Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15 May 2010

Edited byKatalin Anna Kóthay

Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 2012

Art and SocietyAncient and Modern Contexts of Egyptian Art

Editor: Katalin Anna Kóthay Proof-reading: Adrian HartGraphic design, prepress work and photo editing: Eszter Balder

Editorial Coordination: Timea Türk

Printed by: EPC Nyomda, Budapest

Publisher: Dr. László Baán, General DirectorMuseum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 2012

Cover illustration: Female statue, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, inv. no. 51.2048

ISBN 978-963-7063-91-6

The publication of this volume was supported by the Hungarian National Culture Fund.

5

List of Contributors

Foreword

Discourses about Works of Art in Ancient and Modern TimesMaya Müller

Theban Tomb Graffiti during the New Kingdom. Research on the Reception of Ancient Egyptian Images by Ancient EgyptiansAlexis Den Doncker

Egyptian Pyramids in an East European LandscapeJoachim Śliwa

Interaction of Three-dimensional and Two-dimensional ArtHelmut Satzinger

The ‘Four Schools of Art’ of Senwosret I. Is it Time for a Revision?David Lorand

Handmade Terracotta Figurines with Hands Secured behind the Backs. The Potential Use of an Art Historical Method in the Research of Egyptian Minor ArtsMáté Petrik

Privatplastik im Wandel der Zeiten. Skulpturen als Kunsthistorisches BildmediumEdith Bernhauer

Kunst und Gesellschaft in der Libyerzeit. Beobachtungen an Königsstatuen der Dritten ZwischenzeitHelmut Brandl

Stratégie d’épure et stratégie d’appogiature dans les productions dites « artistiques » à l’usage des dominants. Le papyrus dit « érotique » de Turin et la mise à distance des dominésPascal Vernus

„Eine Frage des Geschmacks“ – Anmerkungen zur Grabdekoration auf dem Teti-Friedhof von SaqqaraGabriele Pieke

7

9

13

23

35

45

47

57

73

79

109

123

Contents

6

Hierarchy of Women within Elite Families. Iconographic Data from the Old KingdomVera Vasiljević

Theban Tomb Painting during the Reign of Amenhotep II (1427–1400 BC). Investigation into an Artistic Creation in its Historical and Sociocultural ContextMaruschka Gathy

Behind the Mirror. Art and Prestige in Kha’s Funerary Equipment Marcella Trapani

‘The Bull Coming out of the Mountain’. The Changing Context and Connotations of an Iconographic MotifÉva Liptay

sS qdwt – The Attestations from the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate PeriodDanijela Stefanović

Tracking Ancient Egyptian Artists, a Problem of Methodology. The Case of the Painters of Private Tombs in the Theban Necropolis during the Eighteenth DynastyDimitri Laboury

Pour une approche matérielle et expérimentale de la peinture thébaineHugues Tavier

Thebanische Totenstelen der 3. Zwischenzeit. Zur ihrer Produktion und VerwendungMarc Loth

The Gamhud ArtisansKatalin Anna Kóthay

The Burial Ensemble of Tasenet from Gamhud and the Ptolemaic Coffin style in Northern Middle EgyptGábor Schreiber

Imitation of Materials in Ancient EgyptManuela Gander

Plates

139

151

159

169

185

199

209

217

235

257

265

273

13

1 Introduction

When I read in the announcement of the Budapest conference on ‘art and society’ that its subject would be ‘ancient and modern contexts of art’, I immediately asked myself if I knew anything about how the ancient Egyptians actually discussed works of art, if indeed they ever did at all. Obviously, the Egyptians were able to perceive their works of art creatively, and to handle them actively as well as reactively. In contrast to this, these days it is only possible to react in a receptive way and by com-menting. Before entering into the matter, I need to point out the well-known fact that the Egyptian language has no word for ‘art’. I assume, however, that cultural products were regarded as having a value which was far above and beyond their immediate and factual usefulness. Moreover, it is also a well-known fact that Egyptian written sources do not refer to art in an analytical and self-reflective way. Yet despite this art was spoken about publicly, albeit often in a way which was quite unlike modern discourse. I have so far been able to trace three kinds of ancient discourse. Firstly, writing a literary text dealing with the visible outer appearance of a statue, relief, drawing, or building. Such texts were ‘published’ as graffiti or stelae inscriptions in tombs and temples, or on papyri for ritualistic special-ists. Secondly, making a stela or stone relief depicting a real, existing statue, relief, or temple. These pictures were also relatively public since they mainly occur on votive stelae erected in popular sanctuaries. And thirdly, taking over an important older work, either a statue or a sacred build-ing, in order to make some changes to it and to integrate it into a new context. A fourth category of pictures and texts is not included here, namely all those referring exclusively to the process of manufacturing works of art. After a brief examination of the modern ways of reacting to Egyptian art I will very briefly try to describe the ancient approaches to art, define the differences and compare the common points.

