Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4:l (1.994), pp. 67 _9a

on the status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Artj?t ,,

,t; .l , kt

Iohn Bainei p;

'r\! ff:[1113-:,11',T*y,11

^Wf)ffrcnNo term in the ancient Egyptia.n language

-corresponds neatly wifh Western usages of'art', Attd Egyp,tologists.haye often arguei that thire is no suih thing as ':igyptian Art,.

Yet aesthetically orga-nized structures and artefacts constitute the ilaloriti-of asidencef,?ry.EFVp-t, a legacy nyt:d m.ainly- for a small dlite. The genres of these materials, alt ofwh.ich had functions additional to ihe purgly aesthetic, arisimilar to those of many othercaltures. Thty constitute a repository o7 iiailizational aalues, related to ihe syitem ofhieroglyphic writing, that utas mainiained and transmitted across period.s. Ciiitizationand artistic style are almost identified utith each other. Funerary maierial constitutes onecentral context for artistic forms; others are temples and such ioorty-preseraed.locationsas palaces.-The importance attachd to artistic actioities in Egypt, iigh-cultural innoiai-ment in them, and idiosyncratic darclopments can be illuiiiated irom many periods.Egyptian art is-a typicglly inward-Iookin'g. and almost self-sustaining product iy i prot'es-sional Troup. It is no less 'art' for the utide range of functiont ond"purposes ii fulfiited.

Tn" aufirrition and evaluation of works of art and ofart as a phenomenon continue to vex archaeologists,among others. \rVhat is inhritively seen as art loomslarge in the material and textual record of recentmillennia and responds ill to analyses that ignoreeither its 6lite character or its symbolic and aestheticmeanings. Theoldest, Palaeolithic contexts in whichsuch meanings are at issue have been discussed inthis journal by Bednarik (1992), Chase & Dibbte (lggl),and Davidson (1992). Their discussion focuses onartefacts derived from what can only be non<om-plex societies; while their symbolismis crucial, theirsocial divisiveness and social status are not.In addi-tion to questions of symbolism, issues of definitionand status are insistent for many complex societies,in part because art may be embedded in those socie-ties in ways that many see as different from those ofthe contemporary world. These contrasts do not af-fect the prominence of artistic phenomena - how-ever defined - in the record; so far as ancient andmodern contexts can be compared, they often appearmore prominent than analogous phenomena in con-temporary societies.

In studying many societies, especially those ap-proached through the material record, it is desirabieto seek clarity - final agreement is beyond reach -in these matters of the definition, and siill more of thestatus, of art. Ancient Egypt offers a paradigm exam-plq both because artistic phenomeni are so-salient inits preserved record and because of the pattern ofmodern discussion.r The background witirin Egyp-tology is well illustrated by the opening of tne Rritpaper in Stud,im zur altiigyptischen Kunstgachichte,which derives from a conference on Egyptian arthistory in 1987 (the author encapsulates a viiw ratherthan subscribes to it):

Strictly speaking, there can be no ,art history' -that is, academic documentation and interpretationof 'works of art' and study of the development oftheir motifs, forms, and siyles - in our field, be-cause, according to the general view, there are noEgyptian works of art, in the common understand-ing of a category of things distinct from other arte-facts . . . ( Junge 7990,1; trans. |ohn Baines)

Egyptologists, especially the linguists among them,have observed that there was r+ indiEenous

\-f &;-^

67

]ohn Baines

c>@ylt

-n,

z//,y'//,@Ql|fifr. {iJ.J II

a[ tr{

il v==lhil^il r"A

lln,l

lln;ryu

fl3./ftl EamilNg=u.t:*ril fi.S-

ru+J FTt

Egyptian.cat3ory of 'art,, the nearest approach to

l:-.l..1lltX g:tle the. word &rnr, whicrr I's'normailyrendered 'craft, (see also n.-5 here). Thus, the urgri-ment.luls, not only can works of art not be identified::.a dlstr:rct group, but the Egyptians had no notionorart'. lhe statement just quoted can be contrastedwith an article on ,Artists

and artisans in pt ur"oni.Egypt', which uses a differe"t "pp.ou.f,

unI mode ofreasoning to assert thahThe majorityof what is preserved from ancient Egyptconsists of the products of artisans

"r,a u.iirt, *t o

H::::"_d j_*hniques of working with, and giving apleaslng form to, such materiils as wood] stone,metal, ivory, glass, leather, faience, and clav. . . .

l::"y 3?" people assume automatically thai thesep_reces belong to the category of ,art,. (Drenkhahn,rn press)

. . - My initial aims here -are to suggest ways ofbridging the gap between these two siitements and

to consider how a definition of the status and charac_ter of art can profitably be related lo ii, *.i"f

"ontext.Ine tlrst quotation is an extreme formutation of aview most favoured by linguists, in part U".uu* ofll::l-".flln with arguments about ihe word tvnt;itls unllkety to command wide acceptance. The formu_Iation is, however, valuable becjuse ii exemptiflesthe problems of reconciling largely ptritoioeical evi*:.-" 1],n

the chiefly arte"ractrir fJri, ior?i.,* pori_tron summarized in the second quotation, ana witfrapproaches that focus on art as a'social insiitution.

Figure l..Scenes of sculptors, painters, anil carpentersmaking a bed and s,moothing wood, in the i";; iPepy'ankh'Heny the Btack at Uyi Stn Oy*rty. (After

BlachnanIgS3, pl.iS.)

Theoretical context and dfinitionIntr i: not the place for a detailed discussion of howro dehne art. What is relevant here is the widespreadperception that art is a virtual ;;;;;;l; noiu""u.,r":l:.Ionu is.an artist or a connoisseur, but becauseTotl - perhaps all - societies exhibit ph"no*"nuor extremely diverse character that can be interpreted11

'arf. This is despite problems of eual.ruUon anaolsputes over what is and is not ,art,. Contrary to thefirst sentence of E.H. Co*Uricf,isie""*""aii, Sr"fyot' Art (1972,4), I woutd argue thatihere-is ,such

athing as art,. Although soile ,noa"in "riiical

atti_tuoes may suggest otheniise, art is a social morethan an individual phenomenon, and works of artT^11,lgi..

primary si gnificance and inter preta tion intnerr originating society, as against the secondaryaesthetic response of a modern"vi"r", tvt,i.t, Roru-marie Drenkhahn evokes in her acute formulation.Both the art historian and the i.onoio*ri- need toseek a definition or a frame of referencE ihat is oriented

.towards the patrons, creators and consumersor art rn_ the producing society and to the institutionof art which they create and sustain.

^_, _ la ruuTs hardlypossible to arrive at a rigorous

and generally acceptable definition of art; approachessuch as rhat of Wollheim (19g0) relate to biff"r"r,tissues from those I address here. But ttris aifficuttydoes not imply that the phenomer,on oi"it Jo", notexist, any more than the great difficulty linguists ex_perience in defining the ,word,

means if,"t i"o.a, al

68

(l

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

not exist. As in much humanistic study, there is anunavoidable circularity in processes of identificationand circumscription.

An initial weakness in the Egyptological viewcited earlier relates to the linguistic argument de-rived from the word hmt.If a word for rsJf'- 61,6s i5more often proposed, 'craft'_- is identified and itsmeaning analyzed, this may not be revealing for thequestion of which phenomena in the ancient societyshould be called 'art'. Instead, it may principally pro-vide a foil for discussion of the modern term ,art,,

whose meaning itself changes. While familiar West-ern meanings have parallels in the Ctassical'world,they hardly date farther back than the Renaissance oreven the nineteenth century. Such probler4s of fitbetween concepts and usages of different periodsmaybe best met by adoptinga middle ground.

To object to seeing Egyptian art as 'art' becausethe etymology or 'true' meaning of Egyptian lont is'craft' is in any case incorrect. Etymology is not agood a guide to usage and meaning, and moreoverthere are parallels, not least in Western tradition, foran evolution from ideas of 'craft' to more value-ladenones of 'art'. In the reverse direction, the word lrrfhas usages parallel to those of Westem 'art', as whenthe skills of a doctor or lector priest are termed hishmt (e.g. Erman & Crapow lg2i,U),like theWestern'physician's art'; but since in such cases only the highprestige of the contexts leads one to render'art' ratherthan 'craft', this alternative throws the burden of in-terpretation away from particular genres and backon social factors. These analogies do not in them-selves imply that the Egyptian word orconcept had aspread of meaning comparable to those of 'ar( inmodern times, but theyleave the question open. With-out wishing to pursue this issue further, I suggestthat it is legitimate to use the extraneous category of'art' to.explore ancient material, provided that theterm's fragility in any context is kept in mind and aninstitutionally based understanding is sought. Mod-els of actors' perspectives on the institution of artshould include the positions of both patrons andexecutants. It is possible to approach these perspec-tives through extant works and their social context,as well as through descriptive texts or the analysis ofancient terminology

The second Egyptological objection to employ-ing the concept of art, presented by Friedrich fungein the first quotation aboVe, is that works of art didnot form a single category or perform a single func-tion (l return to this issue on p.76). The same, how-ever, applies in essence to many or most forms ofartistic production, although there are distractingly

paradigmatic exceptions in Classical and Western so_cieties where a premium is placed on the artist andon high-value mobile works of art. At a lower level,such pheno.mena as the material acquired in the con-temporary world for its local or touristic interest alsoform exceptions. For many traditions, the fact thatworks have definite and various functions and canbe analyzed in terms of those functions is not seen asdetracting from their status as 'works of art, or aslessening the desirability of analyzing them in artis-tic as well as functional terms. In any case, rather fewcategories of artefact have only one function. Archi-tecture is esscntially functional, while remaining thepremier art form for many societies.

Although it is impossible to define art to gen-eral satisfaction, some indication of what is meanthere is needed. I suggest that ancient Egyptian worksof art are products, created for any purpose, thatexhibit a surplus of order and aesthetic organizationwhich goeS beyond the narrowly functional. Such adefinition is not intended to be evaluative of quality,as against ordering and aesthetic intent, and ithardiyaddresses genre or the cultural significance of worksof art. It can, however, incorporate rituals and per-forming arts. In essence it is close to the characteriza-tion of Drenkhahn cited earlier. It is also probablycompatible with the usage of lmt,bvt it focuses onthe product rather than the skills which went into itsmaking. The definition is partial in taking this focusand in appearing to neglect the social instihrtionsthat made, utilized, and valued the products. Anawareness of this social dimension is indeed neces-sary for a full definition, but it cannot easily be incor-porated into a brief formulation.

This definition should be contrasted with twooffered by Egyptologists. Both of these focus on representation. |unge (1990, 15-19) proposes that onething which makes Egyptian representational workinto 'art' is that its practitioners were not engaged in acraft pursuit but in rendering an almost Platonic 'idea'.Although representational works tend to derive fromone another more than to copy nature, and Junge'sapproach does not effectively address this aspecl itdoes render some iustice to the conceptual nature ofrepresentation. Yet representation has such a naturein many or most artistic traditions and it is difficult tosee in what way Junge's position would bring ancientEgyptian and Westem art under a single rubric.2Roland Tefnin (7997b,76-8), who concentrates ontwo-dimensional works, takes a still more restrictiveview, seeing as most strongly'art' those works whichexploit and make play with normal representationalconventions to achieve unusual effects.

69

]ohn Baines

Figure 2. Colossal statue of Min from Koptos. Ox-for d, Ashmolun Mus eum 1, 89 4.1.0 5e. Limestone.L"ate fourth millennium. (Courtesy of the Visitors ofthe AshmoteanMuseum.)

These definitions respond to the elaborate andhigh-cultural character of traditions in complex soci-eties, but they do not relate representationai works to

their.use by patrons or to the commonality of pur-pose and style between architecture, representationalart, and decorative arts. Furthermore, play with rep-resentational forms is also characteristic of stronglydecorative traditions that arevery different from thatof Egypt, and it is not uniquely high-cultural. Thusthese definitions describe aspects of Egyptian art thatcan be paialleled in haditions and societies of manytypes. The centrality of style to high-cultural tradi-tions is nonetheless vital. A civilization and a style

'are nearly coextensive. A style is a crucial vehicle ofdiscourse and of the maintenance of a sociery's iden-tity; devdlopment of and rupture with styles are mat-ters of great importance. lThis role of style, which iseasily perceived in Egypt, is less dominant in manylater traditions.

Social contexts and divisions

Art and exclusionIf the majority of the preserved Egyptian record has adeliberate aesthetic organization, and definitions ofart can accommodate that point, it is desirable toestablish an interpretive framework that will incor-porate this aesthetic character, and to set it within theancient society and its values.

