Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
67 _9a
,,
,t; .l , kt
p;
Iohn Bainei
'r\!
ff:[1113-:,11',T*y,11
^Wf)ffrcn
No term in the ancient Egyptia.n language
neatly wifh Western usages of
-corresponds
'art', Attd Egyp,tologists.haye often arguei that
thire is no suih thing
':igyptian
as
Art,.
Yet aesthetically orga-nized structures and artefacts constitute the ilaloriti-of
asidence
f,?ry.EFVp-t, a legacy nyt:d m.ainly- for a small dlite. The genres of these materials, alt of
wh.ich had functions additional to ihe purgly aesthetic, arisimilar to
those of many other
caltures. Thty constitute a repository o7 iiailizational aalues, related to ihe syitem
of
hieroglyphic writing, that utas mainiained and transmitted across period.s. Ciiitization
and artistic style are almost identified utith each other. Funerary maierial
constitutes one
central context for artistic forms; others are temples and such
ioorty-preseraed.locations
as palaces.-The importance attachd to artistic actioities in Egypt,
iigh-cultural innoiaiment 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'essional Troup. It is no less 'art'
the
utide
range
of
ond"purposes
ii fulfiited.
for
functiont
In studying many societies, especially those approached through the material record, it is desirabie
to seek clarity
final agreement is beyond reach
in these matters- of the definition, and siill more of the
status, of art. Ancient Egypt offers a paradigm examplq both because artistic phenomeni are so-salient in
Egyptian works of art, in the common understanding of a category of things distinct from other artefacts . . . ( Junge 7990,1; trans. |ohn Baines)
\-f &;-^
]ohn Baines
c>@
ylt
@Ql|fi
-n,
J.J
fr.
z//,y'//,
lln,l
{i
II
a[ tr{
lln;ry
u
il
v==lh
ilil^ r"A
fl3./ftl EamilNg=
u.t:*rilru+J
fi.S
FTt
dfinition
ana
11
olsputes over what is and is not ,art,.
Contrary to the
first sentence of E.H. Co*Uricf,isie""*""aii,
Sr"fy
ot' Art (1972,4), I woutd argue
thatihere-is ,such
u.iirt, *t o
"r,aand giving a
j_*hniques of working with,
H::::"_d
pleaslng form to,
a
thing as art,. Although soile ,noa"in
atti_
tuoes may suggest otheniise, art is a "riiical
social more
than an individual phenomenon, and works
of art
primary si gnificance and inter preta tion in
T^11,lgi..
tnerr originating society, as against the
secondary
aesthetic response of a modern"vi"r",
tvt,i.t, Rorumarie Drenkhahn evokes in her acute formulation.
Both the art historian and the i.onoio*rineed to
seek a definition or a frame of referencE
ihat is ori
l::"y
3?" people assume automatically
,art,.
p_reces belong to the category
rn press)
of
Uyi
thai these
(Drenkhahn,
ented
.towards the patrons, creators and consumers
or art rn_ the producing society and to
the institution
of art which they create and sustain.
ll::l-".flln
(l
and circumscription.
An initial weakness in the Egyptological view
cited earlier relates to the linguistic argument de-
as
lessening the desirability of analyzing them in artistic as well as functional terms. In any case, rather few
categories of artefact have only one function. Architecture is esscntially functional, while remaining the
premier art form for many societies.
Although it is impossible to define art to general satisfaction, some indication of what is meant
here is needed. I suggest that ancient Egyptian works
of art are products, created for any purpose, that
exhibit a surplus of order and aesthetic organization
which goeS beyond the narrowly functional. Such a
definition is not intended to be evaluative of quality,
as against ordering and aesthetic intent, and ithardiy
addresses genre or the cultural significance of works
of art. It can, however, incorporate rituals and performing arts. In essence it is close to the characteriza-
]ohn Baines
their.use by patrons or to the commonality of purpose and style between architecture, representational
art, and decorative arts. Furthermore, play with representational forms is also characteristic of strongly
decorative traditions that arevery different from that
of Egypt, and it is not uniquely high-cultural. Thus
these definitions describe aspects of Egyptian art that
can be paialleled
types. The centrality of style to high-cultural traditions is nonetheless vital. A civilization and a style
'are nearly coextensive. A style is a crucial vehicle of
discourse and of the maintenance of a sociery's identity; devdlopment of and rupture with styles are matters of great importance. lThis role of style, which is
Figure 2.
for d,
L"ate
Colossal statue of
the AshmoteanMuseum.)
