In the context of this artwork, explore the 2000s - present of the Identification history.
Sally-Ann Ashton of The Fitzwilliam Museum focuses on "the unusual extended back pillar with crown and the rounded portrait features, which on closer examination echo but do not exactly match those of early Ptolemaic period" in dating the statue.Facial Features: While examining the statue's face, Ashton noted "in profile, the face appears flat and almost angular, a feature typical of Roman-era copies of Ptolemaic sculpture." She adds, "the pronounced modelling around the eyes is typical of Roman-period sculptures and can be found on numerous sphinxes and portraits of the emperor as pharaoh."The Roman copying of Ptolemaic sculpting traditions may be due in-part to a policy introduced by Cleopatra VII. As Ashton writes "research undertaken for the British Museum's Cleopatra of Egypt exhibition, scholars had discovered Cleopatra VII had a policy of associating herself with Arsinoe II." This policy "included copying the sculptures of Arsinoe's day (early Ptolemaic period) who remained a popular goddess into the Roman period."In reference to the past attempts at identification based on facial features Ashton remarked, "it is not surprising then that some earlier-style features found their way into the Roman-Egyptian repertoire of Cleopatra's time, which also explains why scholars have struggled to place the ROM's piece."Back Pillar and Crown: Ashton made a connection between the statue at the ROM and an almost identical piece from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College, London, "which shares the unusual pillar and crown, is also linked to the 1st century BC and to Cleopatra herself."The back pillar usually "extended beyond the statue's head only in colossal statue's to support the headdress." The ROM and the Petrie sculptures were "smaller than life-size" yet both shared the back pillars defining characteristic. While the piece at the ROM does not have any identifying inscriptions, the sculpture at the Petrie Museum does and reads "king's sister and king's wife." The inscription on the Petrie sculpture identifies the piece to be of Cleopatra VII sometime between 46-47 BC.The crown of the statue (now broken) provided another link to identifying the statue. "In form, the ROM and the Petrie sculptures are the same; both have the crown carved from the same block of stone as the statue's." The differences in the two crowns can be found on the statue's headdress. The ROM's statue has one uraeus (cobra) sculpted into the headdress, while the Petrie piece has three. One cobra was usually indicative of being "associated with Arsinoe II" a queen we now know Cleopatra VII was synonymous with, through policy. Three cobras was the usual distinction Cleopatra VII would use in motifs. With this in mind, Ashton hypothesized that "the ROM statue may thus be a missing link-a very early representation of the queen, at a time before she had adopted the three cobras, perhaps during her early reign with Ptolemy XIII. This would date the statue from 51 to 47 BC.Currently, the artifact label for the Royal Ontario Museum's statue of Cleopatra VII reads as follows:Statue Fragment of Cleopatra VII
69 - 30 BC
Although this statue is not inscribed, analysis supports identification as the renowned Cleopatra, early in her reign. The portrait is done in a traditional, idealized Egyptian style which does not reflect a realistic appearance.
Ptolemy XIII Cleopatra VII The Fitzwilliam Museum pharaoh British Museum Royal Ontario Museum Arsinoe II Roman Ptolemaic Fitzwilliam Museum Egypt Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology uraeus Roman-era Cleopatra sphinxes