2 Structure of the article

This article is a classificatory listing of how both Egyptologists and Egyptians dealt with ancient art, with some comments on the most important items of the list. Readers should note that this is a pre-liminary draft only, not a fully developed study, and that, for brevity’s sake, all suggested definitions must be more or less simplified. After investigating the perception or reception of art in ancient and modern times I found two possible systems for classifying the results which allow for an ap-proximate orientation:

A Psychological classificationa) Modern times

I aesthetical approachII emotional approachIII intellectual-analytical approach

b) Ancient timesI aesthetical approach

Discourses about Works of Art in Ancient and Modern Times

Maya Müller

14 Maya Müller

II emotional approachIIIa intellectual-magical approachIIIb intellectual-ideological approach

B Technical classificationa) Modern times

No. 1 belletristic writingsNo. 2 scientific writings

b) Ancient timesNo. 1a creating a secondary work about a work of art in the form of a poetical text, such as a narration of its conception, for example the building inscription of Senwosret I on the ‘Ber-lin parchment’.No. 1b creating a depiction of a picture, such as a relief representation of a statue or a temple, for example the sphinx on the sphinx stela of Thutmosis IV. No. 2 writing a ritualistic prescription for the making of a picture accompanied by a model drawing, such as the postscripts of some Book of the Dead spells.No. 3 re-using the hall of an important old tomb with famous wall reliefs as a new popular sanctuary, for example the Sekhmet chapel in Sahure’s mortuary temple. No. 4 re-using old royal statues in a new architectural context. No. 5 reporting on what can be called ‘personal art experiences’ in various biographical texts, such as the visitors’ graffiti of the New Kingdom in old tombs.

In the following the material is discussed in order of psychological classification. In all three classes – the aesthetical, the emotional, and the intellectual – the modern approach will be men-tioned first, and the ancient approach second.

3 Discussion of examples according to psychological classification [A]

3.1 The aesthetical approach [I]

3.1.1 The modern aesthetical approach [A a) I]The first point of our psychological classification is the aesthetic response to ancient works of art. The modern variant of the aesthetic response can be determined as a spontaneous sensation of amazement and delight which may seize a sensitive tourist who visits the temples of Philae or Karnak, or who has a nocturnal appointment with the great sphinx of Giza bathing in the moonlight. A well-formulated account of such an experience can be found in Pierre Loti’s famous book on Egypt which was pub-lished in 1909,1 i.e. in a belletristic work [B a) no. 1].

3.1.2 The ancient aesthetical approach [A b) I]Surprisingly, a description of a similar feeling can be found in ancient sources. The relevant texts chiefly comprise of visitors’ graffiti which can be found on the walls of King Djoser’s precinct at Saqqara, Sahure’s at Abusir, and a few important Middle Kingdom tombs at Beni Hassan and Thebes.2 In terms of our technical classification these texts are biographical notes relating to personal art experiences [B b) no. 5]. A scribe of the Eighteenth Dynasty at Saqqara wrote: ‘The scribe Iahmose came to see this temple of Djoser. He found it like heaven in its interior, with the sun rising in it. And he said: “May heaven rain fresh myrrh and sprinkle incense”.’3 In tomb no. 3 at Beni Hassan, can be read: ‘The scribe Djehuti came to see the beautiful temple of King Khufu, true of voice. He found it, in his heart, more beautiful than any other temple.’4 An interesting variant is inscribed in the tomb of May at Amarna. This high official is overjoyed when looking at the beauty – of not a temple, but of the entire city of Akhet-Aten. He praises King Akhenaten as her creator, adding: ‘One rejoices at see-ing her beauty, fair and lovely … One sees her as if looking at the sky, with the Aten rising in it to fill

15Maya Müller

it with his rays.’5 The works of art praised by these officials are richly decorated stone buildings, and they perceive them clearly in an aesthetic way since the sight of them brings them heartfelt pleasure. Such ‘aesthetic graffiti’ are, however, rare in comparison with the closely related and omnipresent votive graffiti containing wishes for the well-being of the visitor and/or the tomb-owner. Wishes for the visitor prevailed in temple graffiti.6

The ancient aesthetic approach to works of art is certainly not identical with the modern one. However, I think it is similar enough to form a bridge for us to the ancient mind.