Dynastic Period (from c. 3000) transformed its prehistoric precursors, and the new art and culture were
available only to the 6lite (Baines 1989b). Not only
was the transformed 6lite art specialized in its techniques, style and iconography, it was also a typical
art of a professional group. Its mode of execution, its
choice of materials (which required great expenditure of resources and technical specialization) and its
complex and complete integration of writing removed
70
styles that were not appreciated. This barrier separating high culture from the rest was modelled through
a system of decorum that circumscribed the content
of representational art and focused ultimately on the
that there were 'two cultures' in Egypt, the monumental, religious and aesthetic on the one hand and
the everyday on the other, and that these are characterized by the use of stone, or of mud brick and
perishable materials, respectively. He further suggests that this distinction is part of the Egyptian orientation towards permanence and towards the next
world, and is thus especially characteristic of Egyp
tian civilization. Yet such privileging of particular
forms and materials occurs in many Jocieties and is
not confined to complex ones; a selective privileging
of architectural genres also has parallels in other civilizations. I suggest rather that the institutions on which
potamia, contrasts with their contemporaneous development in the rather less complex and centralized
polities of Nubia and Sudan, where they remained
aesthetically significant (see e.g. Bourriau 1,987,97112).
|ohn Baines
Pfiq,
[.'6
r
L' ; f
F,ii
[iil:t'
r":J'i.'1
-ii {-j
t,
i
t
Figure 3. Statue
base
of Diosei from
Saqqara; theinscriittion on
ramiil complex at Saqqat
the entranc.e colonnaile of the Step Pyramid
et al' 1935, pl' 58')
Firth
Dyiasty. Rephotographed
ri^otoi"'.-sia
oi
*ottt
irom
early third millennium; el-Khouli 1978);5 metal vessels, which succeeded stone ones and became extremely important (e.g. Schiifer 1903; Insley Green
1987); and jewellery G.g. Aldred 7977a; Wilkinson
from
1971); The latter two raise the problems, familiar
precious
other
and
metals
other ancient cultures, of
materials and how far their almost complete loss
Assmann
72
199
view it
Figure 4.
John Baines
be
picted.
a restricted range of written genrei and subject matt:r rnay not develop a tradition of discursive writing
Figure 5. The Two Dog Palette from the main deposit at Hierakonpolb. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum
E.3924. Schist. I-ate Predynasticl Dynasty 0. (Cour-
74
t!t
it
li!
I
Egyptian Art
On the Status and Purposes of Ancient
flr"ff:|:Tf,.t::
tI"::J
at Hierakonpotb'
main
;'",'""ii:l 1,y: 5.rhe scorpio.nMuseuin Bhz'
[r1m
0' (Courtesy
Dynasty
Limestone'
ma_ce-he1l
accomPa-
buildings
the
deposit
O"xfora, Ashmolean
o1'theVisitors of the Ashmolun Museum')
or of"ttte captiot s to picture postcards of them. Moreover, a few texts point towards more
1970), and tr,"
found meanings (e.g.
the past
of
uses
artistic
attested complex
A;;;"^
1'989a;Leahy1988rch.5;Leahy1992)musthavein-connoisseurshipisauniversal.method;thisintuitive
the
approach poin'ts to an issue that is essentially
volved much discussion (see also pp. 89-90 i;i'
works
Egyptian
Drenkhahn'
by
raised
thJone
;e;e 'i'" ut
respond to
,h"i of sculpture and relief (and architecture)
"";;;JL*s- traditional modes of art-historical analysis - more
'radical' ones have hardly been tried on them sion.Theonlytext thatpresentsanartist's.skiil;
,hi"gt whether or not their status and functions were differobscure that it appears deliberately to allude ;;
*itto,,t
8-9)'
revealins
BJ;i;;1; :*:jprtl",X;:ffi:"J*:il:ffi:l?ilt::|;'ll
genres
the cross-cultural comparability of
rreticians
*n,"Jfnl""T,*:",:.ft;:"*?"J"ll?litr;;";
;ith truiitionuf
ignored by Egyptologists worting
ment from
again
Thispoint
methods,andUyrn"r,y"nr**rr-nr"rrr'u,ors.fn"seJofargument
ars categori
by reversing the
i" ry ".:Tllified
about function and asking why the Egyp-
tians used maior works-of art for'utilitarian'purs""t a'formulation emphasizes that thqse
f"r"r.