The record focuses on monumental tomb com-plexes and temples. The materials used in both weregenerally more durable than those used in structuresdesigned for the living. Tombs were sited where pos-sible in the desert and thus have a disproportionatechance of survival. Although this bias in the sourcesis not accidental and says something about what mat-tered to the 6litg tombs and temples do not exhaustthe contexts in which art might be located. Otherimportant but largely lost loci include palaces (e.g.

O'Connor 1993) and the houses and estates of the6lite;3 fortresses, too, are highly patterned and notnarrowly functional (cf. Trigger 1993, 75-7).I{her-ever static art was set up, mobile art was probablypresent and, at least in relation to Egyptian influenceabroad (e.g. Teissier 1988), was evidently most im-portanq yet it is very largely lost.

Characteristically Egyptian artistic culture of theDynastic Period (from c. 3000) transformed its pre-historic precursors, and the new art and culture wereavailable only to the 6lite (Baines 1989b). Not onlywas the transformed 6lite art specialized in its tech-niques, style and iconography, it was also a typicalart of a professional group. Its mode of execution, itschoice of materials (which required great expendi-ture of resources and technical specialization) and itscomplex and complete integration of writing removed

70

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

it from the purview of all but the 6lite, who couldcommission works or receive them as largesse andcould in principle read what was written on them.(The workt' potential for imparting status could havebeen independent of whether patrons comprehendedthem aesthetically or iconographically.)

What cannot be established, and indeed seemsunlikely, is that the life and even the death of thoseoutside the 6lite - that is, of most people - includedmuch that was aesthetically formed. As in most com-plex societiet art was mainly of and for the €lite, andit excluded the rest of society, who hardly had accessto its products. So far as the non-€lite subscribed todlite-values, tlcy were deprived of the potential toexploit artistic firrms, partly by wealth and partly bygenre. In respect of genre, enduring artefacts thatmight have been typical of the non-dlite seem to havebeen largely eliminated from the acknowledged rep-ertory or to have been devalued in importance. Thedaily activities of the non-6lite are unlikely to haveincluded much that was artistic, except among thoselvho made artistic products or served the 6lite.Whether there were distinctive artistic activities andtraditions outside the 6lite can hardly be known. Whilethe non-€lite could have possessed artistic forms inperishable materials that leave no record, and haveused them in settlements that are inaccessible to ar-chaeology, the prestige attaching to 6lite-controlledmaterials and contexts makes it improbable that the6litc would havc valued such things highly. A com-parable phenomenon that does seem to have occurredis that a few activities relating to certain areas ofhuman activity, such as fertility, lay outside standardhigh-cultural forms. Fertility figurines do not con-form to general representational conventions, yet theiruse appears to have been common to all accessibleslrata of society (Pinch 1993, 798-234\.

This issue can be formulated in terms of howfar one can speak of 'two cultures' or of a counter-culhrre. fan Assmann (e.g. 1991, 16-31) has proposedthat there were 'two cultures' in Egypt, the monu-mental, religious and aesthetic on the one hand andthe everyday on the other, and that these are charac-terized by the use of stone, or of mud brick andperishable materials, respectively. He further sug-gests that this distinction is part of the Egyptian ori-entation towards permanence and towards the nextworld, and is thus especially characteristic of Egyptian civilization. Yet such privileging of particularforms and materials occurs in many Jocieties and isnot confined to complex ones; a selective privilegingof architectural genres also has parallels in other civi-lizations. I suggest rather that the institutions on which

Assmann focuses were even more socially exclusivethan he implies, since they prescribed the correctcultural forms and materials as constituting societalvalues and Surrounded central cultural practices witha barrier of expertise. The only chance those outsidethe 6lite had to participate iq artistic culture was by

'imitating the forms of their betters in materials andstyles that were not appreciated. This barrier separat-ing high culture from the rest was modelled througha system of decorum that circumscribed the content. of representational art and focused ultimately on theworld of the gods.{

Thus the 6lite appropriated. resources and re-stricted materially and symbolically what was avail-able to others. Deprivation by poverty is typical ofcomplex societies, but probably less characteristic ofnon<omplex ones where wealth, which tends to takethe form of people as much as of things, often im-poses on its possessor the obligation to exploit anddisburse it for general consumption. In this siise, thephenomena considered by Assmann typify complexsocieties, which also exploit powerful means of,creat-ing value and social definition through style.

This specialization of artistic culture and aes-thetic deprivation of the non-€lite can be seen invarious contexts. The basic living quarters in plannedsettlements attached to major constructions of theOld, Middleand New Kingdoms (e.g. Hdlscher'1934,pl. 2;'1957, 13-15) have an almost industrial uni-formity in layout and style (for implications, seeKemp 1989, 1 1 1-80; Richards'1992, 3746). Ceramicsof most periods, which were used by everyone, hadfew aesthetic pretensions and were very seldom deco-rated. The 6lite could look to containers in metal,stone and Egyptian faience (which may have been arather more widely distributed luxury ware), whereasmass-produced pottery is virtually all that survivesfrom other people. The highly uniform ceramics sug-gest provision or organi2ation by the centre or astrongly hegemonic non.high sr11ure. This drab uni-formity removed the aesthetic potential of a vitaland universal material. The aesthetic devaluation ofceramics, as is generally found, for example, in Meso-potamia, contrasts with their contemporaneous de-velopment in the rather less complex and centralizedpolities of Nubia and Sudan, where they remainedaesthetically significant (see e.g. Bourriau 1,987,97-112).

This evidence addresses the non-€lite only to alimited extent. Any aesthetic life the agricultural popu-lation outside national and regional centres may haveenjoyed, perhaps largely in ephemeral media, isalmost unknown. The evidence of pottery points

7"1

|ohn Baines

Pfiq,[.'6 rL' ; fF,ii[iil:t'r":J'i.'1, -ii {-j

:

t,

I

it

I ramiil complex at Saqqara; theinscriittion onFigure 3. Statue base of Diosei from the entranc.e colonnaile of the Step Pyramid complex at Saqqat

the reft names the,chief sculptor Imhotep' ri^otoi"'.-sia Dyiasty. Rephotographed irom Firth et al' 1935, pl' 58')

towards their participation in universal forms' but

ttuiafy towardi u"""st to the moreaesthetic manifes-

tatioris of those forms (for a valuable range of mate-

,iut, *u Pinch 1993)' So far as they Partook in central

ior*r, their limited access to the apProPriate materi-

als and arenas constituted a cultural dePriv-ation' re-

inforcing the exclusive positionof the small6lite group

who could ParticiPate more fullY'

Artistic genra and executants

Thus, tie inevitable concentration of studies of art on

."",tuf 6lite works has its full meaning only if the

exclusivity of those works and their problematic rela-

iio" *i*,ine remainder of society areborne in mind'

especially where the legitimizing role of art is con-

."lt "a.

Drenkhahn cot iin tes the passage quoted on

n. 70 bv notinq the vast amount invested in 'artistiC

iroauctlon -'i*luding demrative arts as well as the

ior" g"r,r", - from the beginning of Egyptian his-

iory Jt *utas. The proportion of resources dedicated

to lhis purPose seemtto have increased for several

cenruries in the early third millennium' The majority

oi *ottt fall into tire widely familiar categories of

architecture, xulpture in the round, relief' and paint-

ing, those whictr-have just been alluded to as 'core

l""irut;. rrt" order of these is, I think, also an order of

ielative significance in the culture' The range o{ ma-joig""t"tiun be varied and supplemented.for differ-

ent"periods and contexts' Supplements include stone

uusi prodn.tion, both figured and pf3in' in late

Predynastic and Early Dynastic times (late fourth-

early third millennium; el-Khouli 1978);5 metal ves-

sels, which succeeded stone ones and became ex-

tremely important (e.g. Schiifer 1903; Insley Green

1987); and jewellery G.g. Aldred 7977a; Wilkinson

1971); The latter two raise the problems, familiar from

other ancient cultures, of metals and other precious

materials and how far their almost complete loss

distorts the archaeological and artistic record'

Decorative arts extend the role and functions of

art to areas that cannot easily be assessed but were

clearly important. The use of much-recycled precious

*ut"ii"lt again lessens the number of obiects pre-

served, in cimparison with such genres as statuary

and stone uares. Ducotative arts are pervasive in the

frrrr"rury record (e.g. D'Auria et al' 1988; Brovarski ef

al.798i), encompaJsing all but the most basic grave

loods - of wtricfr relitively few seem to have been

teposited - while non-Elite tombs are generally un-

Jul-r.ptut"nted. Furtherrnore, there was a genSr3l

aestheiicization of the life of the gods (for example. in

ttreir cult images), of royalty, ind.of the 6lite (cf'

Assmann 199 7:2H34),which extended through such

.ut"goti"t as iewellery and furniture.to clothing(*d* value lould be extremely high)' cosmetics'

o.rf,r*es, and performing arts' All these other artis-

["-".ti"itiut wili have accinruated the division of the

ruling group from others, except insofar.as some of

tfre oltirs nnde works of art, performed them' and

i" *"tupttotical and literal ways danced attendance

on the fbrtunate, An acknowledged characteristic of

Egyptian artistic culture, wh-ich encourages one to

72

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

view it as a whole, is its consistency of style from theIargest work of architecture to the smallest piece ofdecorative art (e.9. Schiifer 7986,9--68). The consist-ency of art forms is part of the hegemony of 6liteculture and may not have furthered general socialintegration.

Decorative arts also affect modern perceptionsof ancient artists. Drenkhahn (1976; in press) argues,against Junker (1959), that the pattern of representa-tions of artists and,/or artisans (between whom itmay not be advisable to distinguish), especially innon-royal tombs of the third millennium, shows thatthey were of similar status whether they wEre mak-ing beds and boxes or statues, and hence that neitherthe Western-style 'Artis( nor his aesthetically con-cerned patron existed. While some representationsmay favour such a conclusion, caution is necessary.The argument could as well also be reversed, so thatthe cabinet maker would be an 'artist'almost as muchas the sculptor in wood near whom he was shown ina tomb scene (e.g. Fig. 1). While this interpretationaddresscs a frequent commonaliqr of technique andpersonnel among those who worked in the same me-dia, it does not take into account questions of thedcsign of major projects, of iconography, or of thegcneral significance of artistic production and theamount of resources it absorbed.

A distinction can also be observed betweensculptors and other craftsmen shown in these scenes:only the xulptors are frequently captioned with ti-tles and personal names, and these raise their statusin relation to the others (rnaterial presented by Eaton-Krauss 1984, SS 43, 4,53, 5H, Cat. 43*4). On aminimal reading, the sculptor who created thesimulacrum through which the tomb owner was toexist in the next world had a more personal relation-ship with the tomb owner and hence a higher statusthan the cabinet maker enpyed. I think it likely thatthis point extends further, and that the former/s ac-tivity was seen as more broadly significant than thelatter's. But this does notimply that the cabinet makeror jeweller was undervalued, because their profes-sions were part of the same 6lite high-cultural com-plex as the sculptorrs and shared his underlyingaesthetic. Their products too could exhibit the high-est levels of technical and artistic skill and should beaccorded a commensurate value.5

What the approach of Drenkhahn valuably high-lights is that artists were not the free agents driven byideas'of originality and progress familiar from mod-ern stereotypes. Those typically Western stereotypesare far from universal, and their absence in Egyptdoes not mean that there were no 'artists', or that

Figure 4. Reserae head. Boston Museum of Fine Arts74.718, from Giza (MF A negatioe C4362). Limwtone. 4thDynasty. (Courtesy Boston Museum of Fine Arts.)

there exists a single type of 'the artist', or still lessthat there was no originality or innovation. Clearevidence exists fora positive role for innovation, eventhough textual support from among those who cre-ated or supervized works of art is sparse (but see e.g.Dziobek 7992,52-4). Apart from these difficulties ofcomparison, the evidence from non-royal tombs cov-ers only a limited number of genres of artistic activ-ity. The creation of major and large-scale.stone

73

John Baines

sculpture is seldom represented and the design anddecoration of temples and other major monumentsnot at all. For a variety of reasons, the preservedscen€s are not suitable contexts for showing the mostprestigious artistic activities, and so canrrot provideevidence for the status of those activities and theirexecutants. Nor can the role of the ultimate patron,the king. be seen in this material, which derives prin_cipally from the 6lite; few suitable royal contexts arepreserved, and in any case restrictions of decorummake-it unlikely that these things were widely de-picted.

