Predynastic and Early Dynastic

A note for discussion pages: you can just type in the "post your comments" box at the bottom of the page rather than going to "Edit page". Just make sure that your name or initials are next to your comments so that I know you've been an active participant. For right now I'm thinking we'll start one discussion page per period, but if we're going crazy on here and talking tons, we can make individual questions into links to new pages. Let's see how it goes, and let it develop organically.

To start things off, I wanted to pose a question based less on Baines (though I've got plenty I want to discuss there) and more on a comment by Julia last week. In discussing the Gebel el Arak knife she noted that it was "ceremonial, not functional", and I was wondering: where is the line? Does something that is or includes art - and you can bring in Baines's definition of art or your own, here - necessarily elevate it above the "functional" level? Or, given what we know of ancient Egyptian belief, can we expect even ceremony to be functional? Let's define these two terms, both in relation to one another and in relation to Egyptian art! - Prof. B.

Posted at Feb 16/2011 04:23PM:
JTro: RE: Ceremonial v Functional

The way I was thinking about the terms, when I used them at least, was that functional equals use during life. Something that is ceremonial, is symbolic and therefore in opposition to functionality. So when I was speaking of the Gebel el-Araq knife I was thinking that it was not used as a knife during life but as a symbolic knife for the deceased. But this is obviously a definition drawn from my modern conception of the world. I would propose that an ancient Egyptian would perhaps have seen things differently.

For me something is functional if it has a practical use. A knife cuts. A jar stores. Food is eaten, wine drank. But for the ancient Egyptians, food did not need to be tangible to be a real offering. The ancient Egyptians believed that creation was a product of thought, Sia, and speech, Hu (aided by a bit of Heka magic of course). By this logic, things could be real if they could be perceived and pronounced. I think it is by this logical reasoning that our artifacts, like the Gebel el-Araq knife, should indeed be measured. Which would suggest that the Gebel el-Araq knife did indeed possess functionality for it was intended to be used in death. Just as an ancient Egyptian's identity and agency did not vanish when their corporeal self became (in our understanding) inert, or dead.

One more example - false doors in tombs. Take tomb U-j which we have discussed. Narrow vertical slits between rooms in the tomb have been interpreted as doorways through which the ka of the deceased may travel. Although they may not possess function for the living, they indeed remain dynamic and purposeful for the dead - who were seen as independent agents who could be effective in both the netherworld and on earth.

So perhaps I should instead say that the Gebel el Araq knife does not seem to have been made for a functional use during life. It had a largely ceremonial function - which is NOT necessarily in opposition to a legitimate functional value. But it still remains significant that the artifact did not have a functional life-use, because this indicates that its owner possessed the power/monetary means to contract it for the univalent purpose of a funerary good. I would also venture to suggest that its symbolic value was thus more important than its practical value - like King Tutankhamun's sandals of gold.

So what then does that mean? If something is arguably produced for its symbolic value and not a practical (life use functional) one, do we need to address the object differently? How does/does it make objects like the Gebel el-Araq knife different from other objects that perhaps posses both during life-function and afterlife-functions?

Posted at Feb 16/2011 04:35PM:
JTro: Efficacy in life vs afterlife

A quick afterthought - I was just thinking that the ancient Egyptians must have understood some sort of distinction between life use and afterlife use. It was legitimate to offer symbolic food (perhaps in the form of a water libation over images of food) for your deceased ancestors; however, it was not enough to do that for yourself while alive. So I think function was a poorly chosen word. But there definitely is a distinction between the efficacy of things in life and in the afterlife and I think that is what I originally was trying to communicate. And I think that the nature of an object's realm of effectiveness potentially affects its meaning, composition, use, etc and is thus a significant analytical attribute. Ceremony then would be an aspect of function.

Thoughts on this distinction? Perhaps this makes more sense (or less sense) to talk about objects with this terminology instead of function vs ceremony?

Posted at Feb 21/2011 03:22PM:
muge_durusu:

For me, every object in the past and present has a function, and Ancient Egyptian art and architecture is no exception. From this point of view, I would situate “ceremonial” and even “symbolic” as a subset of “functional”, and would thus agree with Julia who defined ceremonial as an aspect of function. As reductionist and cold as this sounds (on behalf of the symbolic and ceremonial values of things), I think the line of seperation here is under the function, delineating different types and patterns of usage.

How different types of function can be determined is a lot trickier. Here I would suggest the user(s), audience(s), frequency of use, and patterns as well as spaces of production and usage as a tentative (and definitely incomplete) list of criteria for differentiating between functions. Furthermore, this list does not need to produce a single function in the end, which I would suggest to be the rarely the case. On the contrary, objects/art works/buildings, etc generally produce and consume layers of meanings and fulfill a variety of functions.

