This statue represents a man named Shebenhor, seated with his limbs drawn close to his body and his arms folded over his knees to form a cubelike shape. Shebenhor is shown wearing a shoulder-length “bag wig,” a style that shows no detail of the hair. He is clean shaven. His expression is bland, with small, almond-shaped eyes and long, gently curving eyebrows that nearly meet over his nose. His mouth is taut with no indication of an upper lip. Shebenhor’s crossed arms rest flat on his knees, and his long fingers are shown with clearly defined fingernails. He is seated directly on the ground rather than on a cushion, the latter of which is a feature of many other block statues. His toes, with clearly defined toenails, are splayed. The front panel formed by the garment stretched between his knees is inscribed with six vertical lines of text. The back pillar that ends at the bottom of the bag wig has two vertical lines of hieroglyphic text. The rectangular base is not inscribed.
1

Additional Views of Cat. 19

Shebenhor’s garment tightly hugs his body, a distinctive and unusual feature of the statue that is especially evident from the back, where the high curve of his shoulders, his very narrow waist, and the line of the top of his kilt are evident. This clingy garment contrasts with other contemporary block statues that display a strongly cubic form. Indeed, from the back, Shebenhor looks more like a typical kneeling statue with a back pillar than a block statue (compare to cat. 21). Another unusual feature is the cursory treatment of Shebenhor’s open hands: they are shown palms down with extended fingers that seem to melt into the top surface of the statue.2

As is usual for statues of this type and date, the back pillar is inscribed with two columns of text which, like the columns of text on the front, are read from top to bottom, right to left. Less common, but still found on other examples, is the incised frame that encloses the text on the front. The inscription on the front does not fit perfectly within the area from Shebenhor’s knees to his ankles; part of it wraps around the contours of his shins. The contrast between the poorly cut, almost hammered, text and the very fine finishing of the hard stone further suggests that the workshop that carved the statue was not responsible for cutting the text. Hence, this statue was probably not made expressly for Shebenhor. Rather, it was likely an idealized representation of an elite man purchased from a sculptor’s shop that, as with most Egyptian likenesses, became the purchaser through the addition of his name.3

Shebenhor’s name means “gift of Horus.” His father’s name, Khedebhapiiretbint, means “may [the god] Hapi cast down the one who does evil,” and his mother’s name, Iahtesnakht, means “the moon is her strength.”^[1] These names reflect the trend of giving an apotropaic (protective) name to an individual that placed him or her under the protection of a deity. The use of apotropaic names became common in the Third Intermediate Period, some five hundred years before this statue was carved. Considering the expense of creating a statue in finely finished basalt, it is surprising that neither Shebenhor nor his parents emphasized their elite status by recording their administrative or priestly titles.4

The reference to Bastet, the main goddess of the city of Bubastis in the northeast Delta, in both texts suggests that this statue was erected in a temple in that town.5

Texts

The inscription on the front reads: “A gift that the king gives and that Osiris the Great God gives [to] Bastet the Great, Mistress of Bubastis, that she may give offerings from Upper Egypt and provisions from Lower Egypt to the ka of the one revered by Atum, Lord of Kaheref, Shebenhor, justified, son of Khedebhapiiretbint and born of Iahtesnakht, justified.”6

The inscription on the back pillar reads: “A gift that the king gives [to] Bastet the Great, Mistress of Bubastis, that she may give a voice offering of bread, beer, oxen, fowl, and every good thing to the ka of the one revered by Atum, Lord of Kaheref, Shebenhor, justified.”7

Block Statues and Their Development

Block statues appeared first in the Middle Kingdom (about 2000 BCE) and continued to be made into the Ptolemaic era nearly two thousand years later, a good illustration of the permanence and continuity of certain styles of Egyptian art. For unknown reasons and with very few exceptions, only elite men (and only a few women), but not kings or queens, were commemorated in this manner. Most block statues were carved from hard or soft stones, although they also were made of faience, wood, and copper alloy.^[2]8

Block statues from the Middle Kingdom tend to be small, some only a few centimeters high. Many of the early examples portray the individual either naked or in a tight garment that reveals the contours of the body through the fabric. By the late Middle Kingdom (about 2055–1650 BCE), the statues assumed a blockier, more abstract form. By the New Kingdom (about 1550 BCE), they had increased greatly in size, with some examples reaching a height of over 100 cm, and they exhibited more variation in the degree to which the curves of the body were represented.^[3] In the Third Intermediate Period (about 1069–664 BCE), the statues displayed hieroglyphic texts commemorating the career of the individual on their fronts and sides.9

Despite these variations, block statues were made in two general forms over the millennia. The first type, of which the Chicago statue is an example, portrays the subject in a garment that exposes his bare feet. The arms are crossed right over left over the knees, and only the head, arms, and hands can be seen. The second type shows the deceased with only his head and hands emerging from an enveloping cloak that obscures many of the details of the body, creating a more abstract, cubic portrayal.^[4] Cuboid statues required a smaller block of stone than did standing statues, and their compact form was more resistant to breakage, although we do not know if this was indeed a factor in their popularity.10

Symbolism of Block Statues

The tightly bound appearance of the block statues stems from the belief that being wrapped like a mummy is related to one’s survival in the afterlife and association with Osiris.^[5] Although block statues differ from traditional mummiform Osiris statues in their pose (see cat. 28), in both types, the body is reduced to an outline with only the head and hands (and sometimes the feet) emerging from the fabric. This association with rebirth is also clear in block statues that depict the deceased grasping emblems of rejuvenation.11