3.2. The emotional approach [II]

3.2.1 The modern emotional approach [A a) II]The second point of our psychological classification concerns the emotional approach to art in schol-arly writings. For brevity’s sake, I confine myself to formulating a rule or basic assumption which is confirmed by any survey of Egyptological literature on art. The emotional reaction of the modern beholder is a response to the emotional capacities inherent in an ancient work of art. By far the best and most obvious examples are the realistic portraits. They are rare though present in every period beginning with the Old Kingdom. Realistic portraits like those of Senwosret III7 and the royal family of Amarna are fascinating because of the facial expressions depicted. A realistically modelled face be-trays a personality with his or her individual emotionality and character. Proof of this is the on-going discussion on Senwosret III’s possible inclination to depression, and on Queen Tiye’s arrogance. In addition to the realistic portrait there is a second kind of realistic depiction that seeks to appeal to the beholder’s emotionality. I refer to figures representing classes or types of men and women – not individuals – such as enemies, harpists, dwarfs, or people who suffer from undernourishment such as those represented on the causeway of Unas at Saqqara,8 exhibiting an appalling realism. This kind of realism was relatively common from the Early Dynastic to the Late Period. The emotional response to such figures is due, however, to the convincing representation of their general human condition and not to their individual personalities.

3.2.2 The ancient emotional approach [A b) II]Of course as far an emotional approach to art in Antiquity is concerned we cannot expect to read comments on realistic statues or reliefs. Regardless of this there are passages in literary works describ-ing faces which betray emotions. The Teaching of Ptahhotep, for example, strongly recommends that a young official control his facial expression when he is enraged. 9 This means that the mimic expres-sion of emotion was consciously perceived. However, an emotional approach to art was sometimes described in an original manner, as can be perceived from two outstanding examples dating from the New Kingdom. These are the sphinx stela of Thutmosis IV and the tomb of Djehutiemhab (Theban Tomb 194 in the Asasif), who was a great admirer of Hathor in the latter years of Ramesses II.10 Both examples contain a secondary work about a primary work of art, in both the literary and pictorial mode [B b) nos 1a and 1b]. The stela, which Thutmosis IV dedicated soon after his accession to the great sphinx of Giza, was found in the small shrine between the paws of the huge statue.11 On the upper part there are two symmetrical representations of the sphinx facing the king who presents his offerings, thus giving an illustration of the statue which could be seen, in reality, just above the stela. The text below the picture is a singular literary report of a dream vision.12 One day, after doing sportive exercises on the Giza plateau, Thutmosis, who was still a prince at that time, slept in the shadow of the sphinx. Now the sphinx spoke to him, saying: ‘Look at me, my son Thutmosis, I am your father Harmakhis … My face belongs to you, my heart belongs to you, and you belong to me …’. He then begs Thutmosis to free him from the sand which threatens to cover him, and the prince looks at him, marvelling at his words. Moreover, the text describes the sphinx statue as emanating a ‘shefjt’, or sacred aura. Thus, the king literally saves the life of the god by rescuing him from drowning in the sand and the god ‘gives him his face’, as he says. This deed establishes an emotional relationship, the god grant-ing him his view which is his affectionate attention. This demonstrates that the statue is not a symbol

16

but rather the real body of the god. On the stela Thutmosis perpetuates his looking at the face of the god in two ways, in relief representation and in the narrative of the encounter. According to the an-cient mind looking at the statue is identical to looking at the god. The concept of the ‘shefjt’, however, seems to come relatively near to the modern concept of the ‘aura’ of a work of art.13

Another dream revelation of a deity is written down in the Ramesside tomb of Djehutiemhab, TT 194 in the Asasif, above the entrance to his burial shaft. The tomb owner relates how Hathor appeared to him in the night, indicating the place where he should install his tomb. He praises the beauty of her face ecstatically, making assurances that a man who always looks at her is a blessed one for eternity, and saying, in Assmann’s translation:

Die Goldene anbeten, das Auge des Re,die Erde küssen vor ihrem Ka,Lob spenden ihrem schönen Angesicht, sie preisen Tag für Tag…Jeder, der dich schaut, ist ein Gelobter.Wie freut sich, wer an deiner Seite ruht,wer eintritt in deinen Schatten!14

At the end of the hymn, he says: ‘Give me your face, let me pay homage to it, grant me your beauty, so that I may see/engrave your shape in my tomb!’ In his hymn Djehutiemhab stresses the importance of looking at the beautiful face of the deity, as did Thutmosis IV on the sphinx stela. Moreover, Djehutiemhab had the shape of Hathor materialize in his tomb chapel by having an artist sculpt two false doors with the face of Hathor appearing in the centre.15 These false doors are duplicates of a specific royal piece adapted to an official’s use. I refer to the elaborate false door, which is to be found in the six sanctuaries of Sethi I’s famous temple at Abydos,16 representing the point where the deities communicate with the realm of Osiris. This particular type of false door is characterised by the symbol of Hathor or Osiris in the centre of the over door panel (‘entablature’), flanked by adoring figures of the tomb owner or temple builder, and the latter is conspicuously present on the door leafs as well.17 Thus, Djehutiemhab’s hymn to Hathor is a poetical work about the making of her picture, and the relief representation of the Hathoric false door is a sculptured quote of a famous model. This work propagates a particular concept of eternal well-being for the tomb-owner. The picture is identical to the goddess. The act of seeing her beautiful face puts the beholder in a state of utmost delight and ecstasy, or as some Ramesside solar hymns put it, a state of drunkenness, (‘Jedes Gesicht ist trunken von deinem Anblick’).18 We suggest an interpretation of this daily delight brought about by Hathor’s beauty as a mode of perpetual rejuvenation, in parallel to the Osirian mode of new birth.

