Key Pages:

Home

On Tuesday, we said that the life in Egypt revolved around the Nile. The green parts were the parts where the water would occupy during inundations. Egyptians did pyramids, because they had nothing else to do during inundation (okay just kidding, but it was fun). They had a very close community because of the dessert that resulted in a long-term culture, unlike the constantly changing culture of Mesopotamia. But we saw from the knife with the Sumerian King found in Egypt that they were not as isolated as we thought. Then we discussed their art. At the beginning, on steles they didn’t have any registers but an open landscape. Then they had registers for ground line. The enemy who didn’t have the ground line, looked liked as if floating in space, kind of lost. The separation between decoration and necessity didn’t really exist. The tomb relieves proved to be really important and special for archeologists because they provided insight into individuals rather than governments, states, and war. They were very intimate.

On Thursday, we started off by emphasizing that the tombs belonged to the elite part of the public, who had jobs with very high status. They served as “visual autobiographies.” They saw the death not like an ending, but like a transformation process, a part of a cycle. I learned something very interesting: They didn’t actually mummify the dead to preserve the body instead hasten the decomposition and get the bones in order to mummify the bones as a reconstruction of body into something else. We talked about the terms effigy, simulacrum, and mimesis and related them to Ka, the life force. It was interesting to think that photos and pictures took away your soul. The sculptures were not just depicting, they were actually being the person, helping the dead to reactivate his Ka. The dead were believed to influence the life on Earth as suggested by a letter. Tomb was like a bridge between the two worlds. I suggested that they might be reminders for the dead to remember his life and continue his other life from where he left it. Moreover, the pictures were better than life. The diversity was more respected. It was acceptable to reflect very close relations between 2 male figures. Lamentation priests were indeed transgender. The text and image related to each other more than those of Mesopotamia. When a fixed record was put down, it was the truth, so it changed &/ determined who you are. So they weren’t representing reality, they were a part of reality, which reminded of animal depictions being stronger than those of king.

Can

Egyptian art is interesting because of how functional it is, at least in the minds of the people who created it. Often times it's not art for the sake of art; it isn't even meant to be seen by mere mortals in many instances. The Narmer Palette was meant to be viewed in all its complexity under ceremonial processions but was not believed to have been seen by the general public. Note that, according to Davis's theory, the true action of Narmer smiting the enemy is not seen but is supposed to occur in the center of the palette--the area where the cosmetics are supposed to go. Whatever this ceremony was, this idea makes it sound like the continued use of the palette helps to sustain the government symbolically. However, this theory cannot be assumed; it's possible that this construction of the palette's narrative was coincidental and that the central location has more to do with other narrative techniques.

Regardless, Egyptian reliefs served specific purposes, and the sustainability of a subject was definitely a thematic element of the artwork. Depictions of the continuation of daily life--hunting and gathering of food, etc.--were important because they allowed for life to continue after death in their representations. The Egyptians did not have a concept of Hell like some other religions, ancient and modern. Instead, the worst possibility was complete nonexistence after death, which destroyed the possibility of an afterlife. Depictions through reliefs and statues allowed for renewal by the use of effigies. They allowed for life to continue even after death, which was considered more of a transition than an ending.

Caitlin

Posted at Sep 29/2008 08:26PM:
jed: This last week put forth some interesting ideas. The fist of which is the idea we talked about that revolves around the simulacrum. The simulacrum is a descriptive representation of something that essentially contains a portion of the "soul" or "spirit" of that object, place, or person being depicted. This is, in my opinion, a continuing motif we have been following in the course of the class. We first encountered an idea similar to this in the rock paintings found in Southern Africa. In these rock paintings, created by a shaman, one could actually gain something from physically touching the rock surface, that is, that the surface of the rock essentially contained some spiritual force that was necessary in “receiving” the image in its entirety. This is essential in understanding the progression of the narrative in its pictorial quality. We can clearly see that it was common belief that paintings were created with an alchemical or quintessential element, which is necessary for the completion of the narrative to these ancient people. This is again found in the narratives in Egyptian Tombs. These paintings and reliefs are designed to provide for someone in the afterlife (i.e. the menu relief on the wall which is intended to provide nutriment for the deceased in the afterlife.) In these narratives as well as the South African cave paintings, a mystical “quintessential” element surrounds the images. They are imbued with the soul and spirit of what they represent.