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. It
is hardly meaningful to ask whether the rituals performed upon a cult statue were directly causative,
but the food placed before it was taken away and
ultimately consumed by the priests, who must have
known that the material nutrition it contained was
available to them. The same point can be made about
the supposed 'magical' and recreative,function of
statues (e.g. Russmann 1989,3), or in another sense of
buildings. These works underwent an 'opening of
the mouth' ceremony in order to render them functionally effective (e.g. Blackman & Fairman 1946).
However the actors may have comprehended this
ritual, it need not have been completely different in
kind from the consecration of a church, which makes
it fit for its ceremoniesbut does not affect its status as
a multifunctional and polysemous work of art that is
comparable in this respect with the Egyptian one.
Thus, it seems justifiable to see Egyptian art as a
phenomenon analogous inmany ways with theart of
other traditions. The centrality of the production of
aesthetic objects to many periods of Egyptian history, notably some materially rich times that exhibit
. major cultural or political tensions, makes it worth
reviewing the role of works of art in the discourse of
the ancient 6lite.'The importance of sculpture and
rare materials as early as the fourth millennium can
be illustrated by such objects as a statuette of lapis
in press).
Among periods within Egyptian dynastic civilization that exemplify these issues are the formative
Figure 8.Iuory
cylinder with
relief decoration
from the'Main
Deposit' in the
temple complex
at Hierakonpolb.
Oxford,
Ashmolean
MuseumE.1.64.
Lst Dynasty(?)
(Courtesy of the
Visitors of the
Ashmolean
Museum.)
Wildung 1,977,5-9;
The projects for the pyramids display other artistic charicteristics, of which I cite one. Between the
Step Pyramid (e.g. Smith 1981,53-5'l) and the mid
4th Dynasty pyramid of Khephren atCiza, architec-
John Baines
One of the principal objections to seeing Egyptian creations as 'art' has been the fact that many
works were invisible in their final positions. Since
they were not viewed, it is implied, they could not be
intended to be'art'. The'reserve heads'of this period
(Fig. 4), separate.near-life-sized xulptures appirently
Figure 9.Limestonc statue of Kra'sekhan t'rom Hierukonpolis. O xfor d Ashmolean Museum E.5'1"7. ( Cour t esy of the
Visitors ot' the AshmolwnMuseum.)
i':
:;:.
i"'
;..,
F-
i.-
ii.:
bi
Hii
Sn
F*t
Fd
ffi
78
FI
!.3J
iti:
was close
of artists
to the ruling and
same scaie; but any such works there may have been
are lost.rl The self-iontained nature of the palette and
79
]ohn Baines
use
of significant works of
tern significantly,
Figure 11:
9f lmenem.haf lll, proaenance unlorcwn. c-ambidge, Fitzwirliam
Museum E.2.1946. Dark shelly limestone.l.2th Dynasty. (Courtesy of the syndics of
the F itzwilliam Museum
Y4
mental scale of architecture. Rih-rals, such as the sacrifice of retainers at 1st Dynasty royal funerals (e.g.
Dreyer 1990, 67), demonstrated the power of king
and state in the most peremptory fashion. Art ap-
extrcme degree.
',t
.l't
80
f.,1
:1
:it
.t'l
*.rin
III
To modern eyes these create a strong contrasf between the specificity of the face and the generality of
the body. This apparent difference may illuminate
further the relation between body and face on anthropomorphic statuary: in some sense the worn facial type should convey an ideal.