In the Ramesside Period, many middle class officials who could afford a small stela chose to ad-dress themselves to a colossal statue of a deified king, which was depicted in relief, on the stela [B b) no. 1b]. These stelae, which normally contained a prayer for a long life, were deposited in modest chapels at the foot of royal colossi on the gates of important temples. The king could be either one from the past, as in the case of the great sphinx of Giza,19 or the actual living sovereign.20 The most important of these god-king sanctuaries was the one in Qantir (ancient Piramesse), the great residential city built by Ramsesses II in the Delta. No less than four colossi were venerated there, which must have stood at the pylon(s) of a lost temple. The most instructive is the stela of the officer Mose at Hildesheim, which describes the emotional relationship between the officer and the god-king, in picture form as well as in the text. In the lower register, Mose and his troops are shown in fervent jubilation before two parallel appearances of Ramesses the god: the living king and the colossal statue. The inscription reads: ‘You are Re, you are like his form; when you shine, we live by seeing you’.21 Here again, this demonstrates that the sight of the statue is the most important, it is replete with joy and inspiring.

Maya Müller

17

Mose and his troops can feel the favour of the god immediately and materially through the gifts which Ramesses lets rain over them, the golden vessels possibly representing, to their minds, the golden sunlight. Indeed, it seems that the particular attractiveness of the deified colossal statues of the living Ramesses lay in the fact of their visibility. In contrast to the invisible heavenly gods whose cult statues were hidden in shrines, this god lived on earth and could always be seen at the outer gates of the temple where people had access. At Thebes, a number of stelae and wall reliefs were produced, in the Ramesside Period, showing a picture of a work of art which is a temple instead of a statue. We only mention a few cases where the strictly frontal view of the façade seems to represent the entire temple, and not a pylon. On the stela Cairo TR 16/3/25/12, the goldsmith Ramose worships the temple of Ptah22 as if it were the statue of the god, the inscription reading that he is exalting Ptah’s beauty to the heights of heaven. Two detailed depictions of the temple of Luxor are to be found in the courtyard which Ramesses II added to this temple, one of the images labelled with the name of the Luxor temple, and both venerated by a procession of princes.23

3.3 The intellectual approach [III]

3.3.1 The modern intellectual-analytical approach [A a) III]By this designation, I simply mean Egyptological or art historical literature on ancient Egyptian art [B a) no. 2]. Considering modern specialized books and articles can certainly be dispensed with here, all the more so since self-reflective writing on art did not exist in ancient Egypt.

3.3.2 The ancient intellectual-magical approach [A b) IIIa]I think that I can identify an intellectual-magical approach in ancient Egyptian sources. Before con-sidering the matter, I must make a point about magic. According to the ancient Egyptian concept magic was a cultural technology governed by the intellect. It can be compared to modern science (the humanities) in so far as it implied the handling of knowledge. In the early New Kingdom authors of magical papyri first had the idea to add, at the end of specific magical spells, a prescription of how to ritually perform the spell efficaciously by making a picture. Such prescriptions are normally ac-companied by a model drawing of the representation to be made [B b) no. 2]. Important examples were produced from the New Kingdom to the Byzantine Period.24 Among the earliest extant cases are the postscripts to the Book of the Dead spells 130, 144, and 125, occurring on Eighteenth Dynasty papyri.25 The prescription advises the magician to recite the spell after having drawn a picture of a specific subject – normally a deity or powerful creature granting success to the action – and to lay down a number of offerings. At the end, the effect which will be achieved by the ritual is described in a few words and a draft of the picture is provided. Such ritualistic prescriptions can be understood today as a valid description, not only of magical proceedings, but also of the production of pictures in general. They contain no less than the Egyptian idea of the creative act per se, describing how and to what effect an image comes into being.