In addition to this concept, I also found an interest in the idea of discovering identity in the tombs at Qubbet el-Hawa. It was interesting to see, like Darwin’s finches, how a geographic isolation can provide, if only subtle differences, differences within the Egyptian culture. Deborah Vischak noted in her lecture titled “Shaping Space into Place and Idea: Community Identity at Qubbet el-Hawa,” that because of the importance of burial rites in Egyptian culture, we are able to discover what people held nearest and dearest to their hearts. In the case of the tombs at Qubbet el-Hawa, it is easy to see, based on the comparatively excessive amount of different personages depicted on tomb walls, that popularity in the afterlife is just as important in the “real world” for Egyptians, which is a unique belief to the people of Qubbet el-Hawa. This can be expanded to say that what is important in the afterlife of a person is a reflection of what a person deems important in the real world, and therefore reflects the nature of that person’s identity. In a sense, a tomb is someone’s legacy, autobiography, and personal means for the after-life, all wrapped up into one.

Posted at Sep 30/2008 04:00AM:
katie: In an art history course I took a year ago, ka had always been referred to as the ancient Egyptian idea of a “spirit.” While the translation I had been taught is reasonable, I learned from this week’s lecture that it does not fully explain the ancient beliefs and values associated with the word. “Life force,” the more subtle and precise translation, ties in with the important Egyptian concepts of death and the afterlife, conveying an intense driving power beyond the general idea of a “soul”.

Death was seen as a rite of passage, marking a transition between life and the afterlife. Mummification was an important ritual in ancient Egypt because it reconstituted the body into a simulacrum of the being it once was. Similarly, the art in ancient tombs depicted the deceased individual in idealized images of life as a means of preserving the identity of that person. The intimate connection that developed between the artist and the sitter emphasizes the strength and cultural importance of the image being created. Thus, the art portraying the individual is ultimately an extension of that person, summoning and nourishing the person’s ka with the presentation of the previous life and the life to come. This connection between the body of the deceased and the ka was thought to greatly affect the happiness of the person in the afterlife.

I had never considered a piece of art as “sustenance” before, except in the Sesame Street special Don’t Eat the Pictures: Sesame Street at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, when Cookie Monster resists eating famous paintings like Rousseau’s Still Life with Ham and a decorated Egyptian sarcophagus which he describes as a banana with pictures (but ultimately reminds kids that “mummies are yummy, but not for tummy”). The Sesame Street special actually ends with Osiris weighing an Egyptian prince’s heart as he tries to transition to the afterlife. Was all this mention of art-food, Egyptian mummies, and the afterlife a coincidence, or was it all deeply rooted in an archaeology lesson?

I found the discussion of Old Kingdom Egyptian elite tombs this past week particularly enlightening because it both broadened and refined my understanding of the ka and how tomb art reflected this ancient Egyptian belief. I now have a much greater appreciation for the complex cultural practices behind functional Egyptian art.

Posted at Oct 14/2008 01:17PM:
gianna: It is fascinating that Ancient Egyptian art was so brilliantly depicted and painted in the form of a narrative. It has more functional use rather than decorative use because of the way in which the images are organized and "read" to tell stories of the many victories and defeats that occurred in ancient times between different societies.

The Narmer Pallete, a schist carved of King Narmer and his victories was made around 3000 B.C. and contains a narrative about the King. The Palatte is said to commemorate a celebration of the King's victories over defeated enemies in the north. It is interesting to me that there are three main registers in the palette that "mark the different status of figures within the image either as being part of or associated with the ruler" (Davis 31). The fact that there registers are present show that there truly is a narrative that can be extracted from the making of this stele.

In contrast with a lot of art today as well as some ancient art, Egyptians almost always depicted narratives in their art whether it be on walls in tombs, on palettes, in houses or temples. This puts their culture in a new light for me, not having recognized any of these fascinating characteristics prior to taking this class. The Egyptians were indeed a culture of intelligence and devotion to each other, their king, and their gods.

Posted at Oct 15/2008 02:02PM:
julia: The Egyptian tombs were particularly interesting to me because I feel like it is a subject that is touched upon in everyone's youth, but not fully explained. The mystery behind what the tombs really was revealed throughout the readings. When I was younger I held the understanding that the tombs were for the elite of Egypt, I, however, did not know that the tombs were so intricately laid out. I also was unaware of the idea of Ka and an afterlife.

What I believed was the most interesting discussion of this week was that of the Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. The parallels drawn between the tombs of married male and female couples. The way in which Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were positioned in the art of the tomb would lead the readers to believe that they were in fact a homosexual couple. While others may interpret the paintings in a different way, I believe the way in which the two men are positioned in the painting and the way in which they parallel paintings like that of a husband and wife clearly illustrates their love far past that of brothers or friends.