In its admirable aim to avoid imposing Occi_dental categories on the ancient mateiials, an aF

Figure 5. The Two Dog Palette from the main de-posit at Hierakonpolb. Oxford, Ashmolean MuseumE.3924. Schist. I-ate Predynasticl Dynasty 0. (Cour-tay of theVisitors of the-Ashmolein Mrbeum)

proach such as Drenkhahn,s risks becomin g reductive.If intelpretation sticks closely to the preseried record,insufficient allowance may be made for the contexiand for the improbability that evidence would sur_vive for other possibly relevant contexts. The charac-ter of .discourse in the ancient society may beunderestimated. It is difficult to identify discoursedirectly comparable to that of Western artists andcommentators on art, and it can too readily be as_sumed that such things did not exist, rather ihan themore likely possibility that thiy were not writtendown or that they took different forms from those ofsome other cultures.

There is also the problem that writing about artis never easy - few oi the greatest writinls of mostcultures are treatises on art. Visual art is beit compre_hended by viewing ir and by doing it. Societies witha restricted range of written genrei and subject mat-t:r rnay not develop a tradition of discursive writingabout ar! and for Egypt it is hard to see where suct

. texts might belong. The character of Egyptian dis_course about art was probably differentEom that ofthe modern West, but such discourse could still havehad a comparable role or function, both among the6lite and among the executants who created the r^iorkswhich sustained the traditions and whose workshopcontinuiry and regroupings will have affected devei_

lpment profoundly. In addition to specific evidencefor such discourse (*" p.Z7), I would allow morebroadly for its presence.

The role of art in historical developments

Discussion in society and social uses of artOne difficu-lty for scholars who approach Egyptianart from a theoretical and actor-orilnted pers-pectivehas been the rarity of texts with evidence for att!tudes to art or pointers to its intrinsic significance,coupled with clear evidence for non-artistic func-tions of works of art. This lack of explicit statementsis, howevet part of the difference between ancientNear Eastern and modern Western styles of discourse:the former do not feature substantial amounts of mid-range theoretical discussion. Neither the lack of textsnor the presence of a function provides grounds forarguing that narrowly artistic concerns did not affectthe production of the ancient works. Buildings, sculp-tures, reliefs, and paintings had specific non-artistictunctions, such as to act as temples or tombs, to beobjects of veneration or m"rn, oip"rr,rasion, or to bevehicles through which a deceased person,s identitywould receive offerings. Such a line of reasoningwould also be reductive: words are a problematii

74

t!titli!

I

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

medium, yet the argument has tended

to run thit since in surviving records

oeople seldom formulated a topic inluotat, the topic did not exist or must

have had a culturally idiosyncratic mean-

ing. In any case, the large gaps in the

written record make it unwise to argueI r, i r,,'.ilr:r,r,: Frt rt hr:rrrrore, insistence on

a single function ignores uscs of works

that ire different in kind but have a significance of their own, such as being the

locus of display or competition within a

group and a mark of division between

[tottps. Multifunctionality is to be ex--

pected.- It is, moreover, possible to Point to

significant Egyptian discourse about

w6rks of art thit focuses on their generalpositive and symbolic qualities, as a-

gainst their narrow functionality' Maya

Irttiltet (1990) has collected passages de-

scribing works of architecture, includ-ing thJ graffiti of later visitors, which

sh6w aniesthetic appreciation that also

assimilates them to ideal and quasi-

cosmological canons that have close Par-allels in integral features of the buildings'decoration and inscription. These state-

ments do not form a sophisticated criti-

flr"ff:|:Tf,.t:: tI"::J ;'",'""ii:l 1,y: 5.rhe scorpio.n ma_ce-he1l [r1m

the main deposit at Hierakonpotb'

would be expected of eulogies accomPa- O"xfora, Ashmolean Museuin Bhz' Limestone' Dynasty 0' (Courtesy

;1il,h" dening of mod-ern buildings o1'theVisitors of the Ashmolun Museum')

or of"ttte captiot s to picture postcards of -

them. Moreover, a few texts point towards more pro- T: :ft""..Souped under'the'term 'connoisseurship"

found meanings (e.g. A;;;"^ 1970), and tr," ti"u- whileartisti-ct'raditionsshouldnotsimplybelumped

attested complex artistic uses of the past ("'g;;i;;; t-"^,.tT^::"d there is no reason for assuming that

1'989a;Leahy1988rch.5;Leahy1992)musthavein-connoisseurshipisauniversal.method;thisintuitivevolved much discussion (see also pp. 89-90 i;i' approach poin'ts to an issue that is essentially the

Some of the most important works and contexls ;e;e 'i'" ut thJone raised by Drenkhahn' Egyptian works

subject to restriction, oi r.r,o*r"oge and "";;; ,h"i of sculpture and relief (and architecture) respond to

would have made them unsuitable for p.rUfi" JL*s- traditional modes of art-historical analysis - more

sion.Theonlytext thatpresentsanartist's.skiil; 'radical' ones have hardly been tried on them -obscure that it appears deliberately to allude ;; ,hi"gt whether or not their status and functions were differ-

*itto,,t revealins tte-iuu,tu reio; see BJ;i;;1; :*:jprtl",X;:ffi:"J*:il:ffi:l?ilt::|;'ll8-9)' rreticians ment from the cross-cultural comparability of genres

*n,"Jfnl""T,*:",:.ft;:"*?"J"ll?litr;;"; again r,igiiiglt, *,u ,educti.,enlss- or al.v'f;g th'

ignored by Egyptologists worting ;ith truiitionuf siatns of;art'-on grounds of function'

methods,andUyrn"r,y"nr**rr-nr"rrr'u,ors.fn"seJof- Thispoint i" ry ".:Tllified by reversing the

ars categori ,u, un^tlru';fi;;i;;;; *"irtt-i,. ftt" argument about function and asking why the Egyp-

centralgenresaccordingtomethodggenerallysimi- tians used maior works-of art for'utilitarian'pur-

lar to those used for numerous "th",

*r;;Jr:il;t f"r"r. s""t a'formulation emphasizes that thqse

75

John Baines

Figure 7. Three stone uases, prsoenance unknown. Bertin, Agyptisch* Museum 732L3, 12778, 12779.Grrywacke.'l. st Dynasty. ( Cour tesy Agyp tbcha Museum Berlin.)

purposes are symbolic, not narrowly instrumental. Itis hardly meaningful to ask whether the rituals per-formed upon a cult statue were directly causative,but the food placed before it was taken away andultimately consumed by the priests, who must haveknown that the material nutrition it contained wasavailable to them. The same point can be made aboutthe supposed 'magical' and recreative,function ofstatues (e.g. Russmann 1989,3), or in another sense ofbuildings. These works underwent an 'opening ofthe mouth' ceremony in order to render them func-tionally effective (e.g. Blackman & Fairman 1946).However the actors may have comprehended thisritual, it need not have been completely different inkind from the consecration of a church, which makesit fit for its ceremoniesbut does not affect its status asa multifunctional and polysemous work of art that iscomparable in this respect with the Egyptian one.

Thus, it seems justifiable to see Egyptian art as aphenomenon analogous inmany ways with theart ofother traditions. The centrality of the production ofaesthetic objects to many periods of Egyptian his-tory, notably some materially rich times that exhibit

. major cultural or political tensions, makes it worthreviewing the role of works of art in the discourse ofthe ancient 6lite.'The importance of sculpture andrare materials as early as the fourth millennium canbe illustrated by such objects as a statuette of lapislazuli from Afghanistan found at Hierakonpolis(Porada 1980; this could have been made in the NearEast or in Egypt). The colossal statues of Min fromKoptos (Fig. 2), which date to the late fourth millen-nium and were originally about four metres high,were probably set up outside a temple and thus sug-gest indirectly the presence of an imposing artisticand architectural context (e.g. Williams 1988; Dreyer,in press).

Among periods within Egyptian dynastic civi-lization that exemplify these issues are the formative

time of Dynasties G-l (c. 315G-2900 ac), which can becontrasted with the 3rd-4th Dynasties and their de-velopment of pyramids and aisociated works of artand architecture (c. 2650-2500 sc); the 12th Dynastywith its highly distinctive sculpture (c.t940-1i10vci;and the century or so from the time of Amenhotep IIIto that of Sety I (late 18th-early 19th Dynasty, c.14C0-7275 Bc). Late Period artistic modes (715-A3ZBc), although generally less extravagant than earlierones, display complex and significant relations withearlier traditions. The great temples of the Graeco-Roman Period (320 uc{. eo 200) surviving in south-ern Upper Egypt document a vast expenditure ofresources by culturally alien rulers on monuments ofthe traditional culture deep in the provinces. Theseperiods, which I pass quickly in review in the follow-ing sections, can illustrate various aspects of the roleof art in society.

Dynastia 0-7 and the 4th Dynastya) Defining styles and artistsThe Egyptian state coalesced during the earliest ofthese periods. Around the time of political unifica-tion, there was a great transformation in artistic stylesand content, leading to an iconographic definition ofthe Egyptian cosmos which set the pattern for laterperiods. During the 1st Dynasty, large numbers ofvotive offerings were deposited in temples. Manywere in precious materials also used for royal funeraryequipment (materials such as gold are naturally sel-dom preserved). This production of 6lite objects mustbe very imperfectly represented by what survives,many others being deposited in lost locations. Thearchitectural context which would have conveyedvital meaning to people beyond the small numberswith access to temple sanctuaries can hardly be re-constructed for this period (Friedman, n.d., has pre-sented a late Predynastic case) and is much betterknown for mortuary complexes (e.g. OConnor 1989;

76

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

Dreyer 1990) than for temples (but see O'Connor7992r.

What is most significant for art here is the largelyiconographic formulation of ideology and cosmol-

ogy (e.g. Baines 1989b). Although the hieroglyphicsclipt was integral to pictorial compositions, it didnotiecord continuous language uhtil centuries later,so that crucial meanings were conveyed through representational and architectural modes. While wecan-not identify specific artists who created the workswhich embodied the new conventions, it seems in-conceivable that an enterprise of such cultural im.portance as the definition of a style for the civilizationlnd the encoding of its values was not under central

direction. At the core of the new system was the

politically dominant figure of the king.More can be said about artists and their Posi-

tion in the first pyramid age of the 3rd-4th Dynasties'

but some issues are disputed. The royal pyramidcomplexes exhibit comprehensive planning as worksof art and, on a minimal evaluation based on levels ofcraftsmanship, display standards of execution goingfar beyond the 'functional'. Techniques and stylesevolved quite rapidly over a century or so and moSt

complexes show major alterations in design. In the

case of the 3rd Dynasty Step Pyramid complex ofDjoser (c. 2650 Bc), we have the name of the likelydesigner or chief architect in the inscription on the

front of a royal statue plinth found in the entrance,

which names the 'chief sculptor/ Imhotep (Fig. 3;

Wildung 1,977,5-9; see also e.g.Iunker 1959,76-9).ltis irrelevant here whether Imhotep carved the statue

or rather supervised its production. What is relevantis that he had a quite exceptional status, as is shownby the fact that non-royal individuals are neveroiherwise named on royal statues. In exercising thisprivilege he placed next to his name the title of chiefsculptoi and not that for an administrative office.

Imhotep later became a culture hero, and may have

been held among other things to have overseen a

reform of Egyptian writing - and thus of artistic

conventions - in the time of Dioser (see Wildung79n,88=9 for an opposite view).

Although evidence for those who directed workon 4th Oynasty pyramids is not so direct as withImhotep, it can hardly be doubted that those under-

takings, which will have involved much of the PoPu-lation in.one way or another, were controlled byleading members of the 6lite. Some of these, who

were the sons of kings, are known by name; their

tombs at Giza were among the principal non:royalmonuments of the necropolis arranged to east and

west of the Great Pyramid.T

The projects for the pyramids display other ar-

tistic charicteristics, of which I cite one. Between the

Step Pyramid (e.g. Smith 1981,53-5'l) and the mid4th Dynasty pyramid of Khephren atCiza, architec-

tural vocabulary and style moved from adaptationsin stone of earlier plant-based forms to a near-com-

plete geometrical lbstraction that a modern critic*ight-*" as exploiting the 'natu_ral' properties of the

stoi'tes. The new style lasted only two or three gen-

erations, being replaced in the 5th Dynasty by a more

representational bne (e.g. Smith 1981, 95-100,129-gS). fhis double stylistiCtransformation cannot well

be interpreted only as a consequence of changes inreligion and symbolism, even if they played a domi-nant part; it must have included an aesthetic comPo-

nent.i Such a development towards and away from

Figure 8.Iuorycylinder withrelief decoration

from the'MainDeposit' in the

temple complexat Hierakonpolb.Oxford,AshmoleanMuseumE.1.64.Lst Dynasty(?)(Courtesy of the

Visitors of theAshmoleanMuseum.)