The most peculiar way of handling old monuments is often designated nowdays as usurpation, or adaptation. Two usages are relevant for our context: first, re-using a hall of a famous old tomb with important representations on the walls as a new popular sanctuary, and second, re-using old royal statues of colossal size in a new architectural context. As far as the first usage is concerned the case of the Sekhmet chapel, which was installed in the mortuary temple of Sahure at Abusir, is of major interest [B b) no. 3]. In the New Kingdom, the gal-lery south of the peristyle court was used as a sanctuary for ‘Mut-Sekhmet-Bastet of Sahure’. People, both the rich and those of more modest means, deposited a significant number of votive stelae and other gifts there. This hall was dominated by a huge relief representing King Sahure hunting in the desert. Curiously, the votive stelae were either directly engraved into the wall relief, or they were set in a hole made for this purpose, as can be seen on a wall fragment published by Ludwig Borchardt.26 There is no inscriptional information on the meaning of this installation. However, there must have

Maya Müller

18

been a close association between the impressive old relief and the stelae, as if the vigour of the king should communicate itself magically to the owners of the stelae. At Asyut, a comparable case can perhaps be distinguished among the great tombs of the Middle Kingdom nomarchs. One of these is Djefaihapi III’s tomb (no. VIII), the so-called Salakhana tomb, where in 1922 several hundred votive stelae and figurines for Wepwawet were found. However, the chance of determining the character which this tomb took on in the New Kingdom is minimal since it is very poorly preserved and unpublished.27 According to Rosalind Moss, part of a biographical in-scription of Djefaihapi III was still visible, in her time, on one of the walls of the large hall. The stelae had been found in the same hall about a decennium earlier, ‘leaning against the walls’.28 The nomarchs of Asyut were usually the chief sponsors of their city god Wepwawet, and the most important among them, Djefaihapi I, called himself the ‘son of Wepwawet’. If this was also true of Djefaihapi III, he may have been regarded by the people of the New Kingdom as a mediator god, whose image on his walls established a connection to Wepwawet.

As to those kings who adapted statues of their predecessors, inscribing their own names on them and integrating them into their own buildings, it is well known that this mode of handling art was not uncommon [B b) no. 4].29 However, sources provide scant detail relevant to the motivation of those who did this. I confine myself to mentioning one case only: the temple of Osorkon II at Bubastis. This king seemingly set up a pair of colossal sitting statues of Amenemhet III in his new temple, at the gate to the first hall.30 The Middle Kingdom statues probably originally stood in the ‘palace’ of Amenemhet III at Bubastis. Osorkon II had the entire original inscriptions on the sides of the thrones erased and replaced by his own names, thus establishing a magical identification. The heads of the statues were not touched. When borrowing the conspicuously realistic faces, the new owner may have identified not only with the historical prestige but also possibly with the individual personality of the old king. If the latter assumption is correct, it may be understood as an emotional reaction by the Libyan king. The adaptation of old works of art, whether buildings or statues, is an aggressive mode of action or expression, at least to the modern mind. The re-used work is normally submitted to drastic altera-tions, without considering the intentions of the original owner. Nonetheless, for the Egyptians, this kind of aggressiveness was a constructive discourse that brought the past into the present.

3.3.3 The ancient intellectual-ideological approach [A b) IIIb]The last comment relates to the ideological approach to works of art. Among the extant examples sev-eral important literary compositions can be counted that describe how a great king takes part in the creation of a beautiful temple or a series of statues.31 According to our technical classification, these writings can be regarded as secondary literary works about an architectural work and its statues [B b) no. 1a]. Such a literary work can be called ideological in so far as it contains a doctrine as to what it means, for the definition of the king’s own godly nature, to create works of art. I am primarily referring to the building inscription of Senwosret I (c. 1918–1875 BCE) detailing the concept of his new temple for Atum at Heliopolis, as formulated on the ‘Berlin parchment’.32 The venue of the story is partly the fictitious world of the gods, i.e. Atum and his son Senwosret, and partly the real world of Senwosret’s court. The divine son first amply describes his relationship with his father and their exchange of unique deeds. After this the courtiers answer their lord, informing the reader of the document how the concept of the temple spontaneously emerged from the king’s head, since he is a god himself, owner of Sia and Hu, the personified powers of creation. In the last part, the king performs the foundation ritual ‘stretching the cord’, letting the temple concept realise itself in virtual mode. This text reminds me somewhat of modern phenomena such as ‘concept art’ and ‘art performance’. Next, there is the quartzite stela of Amenhotep III (c. 1388–1351 BCE) in situ behind the co-lossi of Memnon,33 reporting a singular dialogue between Amun-Re and the king. Both partners exclusively comment on the creation and the artistic quality of Amenhotep’s outstanding mortuary temple at Kom el-Hetan. The stela stood in the entrance area, presenting an address of welcome to

