The facial surfaces are well rendered: observe the varied treatment of the cheek below the eye in figs. [32], [33], and [35], which are clearly individual. The entirely different form of the mouth in these three is as evidently personal. Throughout Egyptian work the eye is of two distinct types, both of which we see here in the XIIth dynasty. In one type ([fig. 32]) the upper lid rises to its highest point near the inner side; and with this form the actual corner, or canthus major, may end in a mere angle or in a lachrymal fossa more or less developed, an extreme case of the long and wide fossa being seen in [fig. 32], and in the black granite figure from Alexandria (so-called Hyksos) in Cairo. This may be called the gibbous form of lid, and it is the more usual in the sculpture and on coffins. The use of a copper frame round the inserted eye in Old Kingdom statues makes it uncertain how far the lachrymal fossa was intended to appear. But the statues of a single material show a small fossa in most cases, such as Khafra, Dadefra, the (so-called) wife of the Sheykh, and Sebekhotep III. In later work there is no fossa, but only an angle, as in Tahutmes III, Amenhotep III, Amenhotep son of Hapi, and other instances to the end of the dynasties. But a slight fossa is shown in Akhenaten and his family, and in Ramessu II; and, under the Ethiopians, Taharqa and Amenardys are both shown with a long fossa.
The other type of eye seen in figs. [33], [35] may be called the narrow eye. This seems to belong mainly to the Middle Kingdom, and is seen in Senusert III, Amenemhat III, Queen Nofert, and Noferhotep. It is perhaps unknown at an earlier age; and later it rarely occurs, but may be seen in Merenptah, and somewhat in Mentu-em-hat and some portraits of the XXVIth dynasty. These remarks are merely to draw attention to a detail which is easily observed and seldom defaced; but for drawing conclusions an extensive study is needed of all the varieties of form and treatment, not only of the eye, but also of the lips, nostrils, ears, and hair. How far such detail belonged to the subject, and how much is due to artistic conventions, we cannot yet say; but from the similarities of portraits of the same person it seems probable that the details are really due to differences of type.
MIDDLE KINGDOM SCULPTURE
32. Senusert I
33. Senusert III
34. Foreign type
35. Amenemhat III
We now have a very difficult question to state as to the origin of the remarkable type of [fig. 34]. This is one of the class of sphinxes and statues commonly described as being of the Hyksos. Yet, as the Hyksos kings’ names are roughly cut on the shoulders of the sphinxes, they are clearly not the original inscriptions; and, as clearly, these figures are older than the Hyksos. The type is distinguished by an extreme muscularity of the face, deeply cut, powerful lips with strong flexures, and the long nose, not very prominent, but broad. All these points are much in excess of such features on any statue of a named Egyptian king. Some similarities may be seen in the type of Senusert III and Amenemhat III (figs. [33], [35]); but these latter are much less strong and unconventional. It is probable that some of the stock of [fig. 34] has gone to form the type of figs. [33] and [35], but it is impossible to see in them a uniform single type. It seems most probable that [fig. 34] belongs to an invading people from Syria during the decadence of the Old Kingdom, between the VIIth and Xth dynasties; but until some example with an original name may be found, it is useless to be more definite. It is noticeable how all of the heads of this type are in black granite, or rarely some other igneous rock; this suggests that they were wrought by the school of the eastern desert, and may therefore not be controlled by the decadence of ordinary Egyptian work between the Old and Middle Kingdoms.