The Study of Pictorial Representations

 Problems and Opportunities

Angelika Lohwasser, Berlin

[THIS  IS  ONLY A DRAFT VERSION  OF THE FINAL TEXT]

 

Reconstructing a "picture" of the past, we use different kinds of sources: long texts and short inscriptions, archaeological records, architecture and objects, images, etc. Every group of sources needs a special treatment. We have already heard about how to deal with ceramics or inscriptions. Since my focus here will be on the value of iconography for chronological studies, I will concentrate on the group of images as a source for establishing a chronology.

 

“Iconography” is the study of the themes of images as well as of details, motifs and implicit aspects of images. If we interpret ”iconography” in a wider sense, of course also small finds should belong to this group. The iconography of small finds is as well helpful for chronological studies as the features of ceramics. But since Dr. Yellin already spoke about the method to seriate objects in a chronological frame and since I will speak on the chronology of finds in my regular paper, I will give just some very few general remarks on the iconography of finds.

 

In contrast to the pre-colonial periods in Kush – Neolithic, Early Cultures and even Kerma – we have a great quantity of pictorial representations in the Kingdom of Kush, which means the Napatan and Meroitic periods. These representations are located on walls of temples and pyramid chapels, lunettes of stelae and form a distinct group of objects, the statuary.

 

The representations can help to interpret various aspects of the Meroitic culture: Through iconography one can identify gods and goddesses, different situations in the course of cultic ceremonies, the ethnic origin of depicted enemies and, our topic today, the chronological placing of an image.

 

Many scalars of Nubian art already tried to find out some chronological rules in the iconography. Of course all of you know how to distinguish Napatan and Meroitic representations, thus I will not speak about this very general division. In the Napatan period the depicted figures are much more “Egyptian” than in the Meroitic period. There, the costume isoverloaded with details, the queens are plump, the style often baroque.

 

The inner chronology in both periods is much more difficult to reveal through iconography. I will give some examples of the efforts to find chronological rules in either the Napatan or the Meroitic period: Both Steffen Wenig and Laszlo Török pointed out, that the costume of the ruler changed during the time and thus representations of the ruler can give a hint for the dating.

 

Török, for example, examined the crowns of Kush. For the skullcap with diadem and uraei he found out, that in the 25^th Dyn. and early Napatan Period the uraeus formed an S-coil on the head, whereas in late Napatan time, it laid straight on the scull. At the time of Natakamani the double uraeus is substituted by an uraeus with a lion’s head. On the other hand, in the archaising period of the  middle Meroitic time we can find the 25^th-dyn-form again.

 

Wenig showed that the sash of the ruler‘s costume is narrow in earlier times and becomes broad in later times.

 

Inge Hofmann made a study on the representation of the ram. The different types of curls can help to date the image. In the middle-Meroitic time, about Natakamani and Amanitore, the curls of the rams look like the number "6". Rams of later date have curls in the form of scales.

 

In my own research I also found some changes in the costume of the queen during the Napatan time: for example, the popular headdress ”plumes, horns and sun-disc”: in the earlier Napatan period the plums are tall, horns and sun-disc are about half the size of the plums. In middle Napatan period, horns and sun-disc are much smaller than before and in late Napatan period these features are minimalized.

 

Everybody who concentrates on specific objects or specific images will try to find a clue to make a seriation or a chronological typology – as one does with palaeography or ceramics or small finds. Thus I am sure that a lot of scientists have their card index with seriations of the investigated images which will help to date other depictions which are undated yet.

 

But various factors influence the image of the Meroitic "reality". The cultural, temporal and even formal context determines the representations, as other factors do, and they are very difficult to detect. The scalars who deal with images will surely be aware of these factors, but giving a general statement on the role of iconography in investigating chronology, it is necessary to point them out.

 

In the following, I will give three examples to show some difficulties in the approach to these representations. I am sure that you all know these concrete examples but what I want to accentuate are some different forming factors. I want to explain which kind of context – cultural, temporal, formal, and perhaps individual –influences the images.