Maya Müller

19

the sun-god who is invited to come and see the marvellous house his divine son made for him. Every morning, when the god moves into his new home, his first rays, which reach the stela, re-activate the invitation, as if on a touch-screen. The entire text of the stela is styled as a conversation between Amenhotep III, Amun-Re and the Ennead, taking place in the fictitious sphere of the gods. We per-ceive Amenhotep III as a great actor appearing in all three roles in order to extol the unique beauty of his work from three different points of view. In particular the king teaches how he made the dei-ties’ statues. He made them according to the model created by the primeval god (Amun-Re) in the beginning, when he made them. This is the shape which the gods take on when dwelling on earth and which Amun loves to see. For Amenhotep III, his knowledge of the true shapes of the gods is an argument for being a god himself. A second argument advanced by the king to the same end is the enormous physical height of his statues that stand at the temple gates. The third example is Ramesses II’s stela of regnal year 8 (c. 1271 BCE) dealing with the creation of a series of colossal statues of the king as a god.34 The stela was found at Heliopolis near the quarries of Gebel el Ahmar. The recorded events take place in normal human reality. The king relates his sur-veys in the mountains of Heliopolis and Aswan in order to find the best stones for his temple statues. He himself determines the size, name, type and location of every future statue. In a long allocution to his stonemasons and sculptors he praises them for their dedicated and efficient work, granting them a long list of remunerations and privileges. In this text the king presents himself in the role of an engineer and manager of art production. He declares very clearly what he wants: having decided on a very ambitious construction programme of colossal statues representing himself as a god, chiefly for his new capital Piramesse, he wants to have them made in record time and in hitherto unsurpassed dimensions. To him, the gigantic size of a royal statue was the main indicator of its divine nature and thus Ramesses II had to amply pay the overseer of works and his men, and not the gods. The last example is the inventory stela of Khufu from Giza, a rare historistic work of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, found in the small temple of Isis Mistress-of-the-Pyramid adjoining the South Sub-sidiary Pyramid at the Pyramid of Khufu.35 The rectangular stela depicts, on four registers, the twenty-two cult statuettes stored in the temple’s treasure room, and moreover the great sphinx. On the frame can be read a dedication inscription of Khufu, explaining how he renovated the temple and its statues, built his pyramid at its side, and defined the geographical position of the Isis temple and the sanctuary of Harmakhis (the great sphinx). Obviously, the real Late Period commissioner of the stela was not interested in the history of the Old Kingdom. Rather, he wanted to introduce Khufu as a mythic patron of the necropolis who acted on behalf of Isis, in order to stress the priority of this goddess dear to him. The depiction of the statuettes can perhaps be understood as a virtual exhibition making the hidden figures permanently visible for the visitors of the temple, as was the sphinx.

4 Conclusion

Monuments containing a discourse on art in whatever form were ‘published’ in the sense that they were made accessible to a public composed of educated priests and officials. This is the case for all kinds of inscriptions and pictures in tomb chapels and in the external parts of temples. It may also be true for written documents in archives that were accessible to a limited circle of learned users. The examples – from which I could present a small choice only – begin with the Old Kingdom, but are much more common from the New Kingdom to the Late Period. When trying to compare how Egyptian art was and is dealt with in ancient and modern times a certain convergence of approaches can be ascertained in our psychological classification. A relatively high degree of similarity is arrived at in the aesthetic approach as expressed, in ancient and modern times, in autobiographical notes recounting a ‘personal art experience’, i.e. the pleasure felt when looking at a work of art. An emotional response can be observed, nowadays, when encountering a realistic human figure with an emotional expression. In antiquity, a depiction of a picture could be connected with emotionality, e.g. the depiction of a deified royal colossus. The emotional response of the ancient beholder was, however, not directly engendered by the expression of the image, but

Maya Müller

20

indirectly by remembering the model of the image, in our example a royal appearance mentioned in an accompanying inscription (the Hildesheim stela of Mose for Ramesses II). In regard to the intellectual approach, there is a gap between ancient and modern times due to the fact that ancient dealings with art were active, while the modern ones are re-active. Ancient writings about works of art can be ideologically motivated, such as the royal documents of the Middle and New Kingdoms discussed above. They have an analytical touch, for example when Amenhotep III explains how the primeval concept of the deities is related to their visible shape as statues on earth. Of course this is different from modern analytical writing on art, but nonetheless creates a vague similarity. The ancient discourses mainly took on the form of making a secondary work about a primary work of art. This was done either in literature, or in relief sculpture. The adaptation, transformation and reintegration of older works into a new context are another important category. Speaking about art was, of course, not the exclusive aim of such works but merely one aspect out of several. These other aspects are mostly much more obvious to modern eyes, otherwise this article on the discovery of the discourse-on-art aspect would not exist.