This iconography, as one can appropriately term
the facial treatment, should signify a quality of the
king. The form has an evident analogy in the royal
instruction texts of the period, notably the Instruction for Merikare and the Instruction of Amenemhat
(e.g. Lichtheim'1.973, 97 -7W, 135-9), which emphasize the burdens of the king's office and the respon-
fohn Baines
il
82
.I
and design. As might be expected, artistic and jconographic concerns were significant to the development
of these genres at least as much as considerations
relating more closely to contexts of use. A straightforward notion of propaganda may not be appropriate for the interpretation of statuary and relief.
The late 1.8th and early 1.9th Dynnsty
427'27 .
lll.
in PreParation).
(Rephotographed t'rom
83
John Baines
Figure 15. Stela of the sculpto.r Bak and his wife Tahere,
proaenance unknown. Berlin, Agyptischa Museum'l' | 63.
Quartzite. Reign of Akherwten. (Courtesy Agyptische
Museum Berlin.)
studio show a
..r'whereas the works from Thutmose's
.'{
'
Figure 16.
frim
'A*or*.
i^poi l",
85
John Baines
Figure 17,
Relief
of
Sety
I offeing to
Sokar,
north wall of
86
Pt'po'"t
of Antiutt Egyp
ti^
Rrpho t o gt aPh ed f t om M
1907 , Pl' 34.)
asP er o
the
expenditnre is a measure of
ffi:::: ffiffi
U",*"en 700 sc and
300
'ua
"".i*
*"r" fewer than in earlier eP-
eria;;;a,his
[:nf Xl,tll.r'!H]T1
it""i''il;;;;
i''
uL)
ate Period tc. rozolT:o
(t"" in
general: der
Manuelian 1993)'
",", p;;Tt
ffixr*:r*l;:xn::'r:
tir[#!i1df
pieces (e'g'
of differeni stVfes
co;bination
i".,single
iommissioning
tradition (Baines
with the great stream of tit"tury
of [hese features have
1gg2,254 with n' 41)' Some
periods"as with
more limited parallels i'o* "utti"t
of Hapu cited earlier'
the statue of Amenhot;;;""
public
it
*th:l
i-"^1t
but their extent is new''-is 'tt"it
These are exemplified
and self-conscious ttlu'*t"t'
of Ibi at Thebes which
in an inxription in tf*i"*U
to read it-9"J'b:t also to
invites the reader noi-lust
- di;;i;'" ciLi""Lr
il"
is also striking
71-3)'rhis tomb
sections-of which
1e83'
(more
'o' "Jl"t*atiorr'
6th DynaslY tor.nb
were closely based on-the
ell ttu*utate Deir
than '1500 y"u" oto"'i'o]f
(Kuhljo tl: no-rth
Gabrawi, about 300 iiio^"it"t
haSjeen verv
would
1,,,,,,,,,
;"il;il;kel
1e83)'
It
ryt
re-
th";;;;;;
i1::*d
knowl-
Pg
chance, it implies
uncient provincial monuedee of not very p'oJ""ttt
the fact would remain
mJnts. Even if tt
*"t'ti""t"'
there
museurns
eihiuitions or
elsewhere in the
U-ei"-g;4"d^ltllugh
for art
iro-iil' and,the
;;;;;;tce
of
*"fot*t
'
ii"*tutu"t-in a varietynos'
pt'""o*#u
of
analogous
bv the rich.#r",'i
e60'
Bothmcr
pi''J-er'
"ut""''if
igit'
:ilt::i;;-
d'
g"
.'