Function of Block Statues in Temples and Tombs

These block statues were intended to be an imperishable record of the name and the idealized appearance of the individual, and to serve as a surrogate for the deceased to receive the offerings and prayers essential to surviving in the eternal afterlife. A text on a New Kingdom block statue on which the deceased (whose name has been lost) addresses his sculpted image is very explicit about this function: “O my likeness, may you be firm for my name, the favorite for everyone, so that people will stretch out their hands to you bearing splendid bouquets, that you may be given libations and incense … and then my ba [spirit] will come fluttering so that it may receive offerings with you for the soul of [personal name].”^[6]12

Middle Kingdom block statues were placed in tomb chapels. By the early New Kingdom, with a few exceptions, they were displayed in the pillared halls and processional ways inside or outside of temples. In these locations, block statues could absorb the prayers said during rituals and festivals and convey those blessings to the soul of the deceased. Some of these statues stayed in place for hundreds of years or even a millennium, as indicated by the Karnak Cachette, a group of more than two thousand statues and statuettes that was discovered at the Karnak Temple in 1903.^[7] The statues in the Cachette, which date from the New Kingdom (about 1550 BCE) to the second century BCE, had apparently been cleared out of the temple and given an honorable burial in the temple precinct. The 355 block statues from the find date to the New Kingdom (42 examples); the Third Intermediate Period (114 examples); the Late Period (154 examples); and the Ptolemaic Period (136 examples). The wide range of dates for their manufacture attests to the popularity and longevity of the practice of placing statues in temples.13

The shape of these statues made them ideal for receiving offerings from priests and pious visitors to the temple, for the crossed arms created a surface upon which food could be placed. A certain amount of anxiety was expressed about the future of the statues. A text on an example from Karnak exhorts: “O priests … do not remove my statue from its place … perform the royal offering for my ka every day, with every leftover from [the offerings for] Amun.”^[8] Another text voices concerns about the maintenance of the statue: “May you speak my name when you bring water, may you remove any corruption, dirt or refuse [?] from me. May you take away all that is dirty from me.”^[9]14

The Statue’s Modern History

This statue has a very long history. Sometime before 1801 it was said to have been found in a tomb at Memphis by Colonel Vincent-Yves Boutin, an agent of Napoleon Bonaparte, who was active in Constantinople, Algeria, and Syria.^[10] When posted to Syria, Boutin placed his collection of maps, plans, manuscripts, statues, and other objects for safekeeping with the vice-consul of France stationed in Latakia. In 1815, Boutin was assassinated by the Hashashin in Syria. In 1830, his collection, including “une statuette de basalte parfaitement conservée et très belle,” and its inventory were recovered by the French minister of war and sent to Nantes, Boutin’s hometown. ^[11] In 1859, a drawing of the statue (fig. 1), along with a translation of the texts by the Egyptologist Théodule Devéria, was published, and the statue was initially incorrectly dated to Dynasty 22 and then, correctly, to Dynasty 26.^[12] The statue elicited enough interest that a cast was made from it for the museum in Nantes. In a publication of 1882, the fate and whereabouts of the original statue were questioned.^[13] As far as is known to this author, the statue next surfaced in 1924, when Mrs. George L. Otis purchased it from Madame Paul Guieysse in Morbihan, France, suggesting that it may have stayed in a private collection (or collections) in France. Later that year, Mrs. Otis presented it to the Art Institute of Chicago.15

Provenance

Said to be found in Memphis, Egypt [Mauduit 1859]. Colonel Vincent-Yves Boutin (1772–1815), Nantes, France, and Latakia, Syria [according to Mauduit 1859, this statue was found among Boutin’s belongings in Latakia, where he died on a military mission in 1815]. Musée Archéologique de Nantes, Nantes, France, by 1882 [Rougé 1882]. Mme. Paul Giueysse, Lanester, France; sold to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1924.16

Publication History

A. Mauduit, “Notes sur le Colonel du Génie Boutin (de Nantes) et sur une statuette funéraire égyptienne,” Bulletin de la Société Archéologique de Nantes 1 (1859): 97–113, pl. 5.17

J. de Rougé, “Notes sur la collection égyptienne du Musée Départemental Archéologique de la Loire-Inférieure,” Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France 43 (1882): 87–90, pl. 5a.18

Emily Teeter, “Egyptian Art,” in “Ancient Art at the Art Institute of Chicago,” special issue, Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 20, no. 1 (1994): 25–27, no. 9.19

Jaromír Málek, Diana Magee, and Elizabeth Miles, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Statues, Reliefs and Paintings, vol. 8, Objects of Provenance Not Known, pt. 2, Private Statues (Dynasty XVIII to the Roman Period), Statues of Deities (Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1999), 845, no. 801-755-130.20

Roberta Casagrande-Kim, ed., When the Greeks Ruled Egypt: From Alexander the Great to Cleopatra, with contributions by Mary C. Greuel et al., exh. cat. (New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 2014), 103, no. 118.21

Ashley F. Arico, “Reading Ancient Egyptian Art: A Curator Answers Common Questions,” Art Institute of Chicago (blog), July 14, 2020.
22