Pierre Loti, La mort de Philae, Paris 1909, 5–14, 344–356.M. Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity in Ancient Thebes, 1419-1372 BCE, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 10, Turnhout 2004, 42–45; R. B. Parkinson, Voices from Ancient Egypt, London 1991, 147–148 (Thebes, tomb of Intefiqer’s mother Senet, TT 60). D. Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt, MÄS 17, 1969, 66, Dok. XVI.70.a.Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige, 172, Dok. XXI.80.d. W. Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt, Atlanta, GA 1995, 143–144, no. 68; an aesthetical approach also on the stelae of Amenhotep III from Kom el Hetan with descriptions of his temples at Kom el Hetan, Luxor and Karnak (Urk. IV, nos 562 and 569), W. Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Übersetzungen zu den Heften 17-22, Berlin 1961, 194–199, 206–208.A. Den Doncker, Prélude à une étude de la réception de l’image égyptienne par les anciens Égyptiens, in E. Warmenbol – V. Angenot (eds), Thèbes aux 101 portes. Mélanges à la mémoire de Roland Tefnin, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 12, Turnhout 2010, 79–89; A. I. Sadek, Popular Religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom, HÄB 27, Hildesheim 1987, 52–54.Still the only extant example with fully preserved nose: Lisbon Museu Calouste Gulbenkian 138, K. Lange, Sesostris, München 1954, 48, pls 26–27.C. Vandersleyen, Ägypten, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 15, Berlin 1975, pl. 257.R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe and other Ancient Egyptian Poems 1940–1640 BC, Oxford 1997, 258–259 (370–377, 392–395).Eva Hofmann, Bilder im Wandel. Die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber, Theben 17, Mainz 2004, 27 (conc. date of TT 194).Ch. Desroches-Noblecourt, Vie et mort d’un pharaon, Toutankhamon, Paris 1963, fig. 14 (photo Maspero) on p. 36; PM III, 1974, 37. Text: Urk. IV, 1539a–1544, no. 486; Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Übersetzungen, 140–143, no. 486.For an emotional approach to an event with a sphinx statue of King Djedkare, Fifth Dynasty, see the biographical text of Kaiemtjennet in his tomb at Saqqara (N. Strudwick, Texts from the Pyramid Age, Leiden 2005, 282–285, no. 212).J. Assmann, Eine Traumoffenbarung der Göttin Hathor, RdE 30, 1978, 22–50; compare H. Satzinger, Zwei Wiener Objekte mit bemerkenswerten Inschriften, in P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar II, BdE 97, Cairo 1985, 254.K.-J. Seyfried, Das Grab des Djehutiemhab (TT 194), Theben 7, Mainz am Rhein, 1995, pl. XVIII (fig. 37), pl. XXXI (transverse hall, south wall), pl. XV (fig. 31), pl. XXIX (transverse hall, north wall), pl. XXXVIII (chapel, east wall), compare also pl. XXXVIII: back wall of the chapel with stela flanked by two staffs/pillars with Hathor head.Vandersleyen, Ägypten, pl. 79.

