero che avrà ricevuto gli ostraca. Non ho mandato la cassetta per Faenza poiché non sono sicuro della sabbia e si potrebbe fare con più comodo alle Terme ma se vuole and reliefs) cannot be surely defined, but we hope that further investigation of the archival material in Padua will shed further light on this issue. For example, the size and the findspots of Turin, Museo Egizio S. 18176 and Turin, Museo Egizio S. 19400 + S. 19400/01 might suggest a link between these sculptures. Turin, Museo Egizio S. 18176 is 164 cm high and Turin, Museo Egizio S. 19400 + S. 19400/01 is about 134 cm high. However, the height of the royal statue without the double crown is 140 cm. The hands of the two sculptures are 7 cm in width and their feet 20 cm in height. The fragments belonging to these two statues were all discovered inside the vestibule with the exception of the head of the royal statue, found in Room 12 in a layer of rubbish . These details thus seem to confirm that the two statues were probably set up in the same location approximately in the same period. At present, however, their link cannot be surely defined and this hypothesis cannot be proved for the time being. 92 Anti reports a height of 2.50 m in his notes (Cf. supra n. 30). However, the Italian archaeologist himself added a question mark in brackets. Indeed, the height given by Anti does not correspond to that the royal statue now held in Turin, but with that of the one in Alexandria, and is thus probably an oversight. 93 Not including exhibition catalogues where the statue is only shortly described, but without adding to our knowledge about it. 94 Information obtained from the Museo Egizio's internal database. 95 Rondot, Tebtynis II, p. 136. 96 For example, in statue Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 14 (Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, p. 14, pl. 4) king Chephren wears a nemes characterized by a plain upper section and a banded lower section. 97 For example, the statues of Ramses II that decorate the façade of the Great Temple at Abu Simbel wear a banded nemes and a double crown. 98 Stanwick, Portraits of the Ptolemies. pp. 55-56,