Being brutal again, I think these thoughts apply to art objects and “everyday” objects (“practical” in Julia’s definition) in a similar manner, thus would not say that being an object of (or including) art does not necessarily elevate that thing “above functional”. Here, I definitely do not mean such a thing that art did not exist in the Egyptian realm, or that it was seen as craft (Baines 2009: 299). On the contrary, I think that objects of each kind are similar on a very basic sense of having a function. However, the social contexts of artistic production and consumption has the ability to add many layers of meaning and value to each object of art. A final note on this subject should be added that the categories I used here, artistic and everyday/practical are defined by the audience and can fluctuate over the lifespan of the same object.

In the specific case of the Gebel el-Arak knife, it is hard to answer many questions since the context of the object is unclear. However, assuming that this indeed came from an elite burial and the audience is the deceased buried along with it, its function becomes associated with the deceased, but definitely goes beyond that, too. Thinking in mundane terms, I believe this knife would have a function for those who have produced, seen and handled it. Although I admit it is very hard, if not impossible, to judge such functions from the archaeological record, their existence should not be ignored. Going even further, if the claims about this object being a fake is indeed true (although the counter argument about the historiography of the Master of Animals scene is very persuasive), then the function of this object would change drastically.

Moving on to another example, the Hierakonpolis Ceremonial Complex (29A), it is again possible to talk about a variety of functions. As I suggested in class, there are a variety of suggestions about the activities carried out in the site. Judging from the faunal remains of many animals, it is apparent that they were butchered in the site. The extensive existence of lithics and pottery signal to workshops within the complex. It is possible that the king made an appearance in that very place, an event that may be paralleled by the Narmer Macehead. There is a structure interpreted as a shrine by the excavators. The open central courtyard hints to gathering and performance. If these are all valid claims, the setting already has functions associated with religion, sacrifice, political power, (industrial?) production and performance. Apart from all these, this setting must have been an important landmark with its massive cedar columns for the users of the city, whether they could enter it or not. Being on top of a hill, reinforced by an upward slope and accentuated with tall columns, it should be fairly visible from a distance, and thus would have had a place within the spatial perception of the city of Hierakonpolis. I understand this is a drastically different example than the Gebel el-Arak knife in terms of scale, and incorporation of different structures within one complex; but I nevertheless find it useful for discussing strata of usage and meanings, and hence functions.

Hence, to answer the question after all, I would expect ceremony to be functional within the specific context of Egyptian art.

Posted at Feb 23/2011 03:09PM:
johnsonp: PJ

I agree with what both Julia and Muge have stated, that the function derived from the Gebel el-Arak knife does not need to be what we might deem today as "practical."

Yet, when thinking about these terms, "function," "ceremony," and "symbolism," I began to recall some of the issues Baines referenced in "On the status and purposes of ancient Egyptian art." Can we consider a main function of Egyptian art to be social exclusion? I think often when we discuss functionality, it is in terms of practicality, whether in life or the afterlife. How would the individual, deceased or alive, utilize this tool, be it ceremonially or not? However, as Baines presented, a main function of such art may just be its inherent ability to propagate social exclusion. I think this notion of an inherent social function present in art is fascinating, especially when it takes a very raw form, like a knife or a pot that connects the "two cultures of Egypt; the monumental and religious with the everyday" (Baines 304)

This brings focus on the issue of materiality and religion. Please correct me if I am wrong, for I have studied little to no Egyptian religion, but this idea of limiting resources seems to stress an importance that royal/elite art, therefore of "higher quality", should survive. By appropriating only the finest and most durable resources to the upper echelon of the society, does art emphasize a sense survival and recognition over time that Egyptians yearn for? And by limiting such materials, the sheer fact that a daily life item is made out of stone rather than mudbrick, excludes a sector of the population from being remembered.

The fact that Egyptian art does have this inherent anchoring in being a means of social exclusion makes me wonder in what other ways Egyptian art was used to affect the general public. Baines brought up the interesting point that art differs in a temple and tomb context, such as with the statuary of Senwosret III, and that most individuals would never see reliefs inside royal or elite tombs. This makes me wonder, what "art," using the term loosely, would an everyday Egyptian be exposed to and how would this affect their view and relationship to it and its function in their daily life?

Posted at Feb 25/2011 01:46AM:
Oren: Since I can't really think of anything to add to Julia and Muge's discussion of the functional and symbolic nature of Egyptian art, so I'm going to focus a little bit more on the Baines articles.