I

John Baines

One of the principal objections to seeing Egyp-tian creations as 'art' has been the fact that manyworks were invisible in their final positions. Sincethey were not viewed, it is implied, they could not beintended to be'art'. The'reserve heads'of this period(Fig. 4), separate.near-life-sized xulptures appirentlylacking a context of installation and coming from thebottoms of tomb shafts, were subject to some ritualmutilation before they were deposited (Tefnin 1991a),while some of the 'slab stelae' forming the cult focusof €lite tombs.were walled up to make thern invisi-ble - and henbe are remarkably well preserved (e.g.Smith 1981, 84 figs. 76-7; Reisner 7942,64-5). Thiswalling-up is only the mbst striking of many invis-ible contexts in which sculpture and reliefs wereplaced.

To deny the status of 'art' to these works is torely too much on a single criterion. The context of

Figure 9.Limestonc statue of Kra'sekhan t'rom Hierukon-polis. O xf or d Ashmolean Museum E.5'1"7. ( Cour t esy o f theVisitors ot' the AshmolwnMuseum.)

austerity and abstraction has parallels, not least inthe Modern Movement with its epigone the Post-modern; it seems to be a natural way in which atradition can develop and then move on again byreturning to and developing older forms.

b) Access to works of artThe 4th Dynasty poses strongly the issue of access, andhence of audience. This applies even to vast pyramidcomplexes, but I review it in relation to statuary andrelief. It too is relevant to many cultures.

pafron and executant exists for such objects whetherthey are seen or not, and even whether they are to beconserved or destroyed. Moreover, while the uses towhich these works were put often differed from thoseof modern times, they do not seem to have affectedtheir appearance greatly. Apart from the mutilationof the reserve heads, two- and three-dimensionalforms of obiects destined to be seen are similar oridentical to those which were to be invisible. Thissituation can be compared, almost at random, withthe vast amount of sculptural and pictorial decora-tion in large medieval churches and iathedrals, muchof it virtually invisible when completed and incorpo-rating inscriptions that only the keenest-sightedamong the literate few could read.e Invisibility alsohad i;ttle effect on the formation of traditions or oninteractions of later periods with earlier works.

The issue of access also concerns the palettes(Fig. 5) and mace-heads (Fig. 5) which embody tfreevolving state's ideology and cosmology and werededicated in temples iust before the 1st Dmasty. Theseinclude works of the highest quality and technicalmastery, whose relative merits can be suggested by acomparison - across media - with the rather earlierand far cruder wall painting in Tomb 100 at Hiera-konpolis, which probably itself belonged to a ruler(Quibell & Green 1902, pls. 75-9; *e e.g. Williams &Logan 1987). The style and the technique of the pal-ettes and mace-heads are devised for their dimen-sions, context and materials, and could not easilyhave had larger and more public counterparts, sothat the pieces must be evaluated as the votive ob-jects they appear to have been and not in relation toputative monumental propaganda pieces of whichthey might be small-scale representatives.

78

i'::;:.i"'

;..,F-

i.-

ii.:

biHiiSnF*tFdffiFI!.3J

iti:

I

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

Two implications of thesefinds could no doubt be paral-leled elsewhere. First, the au-dience of the gods, to whomwere dedicated votive offer-ings in addition to temple con-struction and decoration, wasas integral to the obiects' mean-ing as was a human audience.Second, the group of artistswas close to the ruling andcommissioning 6lite, and theforms were developed.be-tween patrons and artists. Pro-duction for the gods paid duerespect to them, as well as en-hancing the status of the do-nor, who was principally theking. For the executant, the aimto produce works of high qual-ify could appty indifferently topieces that were large or smalland destined to be visible orinvisible, and might be exactedby the parron or donor in ei-ther case. Motivation towardsexcellence must, however, ul-timately be internal to theexecutant and can originatewithinhim.ro

The patron's and artist'ssearch for quality does not ex-plicate sufficiently the mean-ing of the works. The NarmerPalette crowns a developmentin which royal dominance, re-lations between the king andthe gods, and the structure ofcosmos and society were incorporated iconograph- is that, despite their quite rapid evolution and cen-

ically with the utmost sophistication (e.g. Baines tripetal role in the emergent state, they come at the

1989b, 472-5 with figs. 1-2). The palette may stand end of a development, not at its beginning. With the

on the margin of ideologically more central develop- 1st Dynasty their production ceased, and preservedments of temple relief and painting, in which the royal reliefs are confined to tomb stelae (e.g. Schiiferking was shown interacting with deities, both sides 1986, pl. 10) and ivories. Reasons for this change

beiig depicted - as later l- in human form at the probably include: developmeirts in the use of materi-same scaie; but any such works there may have been als, so that precious substances that are lost from the

are lost.rl The self-iontained nature of the palette and record began to carry meanings and implications ofits votive function may have required it to bridge status previously associated with other media; the

symbolic domains and to condense a great deal of location of some artistic activities in los! contexts,

meaning. They do not alter its status as a work of art, principally temples and palaces within the floodplain;but they do ihrow into relief the great weight of and, most importantly, a general restriction of the

symbolism which it bears. .public contcxts of art. The legitimizing functions ofA striking aspect of the palettes and mace-heads iepresentational art could be complcmerited by other

Figure 7o. Hud of Senwosret III, prwenance unknown. Cambridgg, FitzwilliamMiseum E.37.1930. Pink granite.l.2th Dynasty. (Courtesy of the Syndics of the

Fitzwilliam Museum.)

79

]ohn Baines

Thus the 1st Dlmasty,rather like the 4th, appears tohave restricted the range anduse of significant works ofrepresentational art, and in adifferent way of architecture,to very few people. The stonevases characteristic of the pe-riod (e.g. Fig. 7; see el-Khouli1,97$ do not affect this pat-tern significantly, becausevast numbers were depositedin the tombs of the kings andof rather few others. What isstriking in terms of catego-ries of material is that thevases are much superior inexecution to the rare pre-served fragrirents of xulpturein the round, except for ivo-ries (Fig. 8; see e.g. Quibell1900, pls. 5-17); major stonesculpture seems not to havedeveloped significantly untilthe later 2nd Dynasty (nota-bly Fig. 9; wood could havebeen important: see Emery1958, 10, pl. 27). The skillswhich went into creating thepalettes and mace-heads mayhave been closely related tothose used on vases, and the

Figure 11: Y4 9f lmenem.haf lll, proaenance unlorcwn. c-ambidge, FitzwirliamMuseum E.2.1946. Dark shelly limestone.l.2th Dynasty. (Courtesy of the syndics ofthe F itzwilliam Museum )forms of display, including the increasingly monu-mental scale of architecture. Rih-rals, such as the sac-rifice of retainers at 1st Dynasty royal funerals (e.g.Dreyer 1990, 67), demonstrated the power of kingand state in the most peremptory fashion. Art ap-pears to have retreated progressivlly within the 6liieand to have acquired an introspective character thatrelated it less to the wider society than was the casein some later periods. Few surviving pieces from thefirst two dynasties could clearly have functioned insocial competition or have belonged to genres dis-tributed throughout the 6lite. Competition and rank-ing can, however, be seen in architecture. The highestlevels of society appear to have been strongly slrati-ficd, with not more than one or two people at a timeconstructing the most elaborate tombs, notably in theSaqqara necropolis, next to the capital of Memphis.r2There are more modest cemeteries with architecturallyconstructed tombs at a number of sites in the coun-try, showing that wealth was not centralized to anextrcme degree.

vases attained still higher levels after the palettes andmace-heads ceased to be made, becoming the mostsignificant mobile art preserved from the period andperhaps taking over traditions and personnel fromother media. Some inscriptions on stone vases fromthe Step Pyramid, however, relate to their earlier useamong the living, probably in temple rituals (e.g.Roth 1991, 145-9il, reminding us that the range ofpreserved contexts is very incomplete. It seems thusthat the vases must have been major symbolic re.sources for the cult, as well as being deposited asgrave goods. (Such objects as large granite vases canhardly have had a practical everyday use.)

1,2th Dynasty royal sculptureSome of the most striking Egyptian images are thehaggard figures of the tZtf, Oynisty kingiSenwosretIII (Fig. 10) and Amenemhat III (Fig. 11). A fairlyconsistent stylistic development can be seen, fromthe statuary of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I atthe beginning of the 12th Dynasty to the time of ',t

.l't

f.,1

:1:it

.t'l

80

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

.rin* Amcncmhat III, after which evidence for royal worksis sparse (Evers 1929; Aldred 1971b; Tefnin 1992;Fay,in press). Some works of the first half of the dynasty,notably large hardstone statues, have more individualphysiognomies than those of earlier times, and piecesfrom the entire dynasty have ears of exaggeratedsize. The highly individual feAtures of Senwosret IIIand his successor nonetheless exhibit a markedchange. Statues of the two can mostly be told aparton the basis of facial type. Both share the wom look,which is especially typical of Senwosret III; distinc-tions between them suggest that the kings' personalphysiognomies contributed to the sculptural norm,but they do not demo4strate that an ideal of 'true'portraiture suddenly appeared. As is shown by themarked contrast between the king's head and hisbody, which remains him and muscular, the newtype did not run counter to the principle that mostpeople, and panticularly kings, were shown in ideal-izing and 'perfect'guise. This point applies strikinglyto cases where the same facial type occurs on a sphinx.To modern eyes these create a strong contrasf be-tween the specificity of the face and the generality ofthe body. This apparent difference may illuminatefurther the relation between body and face on an-thropomorphic statuary: in some sense the worn fa-cial type should convey an ideal.

This iconography, as one can appropriately termthe facial treatment, should signify a quality of theking. The form has an evident analogy in the royalinstruction texts of the period, notably the Instruc-tion for Merikare and the Instruction of Amenemhat(e.g. Lichtheim'1.973, 97 -7W, 135-9), which empha-size the burdens of the king's office and the respon-sibility he must bear. Statues with the highlycharacterized faces come from temples (e.g. Naville19W, pl.19 - four from a single temple), where thisaspect of the king's role would be displayed to thegods, while among humanity only priests had accessto inner areas. But this 'intimate' interpretation shouldnot be overstressed, because some of the same fea-tures occur in softened form even on a perhaps morepublic colossal head (Romano 1979, no. 40), wheresuch a treatment might seem surprising. The templecontext can, however, be contrasted with a mortuaryone, because a statue of Amenemhat III from hispyramid complex lacks any of the new features (Evers1929, pls. 102-4). The focus of this iconography ap-pears therefore to be this-worldly.

There are two principal ways of viewing thisdevelopment. As an ipproich to depicting the liing'sface, it could have originated near the beginning ofthe dynasty and have strengthened later. Alterna-

tively, it could have beert introduced under SenwosretIII as a specific statement about the king's role andresponsibility, and thus have made a statement aboutSenwosret III in particular. Tefnin (1992) has sug-gested that the iconography of royal eyes and earssignifies the king's responsible role in relation to hu-manity, and he has integrated the facial presentationwith the notion of royal 'propaganda', ascribirrg to itthe same kind of meaning as I do (Tefnin 1991c; forpropaganda, see further Baines, in press). While thisinterpretation is tempting, the limited public accessto the works restricts its focus so far that the termitself becomes problematic. It seems better to viewthe iconography as part of a dialbgue between theking and gods on the one hand, and between theking and the 6lite group responsible for producingand giving meaning to statuary on the other. The

Figure 72. Colossal quartzite hud of Amenhotep lll, t'romhb mortuary ternple on the West Bank at Theba. BritishMuseum EA7. (Courtesy of the Trustees of the BritishMuseum.)

81

fohn Baines

Figure 13. Black granite statue of the goddess Salehmet

t'rom the Mut tanple complex at Karnak, probably

t'irst set uy in the mortuary temple of Amenhotep ilon the West Bank at Thebes. Bitish Museum EA4S.

\eign ot' Amenhotep III. (Courtesy of theTrustees oftheBitish Museum.)

latter could have consisted, in addition to the kinghimself, of officials in charge of furnishing templeiand mortuary complexes and of the leaderJof work_shops. These people were presumably steeped in val_ues, of which We can see another expiession inIiterature, that formed part of the same overall high-culh:ral complex. It seems that they wished to ir,.-or_porate those values into the king,s sculptural image.