12

345

6

7

89

10

11

1213

14

15

16

Maya Müller

21

F. Kampp, Die Thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie I, Theben 13/1, Mainz am Rhein 1996, 54–58, fig. 58 (mentioning more Theban tombs with the same type of false door); M. Ullmann, Die Mittelstützenscheintür im Tempel, in C. J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, OLA 82, Leuven 1998, 1177–1189; Eva Hofmann, Bilder im Wandel, 132–133, fig. 158. J. Assmann, Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern, Theben 1, Mainz am Rhein, 1983, 35.Giza: from the early Eighteenth Dynasty onward, mostly Ramesside, representing the sphinx sometimes with pyramid(s), Ch. Zivie-Coche, Sphinx! Sphinx! le père la terreur, Paris 1997; Selim Hassan, The Great Sphinx and its Secrets, Excavations at Giza 8, Cairo 1953.Examples known to me: Giza, the great sphinx: see previous note; Qantir-Piramesse: L. Habachi, Features of the Deifica-tion of Ramesses II, Glückstadt 1969, 27–34; H. D. Schneider, Gleanings in the Egyptian Collection at Leiden I. Four Stelae, OMRO 52 (1971), 16–21; H. Brunner, Die Statue „Ramses-meri-Amun-der-Gott“, MDAIK 37 (1981), 101–106. Memphis, temple of Ptah, monumental relief of pharaoh smiting enemies: S. Petschel – M. von Falck (eds), Pharao siegt immer. Krieg und Frieden im Alten Ägypten, Gustav-Lübcke Museum Hamm 2004, nos 54–55; A. Schulman, Ceremonial Execution and Public Rewards, OBO 75, Freiburg, Schweiz – Göttingen 1988, pls 3–6; Herakleopolis: J. López, Une stèle ramesside de la collection Aubert, RdE 26 (1974), 115–117; Thebes, colossus of Memnon, Osiride statues of Mentuhotep II / Amenhotep I at Deir el-Bahari: G. Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, Oxford 1993, 94–96, 107, 121, pl. 21. Hildesheim, Pelizaeus Museum inv. no. 374: G. Roeder, Ramses II. als Gott, ZÄS 61 (1926), 57–67 (compare the description of Thutmosis IV as a god on his sphinx stela, Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Übersetzungen, 141, 1541: 1–7); Habachi, Features of the Deification of Ramesses II, 27–34; Götter und Pharaonen, Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim 1979, no. 186; Brunner, Die Statue „Ramses-meri-Amun-der-Gott“; Schulman, Ceremonial Execution, 122–125, no. 21, fig. 23; K. Exell, Soldiers, Sailors and Sandalmakers. A Social Reading of Ramesside Period Votive Stelae, London 2009, 129, pl. 14.B. Bruyère, Mert Seger à Deir el-Médineh, MIFAO 58, Cairo 1930, 50, fig. 30 (Cairo Egyptian Museum TR 16/3/25/12); Schulman, Ceremonial Execution, 42–43, fig. 20.M. Abd El-Razik, Some Remarks on the Great Pylon of the Luxor Temple, MDAIK 22 (1967), 68–70, pl. XXVIIa and b; A. Schlüter, Sakrale Architektur im Flachbild. Zum Realitätsbezug von Tempeldarstellungen, ÄAT 78, Wies-baden 2009.Examples: J. Borghouts, The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348, Leiden 1971, 33, pl. 33 (spell no. 36, Nineteenth Dynasty); Ph. Derchain, Le papyrus Salt 825 (BM 10051), rituel pour la conservation de la vie en Egypte, Brussels 1965 (Twenty-seventh Dynasty to Ptolemaic period); H. D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Chicago 1986, 269–278 (PGM XXXVI), (c. third–fourth centuries CE); M. Meyer – R. Smith, Ancient Christian Magic. Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, Chicago – London 1994, nos 79, 105, 110, 129–132 (c. seventh–eleventh centuries). J. Assmann, Die Macht der Bilder, in H. G. Kippenberg (ed.), Visible Religion, Annual for Religious Iconography 7, Leiden 1990, 8–10.E. Hornung, Das Totenbuch der Ägypter, Zürich – München 1979, 254, 280–281, 244–245.L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahure I. Der Bau, WVDOG 14, Leipzig 1910, 121. J. Kahl, Ancient Asyut, The Asyut Project 1, Wiesbaden 2007, 92–93 (reign of Amenemhat II); T. DuQuesne, The Salakhana Trove: votive stelae and other objects from Asyut, London 2009.R. Moss, An Unpublished Rock-Tomb at Asyût, JEA 19 (1933), 33.B. Magen, Steinerne Palimpseste: Zur Wiedervendung von Statuen durch Ramses II. und seine Nachfolger, Wiesba-den 2011. British Museum EA 1063 and 1064 / Cairo CG 383 and 540 (H. G. Evers, Staat aus dem Stein, München 1929, pls 113–117).A non-royal example not mentioned below: the Demotic story of the Petesis family, Twenty-sixth Dynasty (a stela and two inscribed statues of Petesis in the temple of Amun at el Hibeh are considered as valid documents estab-lishing his legal claim to certain revenues from the temple), F. Hoffmann – J. Quack, Anthologie der demotischen Literatur, Berlin 2007, 30–31, 39, 46.Parkinson, Voices from Ancient Egypt, 40–43.Urk. IV, 1671–1677, no. 569; Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Übersetzungen, 206–209, no. 569.Cairo CG 34504: Ramsès le Grand, Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais, Paris 1976, 50–55, no. IX; A. Hermann, Die ägyptische Königsnovelle, LÄS 10, Glückstadt 1938, 53–56, no. 3; Th. De Putter, Ramsès II, géologue?, ZÄS 124 (1997), 131–141.

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

252627

2829

30

31

323334

Maya Müller

22

Cairo JE 2091, found by Mariette at Giza, 1858: Ch. Zivie-Coche, Giza au premier millénaire, Boston 1991, 218–246, pls 39–40; Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige, 182–184; Selim Hassan, The Great Sphinx, pls 55–56. Further example: inventory stela from Heliopolis, Turin Inv. 2682, probably Twenty-fifth Dynasty: H. Ricke, Eine Inventartafel aus Heliopolis im Turiner Museum, ZÄS 71 (1935), 111–133; for statue lists and other related texts see Zivie-Coche, Giza, 234–235; and S. Cauville, Les statues cultuelles de Dendara d’après les inscriptions parietales, BIFAO 87 (1987), 73–117.

35

Maya Müller