Broadly speaking, I basically agree with Baines' conclusions regarding, to poorly paraphrase, the importance of art in articulating, symbolizing, and perpetuating the social status and ideology of the Egyptian elite both in form and through restricting the resources and mediums available to individuals of lower social status--as Peter noted above. To a great extent, I think that the enduring presence of a relatively coherent royal ideology supports such conclusions.

That said, I think that there are times where Baines perhaps underestimates to what extent lower class individuals could engage with and create art, specifically when he states, "The only chance that individuals outside the elite had to participate in artistic culture was by imitating the forms of their betters in materials and styles that were not appreciated” (304). I’m totally willing to grant that the materials available for non-“high culture” art were restricted (and that oftentimes the work was not appreciated by the elite), but I think that powerfully coherent ideology of Egyptian elite culture, with its emphasis on ma’at as an organizing principle, tended to minimize many anomalous aspects of the artistic tradition when possible. That said, I think that the tolerance of the Egyptian religious system for foreign gods or local traditions and the varying local interpretations of the classic elite Egyptian artistic style hint at (an admittedly modest) capacity for low-culture to have an impact on high culture.

Additionally, although it would be nearly impossible to find any kind of archaeological evidence to support this contention, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Pharaonic Egypt could have supported an incredibly vibrant oral or musical artistic tradition. While I'm not at all knowledgeable about this subject, reliefs depicting various festivals or individuals playing musical instruments suggest that music was a presence in Ancient Egyptian life, and I think it is difficult to account for the strength and duration of the elite's ideology without some kind of oral method to articulate certain aspects of it to the general population.

Again, I don’t really disagree with Baines’ conclusions, but I do think that in some instances, they may need to be qualified somewhat. Maybe I’m just splitting hairs, though (or misinterpreting what Baines is suggesting). What do others think? Did popular traditions or art ever tangibly impact elite art? Are there any traces of a “counter-culture” in Egyptian art?

Posted at Feb 27/2011 02:39PM:
Julia: I think Oren brings up something really interesting about the potential presence of a 'counter-culture' in ancient Egypt. We know at least of local artistic traditions which, although categorized as elite, exist outside of the immediate trajectory of royal iconography, techniques, etc. A most obvious example is the Theban local tradition which developed into a royal tradition with the ascension of Theban rulers to the throne. This tradition is preserved as are other local styles, of which I am less familiar. The point being, that evidence exists for non mainstream art. Another poignant example is evidence of worship of 'household deities' at Amarna where the new religion of Aten was centered. These statues and amulets of gods other than the Aten provide evidence for the existence of an artistic counter-culture at elite and 'middle' status levels.

I also would like to agree with Oren when he says that it is reasonable to suggest a vibrant oral/musical artistic tradition. From the Ptolemaic period we have written records of what is interpreted as theater or plays. Magical texts also often include actions to be preformed in concert with the recitation of spells - a sort of theatrical performance in itself. I think there is enough archaeological and textual evidence to reasonably suggest the presence of dance, oral and musical artistic traditions with which non-elites could have participated (either as actor or audience).

Posted at Feb 28/2011 01:34PM:
Kathryn: I'm not sure 'art' is a very helpful term when we're thinking about the functionality of Egyptian pieces of 'art'- art of course means something very different to our culture than it did to the Egyptians, so I think it's difficult to speak about 'art' without bringing anachronistic and inappropriate ideas from our own cultural viewpoint into it. I think if we can talk about the 'aesthetics' of a piece it becomes a little simpler. Taking the slab stelae of Helwan as an example, it's quite obvious that a lot have been created with aesthetics in mind- they're skilfully carved, the composition is careful etc. However, their function was as offerings in the tomb, so there would be no human audience. However, it's clear that the aesthetics of the object is not necessary for its function, as we can see in the 'crude' examples where the carving has not been finished and is of poor quality, and the figures are awkward. For the slab to still be included in the tomb, it must still have been performing its function, and aesthetics is not a part of that. So, I think that it can be argued that aesthetics is a separate thing from function in what we think of as Egyptian art, and we don't need to assume that there needed to be a human audience for aesthetics to be important. As Oren brings up, because most of society seemingly did not have the resources to achieve even the functional level of object, a lot of what we see has both function AND aesthetic value, but examples such as the Helwan stelae show that that was not necessary and the two concepts were separate in Egyptian thought.