In this context of production within a small6lite_group for epcting royal and divine patrons, theworks will have had a specifically artistic.focus _ aconcern with visual form and its realization of mean-ing - while retaining their broad ideological signifi-cance. This focus can be seen in the influence exertedby the royal statuary. Many non-royal statues of thelate 12th and 13th Dynasties have similar casts of faceto royal pieces. The royal style was disseminated tocontexts where its iconographic implications couldhardly have been the same, although its sober andserious qualities probably had theiiown value (seee.g. Vandier 1958, pls. 7T-92; large group: Habachi

]f!S, nts. 5G-109; see also Sourouzian t99t, pls. +g-52). Some owners may also have seen their loial roleas sharing elements with that of the king, but theycould hardly have entertained his cosmic alpirationi.The tendency of the non-royal to follow thb royal iswidespread within and outside Egypt and it un-surprising. This case is revealing because a specificiconography changed as it was transmitted into some.thing that was mainly a prestigious association. Royalstatuary was influential despite its inaccessibility inits destined position. Here, the large numbers of royalstatues should be borne in mind: they must havebeen produced for many temples in a variety of sizesand types, and the most important temples containeda number of them. Some of their influence may havepassed directly through workshops, stimulated e!ther by members of the 6lite who were involved withthem or by the sculptors themselves, who will haveapplied anfl spread their haining and stylistic predilections broadly.

This dissemination and elaboration within a re-stricted context can be observed in many periods; themost striking example may be the development oftemple relief and iconography in Ptolemaic and earlyRoman times (c.320 ec-ao iOOle.g. Sauneron & Stierlin1978), when the ubiquitous hieroglyphic writing inthe wall scenes was in a form veiy-flw could rJad,while the overall design and details of the interiorswere largely invisible once they had been completed(as had always been the case). Much of the motiva-tion for these developments was religious, but artis-tic aspects were also crucial. In comparison with 12th

82

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

.IDynasty royal sculpture, the Graeco-Roman templeforms had relatively little impact outside, in part be-

cause they were so highly specialized and in partbecause of a gradual withering of the native 6lite.

Both for the 12th Dynasty and for Graeco-Ro-man temples, the institutional position of art shouldbe borne in mind. Whereas thd creation of enormousmonuments such as the great Pyramids self-evidentlyrequired huge resources and many people, the moreregular pattirn of production of statuary and reliefinvolved high degrees of skill and of artistic decisionand design. As might be expected, artistic and jcono-

graphic concerns were significant to the developmentof these genres at least as much as considerationsrelating more closely to contexts of use. A straight-forward notion of propaganda may not be appropri-ate for the interpretation of statuary and relief.

The late 1.8th and early 1.9th DynnstyThe third period I review briefly runs from the later18th Dynasty to the early 19th (c. 140V1275 sc). Thisbegins with the reign of Amenhotep III,during whichmore works of architecture and representational artwere created than in almost any other (for all thefollowing, see Kozloff & Bryan 1'992,passim). Unlikemost kings, Amenhotep seems to have worked onprojects at an undiminished or increased Pace uP tohis death. Surviving works from his reign includeroyal and non-royal, as well as maior and decorativeforms; the $eat quantity preserved can be only a

small fraction of what was created. Among the king'smaior undertakings was his stupendous mortuarytemple, which was decorated with many hundredsof hirdstone statues of himself (Fig. 12) and of deities(Fig. 13) and sacred animals. The temple may have

been the largest single one built to date, and in frontof it stood tte hrgeit transported statues ever made

in Egypt, the quartzite Memnon Colossi, which werecarved in an extremely hard stone and brought hun-dreds of miles upstream to be set in position. These

feats were recorded in inscriptions set up in the tem-

ple which presented them as being integrated intoihe design of the whole city of Thebes (Helck 1961,

195-9, U2'-3). While these texts hardly address nar-rowly artistic concerns beyond general expressionsof thL temples'beauty and of the rich materials used

in their construction and decoration, they do form an

iconological commentary on their significance and

thus supply some discourse - probably simple. incomparisbn with its oral background - surroundingthe king's whole proiect to remodel the country'sreligioui capital and hence to extend a substantiallyaesthetic design beyond the core of temples and pal-

Figure 74. Seated statue of Amenhotep Son ot' Htpu,baied on Middle Kingdom models (nase atu recanted in

antiquitfl. Cairo Museum CG 427'27 . Ftom Karwk Gtey

granite.- Reign of Amenhotep lll. (Rephotographed t'romLegrain 1.905, p\.75)

aces (O'Connor, in PreParation).The entire operation was organized by Alen;

hotep Son of Hapu, a non-royal official who inscribed

a veision of the events on one of his statues (Helck

7967,2721). He had the hiShest non-royal status in

the land and was granted the.unprecedented Privi-lege of a mortuary iemple of his own (Wildung 192286). On the East Bank, opposite the mortuary tem-

ple of Amenhotep III, was the Luxol T-epPle, whose

meaning seems to have focused on the kingship itself

83

John Baines

(Bell 1985). The hardstone stela of the twin brothersSuty and Hor, the'architects' of that temple, is pre-served (Edwards 1939,p1.21). Several features of thestela, notably the innovative solai hymn, show that

they were among the leading people of the age. Apartfrom this biographical flesh which can be added tothe bones of the monuments and their builders, therewas a high level of innovation in architecture, in theslyle of some statuary and in the elaborate reliefs ofnon-royal tombp. Variety and quite rapid development in art parallel a great diversity in religious textsand support the assumption that the artistic changesform part of a wider ferment (Baines, forthcoming).Certain features looked to the past, for example inthe performance of ancient rituals Gpigraphic Sur-vey 1980, 43,,p1. 28) and in the Middle Kingdommodel for a major statue of Amenhotep son of Hapu(Fig. 1a; Sourouzian 1991).

Art should be seen both as an essential mediumthrough which these changes were formulated andas a goal: it was constihrtive and not accessory. Theultimate purpose of Amenhotep III's projects mayhave been religious and political, being connectedwith solar religion and with raising the king's statusin relation to people and to the gods. Such goals wererealized through art and architecture, and in the king'sgrand remodelling of capital and country as a divinecosmos with a superhuman royal protagonist (there

is naturally Iess evidence for the likely counterpart ofall this in living ceremonial).

This prominence of art, and of people who canbe termed artists, continued during the 'revolution'of Amenhotep III's successor Akhenaten. In a graffitoat Aswan, where they may have supervised the ex-

traction of granite for statuary, the father and sonsculptors Men and Bak commemorated their workfor both kings, differentiating between the artisticstyles of the two (Habachi 1965,86 fig. 11; Krauss1986, 18 fig. 8). Bak's own mortuary stela (Fig. 15;

Krauss 1985) exemplifies the new style in a strongform. Later in the reign, the chief scrrlptor Thutmose,who occupied a large house compound at the newcapital of el-Amarna, headed the studio which cre-ated numerous heads (e.g. Fig. 16), including the

renowned Berlin bust of Nefertiti. The compoundcontained stabling for chariot horses - hardly a

requirement for sculpting - and the obiect with the

sculptor's name and titles that identified the tenantwas an ivory horse blinker (Krauss 1983)' In a city laidout for ceremonial chariot ioumeys to and from the

suburbs where the king resided overnight (O Connor,in preparation), a chief royal sculptor could ride the

streets with the other members of the €lite.Men, Bak and Thutmose are important also be-

cause they came at the beginning and end ofAkhenaten's radical artistic style. Men and Bak were

active through the formative period of the new style,

84

Figure 15. Stela of the sculpto.r Bak and his wife Tahere,

proaenance unknown. Berlin, Agyptischa Museum'l' | 63.

Quartzite. Reign of Akherwten. (Courtesy AgyptischeMuseum Berlin.)

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

..r'whereas the works from Thutmose's studio show a

^d softening and a partial return to a traditional man-

.'{ ,,er. Sinle Akhenaten was not himself an artist, he' must have relied on people like these to make a real-

ity of his ideas, and thiy in turn probably had a

decisive impact on the particular direction of artistic

development. The graffito of Men and Bak states that

the king had instruited them personally,and this has

sometiires been taken literally, but Rolf Krauss has

demonstrated (1986, 40-2) that such statements are

conventional in inscriptions of builders and archi-

tects - the earliest related text dates to the Old King;dom (Roccati 1982, 187-6),and an instance is kirownfrom el-Amarna itself - and so need not show any-

thing distinctive about Akhenaten. What is said is

likely to contain some truth by coincidence, since

Akhlnaten must have indicated that he wanted radi-

cally new artistic forms and may have influenced'their direction.

Where Amenhotep III and Akhenaten agreed,

or more probably took things for granted, was inusing artistic production to formulate and propagate

their-differing iaeas. The scale of Amenhotep II-f1

works hardly diminished under Akhenaten; nor didstandards, ai least in statuary. But, just as the small-

scale works of Dynasty 0 do not seem to have ad-

dressed a wider audience, even the colossal and

relatively public - or at least highly visible - struc-

tures of -A'menhotep

III were ultimately aimed only

at those who could visit the temples, or in their great-

est dissemination at those who would partake in the

Iife and ceremonies of the capital. They may not have

had much message for the people of the country as a

whole. There is no strong sense in which they were

propagandistic to the widest public - altlo"Fl:"tlpropalanda would be hard to identify and might not

t e dtpiessed in art.13 What they do show is that radi-

cal change necessarily involved the artistic forms

which wire part of the civilization's definition'Art remained significant for religious and other

change when Akhenalen's reforms were reiected af-

ter hii death, but not in a straightforward way' There

was an almost imnnediate return to traditional forms'

and this has an obvious symbolism, but for at least a

generation styles continued to be influenced by

i.khenaten. fume develoPments in style and in the-

rendering of nahrre before and during the time ofAkhenatln (e.g. Russmann 1980) were not lightlyabandoned and artists - like ourselves ; may not

have seen them as specific to the ideas which were

being repudiated. But under Sety I (c'-1292-7279 scJ'

whenr the rejection of Akhenaten and the return to

i enriched traditional forms culminated (Fig. 1D, there

Figure 16. Plaster head, possibly of-the later King Ayl'frim the house compound.' of theiculptor Thutmose at eI-'A*or*. Berlin, A,gyptisches Museum 21'350' Reign ot'

Akhenaten. Gourtisy Agyptisches Mus eum Berlin)

was a generally stronger contrast with-the styles of

Akheniten than at thJend of the 18th Dynasty (e'g'

Calverley & Broome 1933-59; Hornung 199-1)' In his

Jatively short reign, Sety constnrcted andd.ecorated

*"r,v *uio, *orks] principally temples and his tomb'

continuing the artisiic focus of Amenhotep III in par-

ticular. Ti'e principal difference, and one that is in

keepinq with the aims of Sety I, is that his art was not

rtro'"g[, innovative. His militiry reliefs constit"!" 1li^poi l", exception here (Epigraphic Survey 1986)'

Sety's artistic aihievements are noteworthy also since

85

John Baines

Figure 17, Relief of Sety I offeing to Sokar, north wall of the HaIl of Sokar and Nefertan in his tanple at Abydos'

86

On the Status u'''d Pt'po'"t of Antiutt Egyp

F'ieure 78. CrouP of ot't'eing

iirrrt o, the lintet relief of

Dieho from HelioPolis' Cairo-Ui ti^ J o ur nal d' Ent r 6 e 29271'

Fourth century nc'( Rrpho t o gt aPh ed f t om M asP er o

1907 , Pl' 34.)

he mounted numerous military

c-ampaigns (e.g' Murnane 1990)'

una'so"t"lgtti have had fewer

i"io,tt."t 6 devote to art than

*futt l" Periods of Peace' This

expenditnre is a measure of the

.o^ntittnittg centralitY of art'

which wai not an adiunct ot

other activities and PurPoses'but was a PartlY autonomous

ffi:::: ffiffi"".i* U",*"en 700 sc and 300

'ua *"r" fewer than in earlier eP-

o.frt. O"fY small numbers of

maior monuments surviv" 11:i

tt- .' d'

I

ilH:H;:'il.iu;i #:;;'ir'"v *"'" conccntrated in

tte Nile Delta where pi"t"*'utio" is poor' The rel-

eria;;;a,his perioa io the argument here,is espe-

cially in its uses "f ;;ii;"' "A 'revivalist' artistic

,tvrJ u.su,, :: lPnT [:nf Xl,tll.r'!H]T1fore there was any

reunification or tn" .orrnlry,i riugn""t"d territories

(M.A. Leahv 1992; R;;;;"t' rgz+l' The extent of

;;i;il;,t'" ute' zstt' at'a 26th Dynasties was'how-

ever, much greater ttt"" "utfiut' ""d it"tt"otttpassed

il;;;;#s G'g' Brunnet 1st70)' including the re-

use of ancient t"*t' u"a royal titularies,lld more

g" ."*rv " :",lll,:"il:l*'f;T,";ii::i :?[:il ;

acteristic of much ea

it""i''il;;;; i'' r zbo-i tizo nc) or rhird-I ntermedi-

ate Period tc. rozolT:o uL) (t"" in general: der

Manuelian 1993)'