tt-
6/
|ohn Baines
manity (as represented by the king) and they defended against the forces of chaos. It defined,
encapsulated and perpetuated that cosmos. At the
same time it served the perpetual destinies of ruler
and inner 6lite and circumscribed their lifesryles in
relation to the rest of society. The focus of artistic
production on these central activities, many of them
secret and'exclusive, reinforced and legitimized the
position of art, which in turn legitimized religious
dedications and much of the underlying social di.vi
sion, in a mutually sustaining rycle. In this context,
the role of hieroglyphic writing in art is important
(Fischer 1986; Baines 1989b). Writing brought representational forms together with high verbal culture,
while also limiting access to that culture by incorporating it in a style of writing available only to a minorily even of the literate, most of whom used the
cursive form of hieratic. The reinforcing cycle of official religion and art also favoured the-iniernal, selfregarding focus of both. What mattered in maintaining
thc order of thingslwas thc activity of thc small group
who commissioqCd, dcsignccl, and perlraps cxccutcd
the works of arlwithin the context of 6lite high culture. Only those involved comprehended thelctivities and their significance fully. A wider legitimation
for their position is one that is general to 6lites: on
behalf of society they assume responsibility for portentous matters and appropriate the necessary resources.l{
Within continuing artistic culture, the uses of tradition reinforce this focus on the 6lite and their artistic
interests. There is ample evidence from Egypt for artistic change, variation and innovation, so that interpretations of the fundamental aim of artistic conventions as
1.989, passim;
Assmann 1992,769-74) do not take an actor's PersPective The perpetual dialogue with'the past and the use
of different past models with diverse implications characterize an artistic discourse that is internally self-sus-
relative insulation of
Egyptian civilization
from its surroundings,
is both a legitimation of
art and a way in which
Professions, both
ancient and modern,
are exclusive and assume that only their
members can iudge the
/ -i'
validity of what
theY
do, avoiding recourse to
a wider constituencY.
This applies strongly to
the 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 administrators rather than a nobility. Artists might be designers
"uid"t
undertakings was so grcat that a
of iome artistic
large 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 participated 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 instituiion of art will have exerted persuasive Power over
ev'eryone. The archaeological I9.ot9 of the.First Int"r.n"diut. Period (c. 2150-2000 sc), in which there
was a proliferation of crude but characteristically artistic firms among a larger grouP than in centralized
periods (e.g. Seidlmayei tWO; Dunham 193D' supoorts the issumption that artistic forms had such
io*"r.
:i()
fohn Baines
+
'
--t!:r"-'+i^naland 4'
artratherthanshowingj*:r^ili'J:'is':11,11'
Someaspects:Baines(1990)'ClvRobins(e'g'1993'
l:*#k*mt$[1xH'"$:ilT"[
privileged men.
,f"ry
Acknowledsements - *i6.f s *f;:1;,jt'i'il.,**qi[lff*lj#.
multifarious
phenorr
oilo-r,uur,1ions tf,at
.'"'":":1"{*#fffi"1.j*'*;llli1
East
rhis a*ic'Ie
on Ancient Near
'
t{,1H,*.1ffi*:::*:;H
Matthews at wolfson
,Ytin:l
':n
:i::",Jil;;;'J ";l
translate
'-,'
,ii:til=#*tt+sfui:i,!#
il:::ffli$'ii:'j1,1?l*;*;**15:ti"'5
i;H*il;ill"e'1*r:l"iig,?lll',:;:ff'u;;
and cite theu
der Manueriu,'
ti"orvXili"il';';"nnv,pf;ji;
'
$nlfg'":,,9t;;g'
;n'H**tr*ttft
;;";'.ievidente".";[K#*i:""1Hr:fff,f- tril:i"r-i*$".:t".{#}irF.t.T'i#
8 fiil[#.Tl#:ln*;nli:f#::",:m:
y"*l:::1Tl"il3?,$"1"tX;ffi";
;:.1'";;;"J
:ill-., .hanee in *re rro-,i;i=#;'Gi*1".
w
to a studY, written
ill'.x,fliTi'.tli:ii,?T:iu".i1kJ,i:ilr i:;$,.;i;i;;?:;xj:i1t1#"?J$-"'ta,?*t
iryi:,1;i:Hi:lii;;il;;;;;
i$*"#i#;,1$:'':L1*il$#:]":
u,au,ifrh}';#;9.n#::#9ffffi:.'.''ffi.q[',.i_ij.*gr"."