Re: an oral/musical tradition which was accessible to the lower orders of society: I think that's very likely too. From what we see of the continuity of gods in household religion and the staying power of creation myths, I would really be unsurprised if these ideas were being transmitted orally as well as through texts. I've also noticed repetitive phrases being used in Egyptian literature- having studied Homer where it's now pretty much accepted that the repeating phrases and epithets are evidence of its origins in oral poetry (it was recited around Greece long before it was written down) I wonder whether it's possible that there was a similar phenomenon in Egypt and whether anyone's ever looked into this. I don't know much about the Ptolemaic evidence Julia mentions- is it possible that this could have been influenced by the Greek tradition, or does it seem to stem from an earlier Egyptian tradition?

Re: counterculture- I think it would be better to look at Amarna religion and art as the counterculture rather than the worship of household deities which was presumably carrying on as it had done for centuries. Kemp believes this worship was not going on in secret but rather was known about and happily tolerated by Akhenaten, since none of the Aten's functions was being usurped by this practice. Anyway, I think the short space of time in which Amarna art developed and the large degree of difference shown between it and pre-Amarna art shows that Egyptians (or some of them, at least!) did think about 'aesthetics' and their importance as separate from function, since a lot of the function of Amarna objects was the same as their pre-Amarna counterparts (temple relief where the king gives offering to the god(s), colossal statues of the king in temples etc).

Amanda:

I have to agree with Kathryn in the very problematic way that we throw around the term "art," for me at least it helps to define most of these things in a broader sense, as "artifacts" rather than something that we would classify for its aesthetic value in today's society and put in a museum. This however, can not be used in every sense as we have temple reliefs and tomb paintings (and the tombs themselves) which can not fit into the blanket term of "artifact" so we as archaeologists are forced to revert back to the term "art," though as we have seen, this does carry with it certain modern connotations. For the Egyptians, as Julia described, "art" served not only an aesthetic purpose, but a functional one as well, whether that function was for this life or the next is often what separates a "daily life" object from one made for funerary purposes.

This discussion of the separation between aesthetics and function has actually got me thinking about the role of an object and its function in a museum, as an archaeologist most of what I find in the field would never make it to the fancy glass cases of the Metropolitan or the MFA or the Heraklion museum, a very small portion of what any project finds on an excavation will ever be deemed "important" or "aesthetically-pleasing" or "interesting" enough to go into a museum. But that doesn't mean that an object isn't extremely valuable and also functional, in fact oddly enough some of the most functional pieces like bowls for eating or cookware, certainly aren't going to get the V.I.P. treatment. Last summer we found a complete bowl inscribed with Cretan hieroglyphs, but because its rather dull, unpolished and unpainted, it probably won't have a place in a museum. But the very fact that it is inscribed means this was probably something special, inscriptions in Cretan hieroglyphs aren't exactly a dime a dozen. So even nowadays, what a curator believes is "art" (as opposed to, say, an obsidian blade) is many times what he/she considers the most beautiful and attractive objects and that is what is chosen to go on display and our perception of ancient societies is in a lot of ways shaped by what we have available to us in a museum. So then, what is the difference between "art" and "artifact?" Is it the skill that goes into it, is it our own aesthetic values? In a lot of ways I think our own cultural values vastly determine that which we call "art."

Another dimension that hasn't been brought up is "art" that serves a propagandistic purpose, this definitely ties in with Peter's comment and supports the conclusion that Baines comes up with, that art serves to reinforce social roles, that this high elite "art" seems to promote social excluvisity in many ways, depicting the king as larger than life communing directly with the gods and smiting enemies not only serves a cosmic purpose but it makes a very real, potent statement on the power of the king over the Two Lands and his ability to defend his people against any possibly threats. He is elevated to the status of a god and has interactions with them in this life and the next, something that as far we know, only becomes available to the hoi polloi with the so-called "democratization of the afterlife." "Art" in this way is functional by the mutual understanding of the viewers and works to reinforce concepts about kingship, class structure, and Egypt vs. foreign that are common tropes throughout Egyptian history. This facet of propaganda is of course most relevant in cases when an object is meant to be seen to the human viewer, so stelae and temple inscriptions, and monumental architecture would be the most salient examples as art as propaganda.

Again I would have to agree with Kathryn's and Oren's respective points, going back to the museum example, much of what we see in museums (the beautiful, well-preserved kind of stuff) is highly representative of elite art and our perceptions are again very skewed into believing this was in fact the norm for the majority of people in Egyptian society. Such is usually not the case, and fortunately enough it seems to me that there are more archaeological projects these days that are actually interested in what the "regular folks" were up to, those who worked and lived in villages and didn't have the resources for massive tombs, hopefully this will shed light on more "counter-culture" art movements that seemingly go against the grain of elite art and are possibly developing their own art styles separate of what the high and mighty are doing. Then perhaps, we can make better conclusions on what "art" really was to ancient Egyptians.