In art, the striking feature of this revival is the

",", p;;Tt "**f: # JJ"tr; ::"HtI j'?il

tir[#!i1df ffixr*:r*l;:xn::'r:co;bination of differeni stVfes i".,single

pieces (e'g'

der Manuelian 1985, iro-iil' and,the iommissioning

bv the rich of "ut""''if

ii"*tutu"t-in a variety of

:ilt::i;;- .#r",'i

igit' pi''J-er' Bothmcr 1 e60' nos'

13-14). A copy of a Middle Kingdom tomb inscrtp-

il;il";;;!i;o*" in moaem times on a'Roman

Period PaPyrus sttows suci' material interchanging

with the great stream of tit"tury tradition (Baines

1gg2,254 with n' 41)' Some of [hese features have

more limited parallels i'o* "utti"t

periods"as with

the statue of Amenhot;;;"" of Hapu cited earlier'

but their extent is new''-is it 'tt"it

*th:l i-"^1t

public

and self-conscious ttlu'*t"t' These are exemplified

in an inxription in tf*i"*U of Ibi at Thebes which

invites the reader noi-lust to read it-9"J'b:t also to

il" - di;;i;'" ciLi""Lr 1e83' 71-3)'rhis tomb

is also striking 'o' "Jl"t*atiorr' sections-of which

were closely based on-the 6th DynaslY tor.nb (more

than '1500 y"u" oto"'i'o]f l ttu*utate 1,,,,,,,,,

Deir el-

Gabrawi, about 300 iiio^"it"t jo tl: no-rth (Kuhl-

;"il;il;kel 1e83)' It would ryt haSjeen verv

taxing to make suitJle transcriptions of the old re-

liefs, but what is '"t"]ituUfu

is that the later lbi knew

about the olaer tomi' U"tu" this was a'matter of

chance, it implies th";;;;;; Pg i1::*d knowl-

edee of not very p'oJ""ttt uncient provincial monu-

mJnts. Even if tt *"t'ti""t"' the fact would remain

that such to^us *ere U-ei"-g;4"d^ltllugh there

;;;;;;tce for art eihiuitions or museurns -' analogous pt'""o*#u *"fot*t elsewhere in the

6/

|ohn Baines

/Ancient Near East (Roaf n.d.; Cooper 1990; Beaulieu1989, 13U41) - these practices come close in theirdeliberate seeking out of ancient works.

This example is one of many. The Late Perioduse of the artistic past involved a more explicit andvaried recourse tha4 in earlier times, but there wasnot necessarily a difference in kind. It implies thepresence of attitudes and treatments that can be par-alleled in artists'methods in many cultures, and is avisible analogy for the verbal practices of criticismwhose absence from the record scholars have takento suggest that a sense of 'art' was lacking - whilecontfnuing tacitly to analyze the works as arU as willbe clear, I believe that this strategy is correct and thatthey are wrong to have such scmples. It also allows a

considerable measure of innovation, as is visible no-tably in the tomb reliefs of the fourth century oc (Fig.18; see L.M. Leahy 1988). A crucial point here is that,whether or not such developments were promptedby, or intended to incorporate, other ideological mat-ters, their formulation was artistic. The culture andtradition of art created a world that referred in thefirst instance to itself for its meaning, and was able toarticulate its discourse in terms of differential re-course to past or contemporaneous models.

Thus, while recourse to the past was a broadphenomenon, in art it is likely to have contributed tothe insulation of the institution from othcr culturalactivities. This separation has clear social implica-tions. Those who can comprehend the use of oldstyles are a small, learned minority, in this case prob-ably a smaller group than in the New Kingdom. Onlythey count as truly competent to iudge; in their owneyes, only they count at all. Despite the usc of diver-gent modelg the social divisiveness of art becomesmore evident than the cohesiveness it offers by pre-senting a single culhrral definition. These tendenciesprobably reached their high point in temples of theGraeco-Roman Period (Fig. 19), some of whose in-scriptions are almost literally indecipherable. Theseesoteric creations received. massive patronage andwere deeply serious in intent. They were also verycomplex works of art, and in considerable measuretheir raison d'€tre was in their artistic character. Inthe long term, a situation emerged in which tradi-tional artists were answerable only to a small nativepriestly 6lite and through them to the rulers. In oneway, this is everything artists can ask for. In the end,however, it may be the death of art because too manypeople may come to see a specific form of art as

dispensable or abhorrent. In Egypt this happenedduring the Roman Period. When Christianity came,it too worked through art, necessarily rejecting tradi-

tional Egyptian style and subject matter along withthe religion and civilization to which they had beenintegral.

Conclusion: the institution of art

The significance of art can be seen in many facets ofEgyptian civilization, and is commensurate with thepreponderance of aesthetically formed material inthe record. Art served the ordered cosmos, whichwas celebrate{ on behalf of the gods and which hu-manity (as represented by the king) and they de-fended against the forces of chaos. It defined,encapsulated and perpetuated that cosmos. At thesame time it served the perpetual destinies of rulerand inner 6lite and circumscribed their lifesryles inrelation to the rest of society. The focus of artisticproduction on these central activities, many of themsecret and'exclusive, reinforced and legitimized theposition of art, which in turn legitimized religiousdedications and much of the underlying social di.vision, in a mutually sustaining rycle. In this context,the role of hieroglyphic writing in art is important(Fischer 1986; Baines 1989b). Writing brought repre-sentational forms together with high verbal culture,while also limiting access to that culture by incorpo-rating it in a style of writing available only to a mi-norily even of the literate, most of whom used thecursive form of hieratic. The reinforcing cycle of offi-cial religion and art also favoured the-iniernal, self-regarding focus of both. What mattered in maintainingthc order of thingslwas thc activity of thc small groupwho commissioqCd, dcsignccl, and perlraps cxccutcdthe works of arlwithin the context of 6lite high cul-ture. Only those involved comprehended thelctivi-ties and their significance fully. A wider legitimationfor their position is one that is general to 6lites: onbehalf of society they assume responsibility for por-tentous matters and appropriate the necessary re-sources.l{

Within continuing artistic culture, the uses of tra-dition reinforce this focus on the 6lite and their artisticinterests. There is ample evidence from Egypt for artis-tic change, variation and innovation, so that interpreta-tions of the fundamental aim of artistic conventions as

being to maintain 'invariance' (Davis 1.989, passim;

Assmann 1992,769-74) do not take an actor's PersPec-tive The perpetual dialogue with'the past and the use

of different past models with diverse implications char-acterize an artistic discourse that is internally self-sus-taining and uses this characteristic to assert itssignificance to the wider society. This intemal discourse,which provides an analogy within the culture for the

88

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

Figure 19.View of the

temple complex of Hathorand Isis at Dendara, fromsouthwut. First centurysc-seconil century l.o.(Rephotographed fromChassinat 1"934, pl. 11..)

relative insulation ofEgyptian civilizationfrom its surroundings,is both a legitimation ofart and a way in whichartists create a contextin which only theirownconcerns matter. Assuch, it is a typically Pro-fessional phenomenon.

Professions, bothancient and modern,are exclusive and as-

sume that only theirmembers can iudge thevalidity of what theYdo, avoiding recourse to

a wider constituencY.

/ -i'

This applies strongly tothe Egyptian 6lite, ind hence to the status of the art

whoi-production they organized and which they or

their m;sters, the king and the gods, consumed' The

6lite was a professional class, a grouP of administra-tors rather than a nobility. Artists might be designers

and supervisors, or possibly executants, who were

part ofihat central giorrp, or they could be subordi-

nate artisans who worked for them. Either way, they

depended principally on the king and the 6lite, and

fai less ot ihe reit of society. Their livelihood came

from state or 6lite incomes that wcre appropriated

from producers to the centre by way of .taxes, rents,

or levies of labour (see e.g- ]anssen 1975)' The artists

had little constituency in the wider society' As peo-

ple who did not wield supreme Power in thc state,

ihey have left little individual trace in the record, any-

moie than evidence bearing upon the grandees of

many other periods and cultures would include much

about artistsThe split between the groups involved in artis-

tic produciion and consumption and the rest of

,o.l"ty is complemented by the scarcity of artistically-iormed

"uid"t c" from outside thc 6lite' The scale

of iome artistic undertakings was so grcat that alarge proportion of the population must-have been

affictia by them. Such people oftcn havc little say in

what is imposed on them, but they must have partici-

pated more or less willingly in these activities, and to

a considerable degree they must have acceptEd the

importance of wf,at was done, that is' its. official

legitimations. To that extent, the *otkt and the insti-

tuiion of art will have exerted persuasive Power over

ev'eryone. The archaeological I9.ot9 of the.First In-

t"r.n"diut. Period (c. 2150-2000 sc), in which there

was a proliferation of crude but characteristically ar-

tistic firms among a larger grouP than in centralized

periods (e.g. Seidlmayei tWO; Dunham 193D' sup-

oorts the issumption that artistic forms had such

io*"r. The tomb stelae and statuary of this period

lerued a traditional 6lite function and inherited forms

werc adopted with the function' Similarly, votive

bronzes, which proliferated in the Late Period and

were probably dedicated by a relatively large social

grorrp, remained within established artistic conven-

iions, altnottgh with widely varying levels of artistic

execution (e.g. Roeder 1956).

The for-ms created in the first few dynasties

continued to constitute much of thc definition of the

Egvotian cosmos and socicty; no altcrnative was avail-

"6i"'. fnit indissociablc identification of art and civi-

lization, which is a measure of the significance of art

in Egypt, says something important about the role of

:i()

fohn Baines 1I

I

' --t!:r"-'+i^naland 4' Someaspects:Baines(1990)'ClvRobins(e'g'1993' (

artratherthanshowingj*:r^ili'J:'is':11,11' +

l:*#k*mt$[1xH'"$:ilT"[ imultifarious a phenorr

,f"ry oilo-r,uur,1ions tf,at privileged men. , '

Acknowledsements - *i6.f s *f;:1;,jt'i'il.,**qi[lff*lj#. i

rhis a*ic'Ie .'"'":":1"{*#fffi"1.j*'*;llli1

^ t{,1H,*.1ffi*:::*:;H ion Ancient Near East

Matthews at wolfson t--o:i":';:^i";;;.'to-ryiutiu""e TtitlY;,^^.,^- ^*he orestise of representations

,

ffi"Ti[:*i:*'iltffi;, Gav Robins and Heren 6' ol:t\i;;;-i' tt'ut th"v u'" showrr-a number or i

whitehouse ro, "o*,i",'',!'J,. it'u Ju*:, lo ,Ytin:l ?iirl?#;;;;r', *1".'i'"13,111i:y":tlll,ffi*i

I

Roaf for showing me his "lryot:':"1iH:]"#; iiiu tpu'"" tn:l ^T l".l'"iL, workshop is in ,

Xt'$Ti'SHiff,l'#il"5o ""i.,' i::"ffi'l: :i::",Jil;;;'J ";l ul{:l' workshop is ':n I

i;H*il;ill"e'1*r:l"iig,?lll',:;:ff'u;; '-,' ,ii:til=#*tt+sfui:i,!# itranslate and cite theu

der Manueriu,' ti"orvXili"il';';"nnv,pf;ji; ' il:::ffli$'ii:'j1,1?l*;*;**15:ti"'5

;n'H**tr*ttft $nlfg'":,,9t;;g' tril:i"r-i*$".:t".{#}irF.t.T'i# l

;;";'.ievidente".";[K#*i:""1Hr:fff,f- 8 fiil[#.Tl#:ln*;nli:f#::",:m: ito a studY, written w

;:.1'";;;"J y"*l:::1Tl"il3?,$"1"tX;ffi"; :ill-., .hanee in *re rro-,i;i=#;'Gi*1".ill'.x,fliTi'.tli:ii,?T:iu".i1kJ,i:ilr i:;$,.;i;i;;?:;xj:i1t1#"?J$-"'ta,?*t i

iryi:,1;i:Hi:lii;;il;;;;; i$*"#i#;,1$:'':L1*il$#:]": i

u,au,ifrh}';#;9.n#::#9ffffi:.'.''ffi.q[',.i_ij.*gr"."o,ientot'ri,titut, ^ *" "_:i;;ii"

