Within the quiet walls of museum galleries, where artifacts hold untold secrets, one enigma beckons curious minds into its mysterious embrace: the statue of Yupa, a celebrated member of Rameses II’s court in ancient Egypt, currently on view in KAM’s Ancient Mediterranean gallery. Beyond its historical significance, scholarly attention is drawn to the intriguing dissonance between the aesthetic treatment of this statue’s head and body, prompting Egyptologists to posit that the head may constitute a contemporary addition to the original body. How could that be?
Yupa emerges from the annals of ancient Egyptian history as a figure of considerable importance. As Rameses II’s scribe and superintendent, Yupa commanded admiration and authority within the royal court. Crafted circa 1279–1213 BCE, nineteenth dynasty, the sculpture of Yupa is believed to originate from the environs of Karnak. A kneeling figure measuring 27 inches in height, the statue preserves the mass and rectangularity of the black granite block from which it was hewn. Positioned before the figure lies an altar decorated with a ram’s head, symbolizing reverence to the deity Amen. The sculpture’s body remains in a state of admirable preservation. Adorned with hieroglyphics on all four sides, the statue has an inscription that bears testament to Yupa’s significance, with some symbols attributing the construction of great pillars in the Temple of Amen to Hatiay, Yupa’s son, while others speak of Yupa’s employment in the palace of Rameses II. These inscriptions invoke Egyptian deities, further underscoring Yupa’s importance within the religious and administrative spheres of ancient Egypt.
The provenance of KAM’s Yupa statue traces a complex trajectory of ownership transfers amongst collectors and institutions. It was originally acquired in Egypt in 1895 by Sir Arthur Wallis Budge, the curator of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the British Museum, from an unknown dealer. The unoriginal head was already attached to the sculpture at that time. Budge obtained Yupa on behalf of London socialite Lady Meux of Theobald Park. The statue was auctioned at the sale of Meux’s collection in 1911, and bought by William Randolph Hearst, an American entrepreneur and publisher, who purportedly facilitated its sale at an auction held by Sotheby’s in 1939. However, Egyptologist Tom Hardwick contends that this auction did not occur, asserting instead that Joseph Brummer, a famous art dealer and collector, obtained the piece from Hearst’s art branch, the International Studio Art Corp, in 1940. Following Brummer’s demise, the statue was then auctioned in New York around 1948–49, when it was acquired by Julius Carbach, an art collector. Later, following a brief tenure with another private collector in Long Beach, New York, the statue was eventually purchased by Fred Olsen of Guilford, Connecticut, in 1967. Finally, in the same year, Krannert Art Museum acquired the statue using funds gifted by Ellnora D. Krannert.
Scholars and curators have long grappled with the origins of a discrepancy between Yupa’s head and body, pondering whether it stems from ancient restoration efforts or more recent interventions in the statue’s journey through time. The quest to unravel the mystery of Yupa’s mismatched head and body gained momentum when Muriel B. Christison, KAM’s Associate Director, in 1967 opted to detach the head to ascertain the congruence of the two surfaces, and to remove the cracked and discolored adhesive used to attach the unoriginal head. Christison enlisted the expertise of Joseph Ternbach, a renowned restoration specialist of the day, to carry out this work. Ternbach noted as well that the prior restoration had resulted in the head being affixed to the body at an oblique angle. Ternbach undertook the meticulous process of removing the head and cleansing the introduced adhesives. He then reinserted a dowel to pitch the head correctly and reattached the head to the body.
However, concerns regarding the authenticity of the statue’s head remained and prompted Christison to engage classical art specialists and Egyptologists in a collaborative effort to decipher its secrets. Inquiries into its provenance revealed a labyrinthine journey through the hands of various collectors and institutions, raising questions about the statue’s handling and potential alterations over the years. Notable in the correspondences was a 1967 letter to Christison from John D. Cooney, then curator of Egyptian and classical art at the Cleveland Museum of Art, stating his opinion that “the head of the sculpture dated to the late nineteenth century.” Still, the mystery of the head remained unsolved and inconclusive.
In 2023, esteemed Egyptologist Tom Hardwick revisited the mystery of Yupa’s head for a forthcoming article on John Cooney’s recollection of the art dealer Joseph Brummer, who attempted to sell Yupa to the Brooklyn Museum while Cooney was curator of Egyptian art there. Hardwick reached out to KAM, reiterating Cooney’s skepticism regarding the originality of the head. He highlighted in particular the discrepancies in the hieroglyphic inscriptions below and beneath a crack at the back of the head. He also noted that distinct differences in the treatment of the curls flanking the break suggested incongruity between the head and the rest of the statue’s body. Further analysis revealed deviations from the characteristic features of sculptures from the era of Rameses II, including prominent bulging eyes, completely flat and horizontally aligned eyebrows, a robust nasal structure, and plump lips. Hardwick also concluded that the meticulous detailing typical of Pharaonic representations, notably evident in the pleated robe, was conspicuously absent from the head. The portrayal of Yupa’s ears as fully exposed and resting against the echeloned wig diverged from established norms of nineteenth dynasty artistry.
Hardwick encouraged KAM’s Senior Curator Allyson Purpura to seek second opinions. She reached out to Egyptologists Helmut Brandl from Humboldt University, Simon Conner from Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Rita Freed at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, and Gabriela Pieke at the Reiss-Engelhorn Museum, all of whom corroborated Hardwick’s observations. Consequently, prevailing opinion asserts that the head is indeed a modern addition to the ancient, headless body, presumably crafted to enhance both its aesthetic and monetary value. However, unanswered questions remain. As Hardwick stated in an email to Purpura, “When and how the statue lost its original head I cannot say: it could have been decapitated (deliberately or accidentally) in antiquity; it could have been found intact and the head removed for quick and easy sale so perhaps it’s still out there. . . . It’s in the back of my mind; the head could have been damaged and was removed so the fake one could be attached. Hard to tell” (Hardwick to Purpura, 2.26.24).
The debate surrounding “authentic” versus “restored” historical artifacts within museums is rich and nuanced, and raises broader questions about cultural heritage, representation, and ethical stewardship. Should museums strive to display artifacts exactly as they were originally created, damaged, or violated, even if it means displaying them incomplete? Or is it acceptable to restore or replace missing parts in order to present a more complete or visually appealing representation of the artifact? And what about “restorations” that are forged to appear original when in fact they are not? Scholars have illuminated the complexities and ethics of this debate, emphasizing the need to balance preservation of an artifact’s original integrity with the imperative to engage and educate museum visitors.
While “authenticity” or the original integrity of artifacts is undeniably important in conveying their cultural significance, so too are the changes or alterations they experience during the course of their lifetimes. Restoration efforts, when undertaken responsibly and transparently, can enhance our understanding and appreciation of historical objects—and their “afterlives” as objects on display. By navigating this debate thoughtfully and engaging in critical dialogue, museums can fulfill their dual role as custodians of cultural heritage and dynamic spaces for exploration and learning.
Information for this essay is based on correspondence and documents housed at KAM in object acquisition file 1967-3-3, and email correspondence between Tom Hardwick and Allyson Purpura, 2023–24. See also Tom Hardwick, “Pioneers or Followers? The Brummer Brothers and Egyptian Art, 1910–1922” in The Brummer Galleries, Paris and New York: Defining Taste from Antiquities to the Avant-Garde, Yaëlle Biro, Christine E. Brennan, and Christel H. Force, eds. Brill: 2023.
Author: Umar Hameed, graduate student in Art Education, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; KAM curatorial intern, spring 2024.