*t"'i"l"Y 1::: r.1,fi"t"3'.or,."ur"'a
*"
o,ientot'ri,titut, 10
"_:i;;ii"
^ rhere are,$,HiiLll[:{l*",illlllilJn:';
p;:;
i;;
to
"?;'xi liH*H'""'ffire
" ,,,itfil.Tii,:ii,,il,F"g,ji:.::1fi{,fi:;
N.,es
re.riers date
1
ffr"? r:tlTL"ffi}1ilTl:::,:ffi: "
2.
L ;il;J;"othercriteria'oj'1'"?JiY-Tropriateio i1::ii*';T,',ti,,]t?ffi
:lur
ffi:il,lt
the
T;,n
i,
riiio,rg-zs,,,Tltff.ff;,i:ilY.lll;:ru;;;
,, *ll**q,i{::f!,*fr=:HJ:{:#:lit{
EgYPtian art' bu
,ii'n or
tt'-tl,3iiHi,?iiil$#*:l
traditions.Thcfltflon-ut
l-'],,j-;
"f
is
ro*he ul "^:1T",^,aining,raditions
the pe.
Ewpdan 14.'Ihrslot:':'^,::':,"-r"a
literary texts of
'" ff*t=*
'r '[he Pe-
*:fi;i#[i:':";;tl';T"
::,',:'::il:ittrJl"${1i,ifr,"j,.':f+,H
Mesoame
examPle' with
'iex'is
share, for
z. [iT;*",
the principar
:'1"^::
1*:*:'.1]:"[X
Rererences
Hi,T:il1;il"J.:111 '"';i:X""::':*"tfl1tfi.
i
r.y;:15:*l*nff
Ardrc,
ti;i:ilal'*n'u'"1;?i3',^!i,"#,k'!ld^.i31iff
90
g'd1iil;;'
uraohs:Egvptiantewellev
Aldred, C., 1.971b. Some royal portraits of the Middle Kingdom in ancien t Egy pt. Metropo litan Museum I o urnat 3,
't-24.
Assmann, t., 't970. Der K6nig als Sonnenpriester: ein
kosmographischer Begleittext
zur
Mann.
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 University Press.
Brovarski, E.J.,.S.K. Doll & R.E. Freed, 1982. Egypt's Goliten
Age: The Art of Living in the New Kngdom 1,SSB-10A|
ac. Exhibition catalogue. Boston (MA): Museum of
Fine Arts.
Brunner, H., 1970. Zum Verstindnis der archaisierenden
Tendenzen in der igyptischen Spdtzeit. Saeculum2L,
kultischen Sonnen-
hymnik. (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Z.) Gliickstadt:
Augustin.
Assmanry J., 1997- Stein und Zeit: Menschund Gexllschaft im
alten AgyVten. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
Assmann, 1,, 1992. Das kulturelle Cedlichtnis: Schrift,
Erinnerung und politische ldentitiit in t'rtihen Floih-
8,'l-
151-61.
25.
Prcss.
I-
University Press.
Davidson, 1., 1gg2. There's no art
construction
* in offence. Cambridge
Archaeological
lourml2(1),52-7.
9-29.
tion Society.
Blackman, A.M. & H.W. Fairman, 1945. The consecration
of 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-
Scribners.
|ohn Baines
redynastic
press.
Press.
Hornung, F.,
Sethos' I.
1,99"1.
Animal Necropolb at Norlh Saqqaru, 196+L976.(Excavation Memoir 53.) London: Eglrpt Exploration Society.
Janssen, 1.1., 1975. prolegomena-to the stuay of Egypt,s
economic history during the New Kingdom.
Sliilen
Alttigyptischcn Kultui3,l27_g'.
_ -ur
Jungg F., 1990. Versuch zu einer Asthetik der dgyptischen
Kunst, in Studbn zur dgyptbchen Kunstg"siiiihte, eds.
p eriod
iiiy,
Kem p, B.J.,
1
EOlptian 1 st Dynasty royal cemetery.
?!?: I\"^
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:
Kuhlmann, K.P.
Archeiologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairq Archiiologische Verciffentlichung 15.) 2 voli. Mainz: philipp
von Zabern.
Leahy, L.M., 1988. Private Tomb Relieft of the Late period
from Lower Egypt. Unpublished D.phil dissertation.
University of Oxford, Oxford.