*t"'i"l"Y 1::: r.1,fi"t"3'.or,."ur"'a

p;:; i;; 10 rhere are,$,HiiLll[:{l*",illlllilJn:';

"?;'xi " liH*H'""'ffire re.riers date to the

N.,es ,,,itfil.Tii,:ii,,il,F"g,ji:.::1fi{,fi:;

1 ffr"? r:tlTL"ffi}1ilTl:::,:ffi: " i1::ii*';T,',ti,,]t?ffi ffi:il,lt T;,n i,

2. ;il;J;"othercriteria'oj'1'"?JiY-Tropriateio :lurL riiio,rg-zs,,,Tltff.ff;,i:ilY.lll;:ru;;; ,, *ll**q,i{::f!,*fr=:HJ:{:#:lit{EgYPtian art' bu

,ii'n or tt'-tl,3iiHi,?iiil$#*:l - ff*t=* ro*he ul

"^:1T",^,aining,raditions

istive, and theY d

character betw

traditions.Th€cflt€flon-ut l-'],,j-; "f Ewpdan 14.'Ihrslot:':'^,::':,"-r"a literary texts of the Pe-

::,',:'::il:ittrJl"${1i,ifr,"j,.':f+,H '"

*:fi;i#[i:':";;tl';T" 'iex'is 'r '[he pe.

share, for examPle' with Mesoame

z. [iT;*", the principar :'1"^:: 1*:*:'.1]:"[X Rererences

Hi,T:il1;il"J.:111 '"';i:X""::':*"tfl1tfi. Ardrc, uraohs:Egvptiantewellev

r.y;:15:*l*nff ti;i:ilal'*n'u'"1;?i3',^!i,"#,k'!ld^.i31iff g'd1iil;;'

i

90

On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

Aldred, C., 1.971b. Some royal portraits of the Middle King-dom in ancien t Egy pt. Metropo litan Museum I o urnat 3,'t-24.

Assmann, t., 't970. Der K6nig als Sonnenpriester: einkosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnen-hymnik. (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archiio-logischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Z.) Gliickstadt:Augustin.

Assmanry J., 1997- Stein und Zeit: Menschund Gexllschaft imalten AgyVten. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.

Assmann, 1,, 1992. Das kulturelle Cedlichtnis: Schrift,Erinnerung und politische ldentitiit in t'rtihen Floih-kulturen. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Baines, J., 1973. The destruction of the pyramid temple ofSature'. Giittingo Miszellen 4, 9-1.4.

Baines, J., 1985. Theories and universals of representation:Heinrich Schiifer and Egyptian art. Art History 8,'l-25.

Baines, J., 1989a. Ancient Egyptian concepts and uses of thepast: 3rd to 2nd millennium sc evidence, in WhoNeeds the PastT lndigenous Values and, Archaeology, ed,.R, Layton. London: Unwin Hyman, 131-49.

Baines, J., 1989b. Communication and display: the integra-tion of early Egyptian art and writing. Antiquity"6g,471-a2.

Baines,J., 1990. Restricted knowledge hierarchy, and deco-rum: modern perceptions and ancient lnstitutions.Journal ol the Ameican Research Canter in Egypt 27, I-23.

Baines, 1., 1982. Merit by proxy: the biographies of thedwarf Djeho and his patron Tjaiharpta. lournal ofEgyptian Archaeology 78,241-57 .

Baines, J., in press. Contextualizing Egyptian r€presenra-tions of society and ethnicity, in The Study of theAncient Near East in the 21st Century: Proceedings of theWiIIiam FoxweII Alhright Centennial Cont'erence, eds.J.S. Cooper & C. Schwartz. Winona Lake (lN): Eisen-brauns.

Baines, J., in preparation. The dawn of the Amarna age, inAmenhotcp III: Perspctitxs on his Reign, eds. E.H. Cline& D. O'Connor.

Barta, W., 7970. Das Selbstzeugnis eines altrigyptischenKilnstlcrs (Stele Loupre C 14). (Mtinchner Agypto-logische Studien 22.) Berlin: Bruno Hessling.

Beaulieu, P.-A .,1989. The reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon556-539 sc. (Yale Near Eastern Researches 10.) NewHaven (CT) & London: Yale University Prcss.

Bednarik, R.G., 192. Palaeoart and archaeological myths.Cambridge Archaeological I ournal 2(1), 2743.

Bell, L., 1985. Luxor Temple and the cult of the rcyal ka.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44,251-94.Blackman, A.M., 1953. The RockTombs ot' MeirY. (Archaeo-

logical Survey ofEgypt 28.) London: Egypt Explora-tion Society.

Blackman, A.M. & H.W. Fairman, 1945. The consecrationof an Egyptian temple according to the use of Edfu.lournal ot' Egyptian Archaeology 3?,75-91,.

Borchardt, L. & H. Ricke, 1980. Die Wohnfuiuser in TeII el-Amarna. (Ausgrabungen der Dcutschcn Orient-

Gesellschaft in Tell el-Amarna 5, WissenschaftlicheVerciffentlichung der DOC 91.) Berlin: CebriiderMann.

Bothmer, 8.V., 1960. Egyptian Sculpture of the Late peiod,700 scto ao 100. Exhibition catalogue. Brooklyn (Ny):The Brooklyr Museuin.

Bourriau, J., '1981. tlmm el-Ga'ab: Pottery t'rom the Nib Vatley

lefore the Arab Conquesl. Exhibition catalogue,Fitzwilliam Museum. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Brovarski, E.J.,.S.K. Doll & R.E. Freed, 1982. Egypt's GolitenAge: The Art of Living in the New Kngdom 1,SSB-10A|ac. Exhibition catalogue. Boston (MA): Museum ofFine Arts.

Brunner, H., 1970. Zum Verstindnis der archaisierendenTendenzen in der igyptischen Spdtzeit. Saeculum2L,151-61.

Bryson, N., 1981. Word and lmage: French Painting of theAncien Rdgine. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPrcss.

Calvcrley, A.M. & M.F. Broome, lg33-5g. The Temple ofKing Sethos I at Abyrlos.4 vols. London & Chicago(lL): Egypt Exploration Society & Oriental Institute.

Chase, P.G. & H.L. Dibble, 1992. Scientific archaeology andthe origins of symbolism: a reply to Bednarik. Caz-bridge Archaeological I ournal 2(D, 43-51.

Chassinat, E., 1934. Le temple de Dendara I. (Publications del'lnstitut Franqais d'Arch6ologie Orientate.) Cairo:IFAO.

Cooper, J.S., 1990. Mesopotamian historical consciousnessand the production of monumental art in the thirdmillennium rc,, in Inoestigating Artistic Enoironmenlsin the Ancient Near East, d. A.C. Gunter. Washington(DC): Smithsonian Institution, 39-51.

D'Auria, S., P. Lacovara & C. Roehrig, 1988. Mummies andMagic:The Funerary Arts of Anciznt Egypt. Exhibitioncatalogue. Boston (MA): Museum of Fine Arts.

Dasen, V., 1993. Dwarfs in Greece and Egypt. (Oxfotd Mono-graphs in Classical Archaeology.) Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Davidson, 1., 1gg2. There's no art - to find the mind'sconstruction * in offence. Cambridge Archaeological

lourml2(1),52-7.Davis, W., 7989.The CanonicalTradition in Ancient EgyVtian

lrl. (Cambridge New Art History and Criticism.)Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

Derchain, P., 1990. L'auteur du Papyrus Jumilhac. Reaued' E gypt oI o gie 41, 9-29.

Drenkhahn, R.,7976. Die Hantlwerl<er und ihreTiiligkeiten imalten Agypten (Agyptotogische Abhandlungen 31.)Wiesbadcn: Otto Harrassowitz.

Drenkhahn, R., in prcss. Artists and artisans in pharaonicEgypt. Translated by J. B.rincs, in Ciailin$ions of thttlncieil Ncur Easl, cds. J. Sasson cl rrl. Ncn' York (N\'):Scribners.

Dreyer, G., 1990. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen imfruhzeitlichen Kdnigsfriedhof , 3. / 4. Vorbericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Architologischen Instituts,Ab t eilun g Kair o 46, 53-90.

91

|ohn Baines

Dreyer, C., in press. Die Datierung der Min-statuen ausKoptos, in L. Syrnyosium zur kunst des Alten Reiches.(Deutsches Arch?iologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo,Sonderheft 27.) Maiiz: philipp von Zabern.

Dunham, ! , t9-37. !,laga-ed-D| Siiae ot' the First lntermedi-ate Peiod. Museum of Fine Aris Boston. London:

^ . . l"Aphrey Milford, Oxford University press.Dziobek, E., l9g1. Das Grab des Ineni, iheben Nr. g7.

(Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo,Archdologische Verrilfentlictrung 56.1 Mainz:-philippvon Zabern.

Eaton-Krauss, M., 1984. The Represenrafions of Statuary inPriaate Tombs ot', lhe OA'Kingdom. (Agyptologische

_ Abhandlungen 39.) Wiesbaden: Otto Hl'rrassowitz.haton-Krauss, M. & E. Graefe (eds.), 1990. Studien zur

lCyl ti?clen Kunst ges chichte. (Hildesheimer A gypto -t:gi:*: B:ilige 29.) Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.Ed wards, 1.E.5.,1939. Hieroglyphic Terts from Esvptian Stelae

etc. in the British Museum yIll. Londonl iiritish Mu_seum.

el-Khouli, Abd el-Rahman Hassanain, 19Tg. Egyptian Stone.V.ess1ls,. p redynastic p eriod to Dynasty lil:Typology and

_ Analysis.3 vols. Mainz: philipp rron Zob.rn.Emery, W.8., 1958. Great Tombs Li *l, first Dynasty lll.

(Service des Antiquitds de l,bgyptc, Excalations at

Epigraphic Survey, t980. fne foni of Keruef , iiAo, f o^A100. (Oriental Instirute publications 102.) Chicago (lL):Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Episra_1hi9 -suwey, Letr,. The aittl, iiiy, ,i"ii"g sny r.

(Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak 4. Oriental Insti_tute Publications 102.) Chicago (lL): Od"n,u, ,nr,._tute of the University of Chicieo.

Ermary A. * !1:91p" *, igZg. Wor6rbuch der aegyptischen_ Sprache lll. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.Evers, H.G., 1,929. Staat aus dcm Stein: Denknuiler, Ceschichte

und Bedeutung der iigyptischen plastik wdhrend desMittlelen Reiches.2 vols. Munich: Bruckmann.

Fay,B.,.in press. The Inuore Sphinx and Roya! Sculpture t'rom:he teign ![ArEnemhet II. Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitu| Abteilung Kairo, Sonderheft e. Mainz:"phillipvon Zabern.

Firth, C.M. et aI, 1935. The Step pyrami.d. 2 vols. (Service desAntiquit6s de l,Egypte, Excavations at Saqqara.) Cairo:IFAO.

Fischer, H.G. 1985. L'daiture et I'art de l,Egypte ancienne:quatre bgons sur la pldographie et I'tpigiaphie pharao-yiques. (CollEge de France, Essais et- confdrences.)Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Friedman, R., n.d. The Ceremonial Centre at Hierakonpolis.Paper delivered at British Museum symposium onearly Egypt, July 1993.

Gombrich, 8.H., l9ZZ. The Story of Art. llth edition. Lon-don: Phaidon.

Gunter, A_C. (ed.), 1990. Inaestigating Artistic Enairowrentsin the Ancient Near East. Walhington (DC): Smith-sonian Institution.

Habachi, L.,1g65.VJu frorn the reign of Kins Akhenatcn.Mitteilungm des Deutschen AichaotoEilen lnstituts,

- Abteilung Kairo 20, 70_92.Habachi, L., 1985. Eleplantine IV: The Sanctuary of Heqaib.2

vols. ( Dcutsches Archdologisches Instittit, AbteilunsKairo, Archiiologische Vefuftuntlichung lf.l M;i";:Philipp von Zablrn.

Helclg W., "1961,. IJrtilndm der 1g. Dynastb: lJbersetzung zudm tlet'ten L7-22. (lJrkunden des Agyptischen Aiter_tums.) Bcrlin (East): Akademie_Verlas-

Hcilscher, U., 1934. TheExcaoation ol fuledineiHabul: GeneralPlans and Vreas. (Oriental Institute publications 21.)

- - ._ Shi"ugo (lL): q1t;"uto University press.Hcilscher, U., i951. Thc Eicaoation o1 fueaina HabulV:, The

y"-rlyrry Temple of Ram*s ili II. (Orientat Institutetiublicarions 55.) Chicago (lL): Chicago UniversityPress.

Hornung, F., 1,99"1. The Tomb of pharaoh Seti llDas GrabSethos' I. Zurich & Munich: Artemis.

lnsley Grecn, C., lg17. The Tenple Furniture t'rom the SaaedAnimal Necropolb at Norlh Saqqaru, 196+L976.(Excava-tion Memoir 53.) London: Eglrpt Exploration Society.

Janssen, 1.1., 1975. prolegomena-to the stuay of Egypt,seconomic history during the New Kingdom. Sliilen

_ -ur Alttigyptischcn Kultui3,l27_g'.Jungg F., 1990. Versuch zu einer Asthetik der dgyptischen

Kunst, in Studbn zur dgyptbchen Kunstg"siiiihte, eds.M. Eaton-Krauss & E. Craefe. tAglyptologische_ Beitriige 29.) Hildesheim: Gerstenber i.'t_U.Junker, H., 1.959.. Die gesetkchafttic.he Steilun;'der iigyptischEn

Kfinstler im Alten Rercl2. (Osterreichi-sche iliademieder Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, SitzungsUe;ctr-te 233:1.) Vienna: Rohrer.

Kem p, B.J., 1 ?!?: I\"^ EOlptian 1 st Dynasty royal cemetery.

Antiquity 17,22-32.Kemp, 8.J., L989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization.

London: Routledee.Kozloff, A.P. & B.M. flryan, 1992. Egypt's Dazzling Sun:

lyenlotep ltt and his World. Exhiliiion catalogis theCleveland Museum. Bloomington (lM: Indi#a iJni_versity Press.

Krauss, R., 1983. Der Bildhauer Thutmose in Amarna.lahrbuch Preussischer Kulturbesitz 2A, 119_32.

Krauss, R., 1986. Der Oberbildhauer Bak und sein DenksteinBerlin. lahrbuch der Berliner MuseenZg,546.

Kuhlmann, K.P. & W. Schenkel, 19g3. Das Crab d* Ibi,Obergutsaerwalters der Gottesgemahlin des Amun(Thebanisches Grab Nr. 3il 1.1 vols. (DeutschesArcheiologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairq Archiio-logische Verciffentlichung 15.) 2 voli. Mainz: philippvon Zabern.

Leahy, L.M., 1988. Private Tomb Relieft of the Late periodfrom Lower Egypt. Unpublished D.phil dissertation.University of Oxford, Oxford.

Leahya[..1r -1

992. Royal iconography and dynastic change75U525 Bc: the blue-and cap crowns. iournal of Egyip_tian Archaeology 78, 223-40.

Leclant, J., 1961. Montuemhat, euatrilme proph\te d'Amon,Prince de la Ville. (lnstitut Franqais d,ArcheologieOrientalc, Bibliothdque d,EtuOe lS.) Cairo: IFAO.

Legrain, G., 1905. Statues ei statuettes de rois e! de particuliers

92

On the Status and purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art

,I;!

7r/t l;:::r:.'ru,:.TE:Hl_it:u i tis Esvp ti en nes d u

Lichtheim, M., l97g. Ally, fgypiion Literature: A Book ofReadings t: The otd ana"iiiaau iiii"r*. Berkeley(CA): University of Californiu prurr..--"Manuelian, p. der, t9g5. T*" frag.unir-oJrelief and a newmodel for the romb of Moituemhat aiThebes. Torr_nat of Egyptian ArchaeologyTl,gU\Zt.-

'Ma nuetia n, p. der, 7993. Living-ii th" p *t, S t rd.ies in Archaism

o f t he_E gy p t ian T we* y _3 i x t h O V " ",

ti.- t""ao n : Kpl.Maspero, c.,leoz. rz MGe ryvp;i;, ;;;a1; monunnnts. et de notices sur |es fouilteilEgyprrii. CJro:.IFaO.Miiller, M., 1990. Die rigyptische Kunst aus kunsthistorischer

Sicht, in Studie) zur itgyptisclen Kunstgeschichte, eds.M. Ea ton-Krauss & E. diaefe. ( Htil;A;;", A gi;;;-logische Beitriiee 29.) Hildesheirr, i"rri""U" rg, 39_56.Murnane, W.J., tggO. Tlu Road to Kadesh: A Historical Inter-pretatio-n ot' the Baille Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak.2qd ed. (Studies in ancicni OriJnuf

,Cirrilizations

,42) Chicago 0L): Oriental t"stitute oiitrc't;il;;;of Chicaeo.

Naville. E., 1-9dZ. ThE Xlth Dynasty Temple.at Deb el-Bahail.l,

tEglft Exploration Fund, Memoir 28.) London:_ Egypt Exptorarion Fund.O/Connor, D., i9S9. New funerary enclosurcs (Talbezirkc)

of the. Early Dynastic pcriodit tiya.".ji"r"rt "y

tn"Ameican Resarch Center in egypt ZS, SiA6.C)'Connor, D., tgsz. The status or u"iiry E;yp,;; templcs:. an alternate theory, inTtu Folloieo"if ii*, Studies

Dedicnted to MichsLt Alten Hofftrnnrg-[iggO, eAr. R.Friedman & B. Adams. Ggyptt".;;;aiJ, arro.iu-

8xl*t*T*: lffi o" * "bn

os'u pf i0' I oxroiJ :

C/Connor, D., 1993. Mirror of the cosmos: the palace ofMerneptah, in Fragments of a Shattered Vbage: TIaP,roceedings of the Internationhl Symposii on Ro*essesthe Great, eds. R.E.Ireed C E. nieiflerg. iUonogrupn,of the rnstitut" oregypiian;;;'L;;togy

1..)

d^ Memphis- (TNt: tvteilfnis Statu Uniu"rrii"'roz_SA.\r Loruror,.l'J., in preparation. Crly and Cosmoi in AncienlEgwt.Pinch, G., 1993. Vorirn Offenngs to Hathor.Oxford: Criffirh

Institute.0"."0

I l._1 1T,l_ ]1 ry'_r:: r i tg_u ll_u f ro ttr H i era ko n p o I i s

^ .. il lgypr. tranica Antiqua 15, 175_80.Quibell, I.E., 1900. Llierakonpolis f. fegyptiun Research Ac_^ count Memoir 4.) London: euaiitlr,.Quibell, J.E. & F.W. Creen, t%)2. Iiierakonp"ti, U.(Egyptian

Research Accounr Memoir 5.) f_oiion, quurit.i .Reisner, G.A.,lg4l.. A History of the Giza Necropolisl. 2 vols.Cambridge (MA): Harvard Univer-s-itf p*rr; t_on__ don; Humphrey Mitford, Oxford unl"l.riii prurr.Richa rds, J. 8., r dz. rr,i..t*.yii;;;*r"il #L, o, nor_entiation in Middle Kingdom flypt. Unf"Ufirn"a

PhD. diss_ertation, Univer"sity of pl'nirsyf valia, pnifa_detphia (pA).

Roaf, M., n.d. Survivals and revivals in thc art of thc an_cient Near East. Ms.

Robins, G., 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt.London: BritishMuseum press.Roccati, R., 1982. La litt€rature.hist.oique sous f Ancien Empire

lgyp tien. (Litt6raturcs A nciennes d u pioche0rient.)Paris: Cerf.

Roedcr,.G., 1956. Agyptische B ronzzfguren. 2vols. (Staatlichelvl usecn zu Berti n,, M i tteilu ngEn

" ;r; ;; Agyd;;;

_ Sammlung 5.) Bcrlin (East). -Komano, 1.F., 1979. Tliz Luxor Mu*um of Ancbnt EgyptianArt: Calalogue. Cairo: American d";;; Center inEgypt.*",n,

l-:Y..:,-.19e7. Egwtian fgt"r of the otd Kingdom: Thezootutton ol a System of Social Oiganization. (Etudies inAncient Orienta-l Civilizations i8.l Cf,i.uto 0L): Ori-ental Institute of the University of Chicalo.

Russmann, E.R., 1924. fh" R"prrse"itir" ,i;-ti xi"g i, th":!, *, D yn a sty. { Morogra ph i", njl,"' ir i*beth 3.)Drusscls: I,o ndation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth;

^ Brooklyn: The Brooklyii iufu*in,.Russmann, 8.R., 1990. fnu u"utorny oian artistic conven-tion: rcpresentation of the ntr foot ii iwo dimen_sions through ,lu \"y_ Kingdom. Sutfetin ot' the

^ Egyptologicalseminar2,sT_g1.Kussmann, E.R., 1999. Egyptian Sculpture: Cairo and Luxor.Austin (TX): Univeisity of Texas press.

-

Sauneron, s. & H. Srierlin, 1gi8. Dtie;t;terlif,'^prt Agyptrn*^ . -Edt'ly"d

philae. Zurich: Atlantis. - -. -r-

Schdfcr, H., 1903. Die alttigyptiscien prunkgefasse mitaut'ge*tzten Randznnieiige", ein Aei*ig ;;r Geschbhteder C o ld schmiedekuns t. ("Un tersuchu'ne;n rrr. C"_schichte und Altertumskunde Agypteis 4:1.) Leip_zig:J.C- Hinrichs. Y'\

Schiifer, H., 1985. principles of Egyptian r{rJ. Ed. EmmaBru-nn_er-Traut, trans- I. 6air[1 norrir"J'.updr,t. O*_ford: Griffith Institute. ' --l

Seidlmayer, SJ., 1990. Grtibert'elder aus dem tlbogang vonAlten zum MiilIeren Reiih: Studien zu, Arcliolofi, d",Ersten Zwischenzeit. (Studien zrr er.ruillogie undGeschichte Alt:isl;ffi;;;llauyptens

1.) Heidetberg: Heidelberger

Smith, W.S. lgl'l."The Art.and Architecture of Ancient Egypt.Tu"iy by W.K. sirnp"on. fii" p"ii# Hirtory ofArt.) Harmondsworthi penguin.

Sourouzian, H,1997. La statue d,.{menhotep fils de Hapou,ig€, un chefd,oeuvre de la XVIIIe Oil"rtl. Mitteit_ungen des Deutschen Archiiologbchzn Instifuts, AbteilungKniro 47,341-55.

Strudwick, N., 1985. The Administration of Egypt in the OIdKingdom: The_ HighestTittes and theii H;i;rrr.London:Aegan l,au I lnternational.

Tefnin, R.,799Ia. Art et magie au tanps des pyramida: I,enigmedes tEles diles, de r"-ploo^"nt, (Monumenta negipt_iaca 5.) Brussels: Fondation egyptofoliq,ru R!in"Elisabeth.

Tefnin, R., 1991b. El6ments po_ur une s6miologie dc l,image_ . igyptiennc. Chronique d,Egypte 66, 60+t.Tcfnin, R., 1991c. Statuaire .ofuit au ia t2e-aynastie: la

l?ll*.: dcs.signes, in Sixth Internatioil CongressoJ Egyptology: Abstracts of papers.Turin, 3g2_3.

fohn Baines

Tefnin, R., 1992. Les yeux et les oreilles du Roi, in L,atelier

! I'ort'loy:y4langes ot'ferts d ph. Derchain, eds. M.Broze & P. Talon. Louvain: peeters, .147_56.

Teissier, B^., 1988. Egyptian lconography'on Sfl_Rut"rtin_ian Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1920_1550 Bc).Unpublished Dphil. dissert"ti""; U;;;;;ty of ox_ford, Oxford.

Trigger, 8.G.,193. Early Ciailizations: Ancienr Entpt in Con_te xt. Cairo: American University in Cai rJircss.

Vandier, 1., 1958. Manuet d'archeologie 6g4pi;; lll: Les

.. _.. - grun4es €Wques, la statuaira. 2 v6ls. pi-ris: picard,Wildung, D;79n. IfPrq und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im

alten Agypten. (Mtinchner Agyptologische Stud ien-35.)

' Munich & Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlae.Wilkinson, A.,'t927. Ancient Egyptian I;iA London:

Methuen.Williams, 8.8., 19S8. Narmer and the Coptos colossi. /our_- . -. _ - nal oJ the American Re*ar ch Center ii Egyp t 25, 35_59.Williams,B.B. & T.J. Logan, I 987. The Metropiiiiun furu*rr.

Knlte handle and aspects of pharaonic imagery before_ . - . Narmer . lournal ol Near Easirn Studies 56, talaS.Wolf, W., '1957. Die Kinst Agypkns: Gestalt und Ceschichte.

Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Wollheim, R., 1980. Art and_its Obiects: With Six Supplemen_

. \a lssayt 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer_' . sity Pfess.

94