Leahya[..1r 992. Royal iconography and dynastic change
75U525-1 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,Archeologie
sonian Institution.
Habachi, L.,1g65.VJu frorn the reign of Kins Akhenatcn.
Mitteilungm des Deutschen AichaotoEilen lnstituts,
;!
/t7r
of Californiu prurr..--"
Manuelian, p. der, t9g5. T*" frag.unir-oJrelief
and a new
model for the romb of Moituemhat
aiThebes. Torr_
nat of Egyptian ArchaeologyTl,gU\Zt.- '
Ma nuetia n, p. der, 7993.
p
*t,
Living-ii th"
he_E gy p
Maspero,
ian T we* y _3 i x t h
St
rd.ies in Archaism
ti.- t""ao
OV
Kpl.
monunnnts
CJro:.IFaO.
aus kunsthistorischer
Htil;A;;",
Karnak.
Museum
lgyp
1-9dZ.
28.) London:
8xl*t*T*:
lffi
o"
ii*,
Studies
Hofftrnnrg-[iggO, eAr. R.
Symposii
TIa
on Ro*esses
nieiflerg. iUonogrupn,
oregypiian;;;'L;;togy
of the rnstitut"
1..)
Memphis- (TNt: tvteilfnis Statu Uniu"rrii"'roz_SA.
Loruror,.l'J., in preparation. Crly and
Cosmoi in Ancienl
d^
\r
Egwt.
Institute.
0"."0
tg_u
ll_u
f ro
ttr H i era ko
po
I i
Richa rds,
J.
8., r dz.
flypt. Unf"Ufirn"a
detphia (pA).
f Ancien Empire
u pioche0rient.)
*",n,
Center in
Egypt.
Egwtian
of the otd Kingdom: The
l-:Y..:,-.19e7.
zootutton
ol a System offgt"r
Social Oiganization. (Etudies in
Ancient Orienta-l Civilizations i8.l Cf,i.uto
0L): Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicalo.
Russmann, E.R., 1924. fh" R"prrse"itir"
,i;-ti xi"g
i,
th"
Reine Elisabeth;
iufu*in,.
fnu u"utorny oian artistic
conven-
of Chicaeo.
Naville. E.,
sous
d
\"y_
^ Egyptologicalseminar2,sT_g1.
Kussmann,
E.R., 1999. Egyptian
Austin (TX): Univeisity of Texas press. Sauneron, s. & H. Srierlin, 1gi8. Dtie;t;terlif,'^prt
- -. -r- Agyptrn*
philae.
Zurich:
Atlantis.
^ -Edt'ly"d
Schdfcr,
H., 1903. Die alttigyptiscien prunkgefasse mit
aut'ge*tzten Randznnieiige", ein Aei*ig
;;r Geschbhte
der C o ld schmiedekuns t. ("Un tersuchu'ne;n
rrr. C"_
schichte und Altertumskunde Agypteis
4:1.) Leip_
Y'\
zig:J.C- Hinrichs.
Schiifer, H., 1985. principles of Egyptian
r{rJ. Ed. Emma
Bru-nn_er-Traut, trans-
I. 6air[1 norrir"J'.updr,t.
' --l
O*_
;ffi;;;llauyptens
1.) Heidetberg:
Heidelberger
p"ii# Hirtory of
Tu"iy by W.K. sirnp"on.
Art.) Harmondsworthi penguin.
Sourouzian, H,1997. La statue d,.{menhotep
fils de Hapou,
ig, un chefd,oeuvre de la XVIIIe Oil"rtl.
Mitteit_
fii"
Kniro 47,341-55.
Strudwick, N., 1985. The Administration of
Egypt in the OId
Kingdom: The_ HighestTittes and theii
H;i;rrr.London:
Aegan l,au I lnternational.
_.
oJ
Congress
3g2_3.
fohn Baines
94
'
London:
Methuen.
Williams, 8.8., 19S8. Narmer and the Coptos colossi.
/our_
nal
-.
-.
oJ the
ii
Egyp
25, 35_59.
furu*rr.
Wolf, W.,
'1957.
talaS.
sity Pfess.