 

My first example is situated chronological before the Kingdom of Kush, in the New Kingdom Nubian colony. I know this period is previous to the time of investigation in the Meroitic conference, but I think it is the best example for the case I want to show. The prince of Miam, Hekanefer, is known from his rock grave in Toshka-East in Lower Nubia. This grave looks very Egyptian, it is a smaller copy of the Theban Tomb 40 of the viceroy of Nubia, Hui. Both are dated to the time of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun. Although the grave of Hekanefer is heavily plundered and damaged, the excavator (W.K. Simpson) found a representation of Hekanefer near the entrance and the typical NK Ushebtis inside the grave. There the conventional Egyptian name of the tomb-owner, Hekanefer, is mentioned. From all these representations  and inscriptions we get the impression that Hekanefer was an Egyptian official. But we know another representation of this man and therefore we know that he was Nubian: The viceroy of Nubia, Hui, depicts Hekanefer as well as some other Nubian princes in his tomb in Thebes. Here Hekanefer is black skinned and clothed in a colourful indigenous costume. He is shown being on his knees leading a row of tribute bringers. Why do we have such different depictions of one person? And which one of these is the ”real” or ”realistic” one? Which one – or does one – depict Hekanefer as he existed? In my opinion, both images are realistic in their context. For the Nubian people, Hekanefer was the personification of the Egyptian administration. And for Hui, Hekanefer was his first Nubian subordinate. Thus in Toshka, Hekanefer depicted ”the Egyptian” for the Nubians, and in Thebes Hui showed ”the Nubian” to the Egyptians. Here the cultural context is the main factor in the choice of the iconography. The question WHO are the viewer and WHAT should be seen is the cause of the shown iconography. It is the functional context  which determines the iconography in contemporary representations.

 

My next example is situated in early Kushite times. It is based on the contemporary statues of the fourth prophet of Amun, governor of Thebes, Montemhet. This powerful man is known by a lot of different monuments.  A group of statues or fragments of statues represent Montemhet in an extraordinary  effective style. Bothmer as well as many other art historians discussed these images and concluded, that in this time, end of the 25^the and beginning of the 26^the Dyn. in Egypt, a realistic style, if not portrait style, came into fashion. Montemhet is depicted here as an old man, looking wise and strong. His hair is almost gone, only a very few are surrounding his bald head. On the other hand, in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin there is another famous representation of the same Montemhet exhibited. He is depicted in the style of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. Sitting on a cubic seat, wearing a typical MK wig and robe, he also has a famous MK counterpart exhibited in the Egyptian Museum Berlin: The late MK Governor Chertihotep. Even in the tomb of Montemhet there are copies of earlier, especially MK and NK motives and scenes. Thus we can detect a second trend or fashion in the same period: the archaism. Of course this style is most prominent in the 26^the Dyn., but it starts already in the time of Taharqo. A third statue of Montemhet is a mixture of both styles. Here we see the powerful man in traditional posture, with the traditional costume and wig. But his face is modelled with a very realistic, non-traditional expression. Three very different representations of the same person – how do we interpret this situation? Maybe there is a chronological influence, but to prove this we would need a lot of dated images of other persons, too. Perhaps one day we can seriate these images of Montemhet, we can interpret the differences in style in terms of chronology. But perhaps there is another factor influencing the choice of iconographical details: the fashion, or maybe the individual taste of the patron. Or, since we are not sure about the original installation, maybe the context of meaning is visible in the choice of iconography.  Again there are contemporary representations with very different iconography, which is determined by perhaps the functional or formal context. To clarify the last factor, the context of meaning, I will present my third example.

 

This last example is I think the most familiar to you because it is situated in the golden age of the Meroitic period. I want to speak on different depictions of the Kandake Amanitore in Naqa. Natakamani and Amanitore were the builders of the Amun-temple and the Lion-temple in Naqa in the Butana. They are both depicted on both temples in various scenes. Since I started my investigations on the queens of Meroe, I will focus on Amanitore, but please bear in mind that the iconography of Natakamani changes also in the two temples.

 

On the Amun-temple, Amanitore is depicted in parallel scenes opposite to Natakamani at the doorways into the temple. The upper part of her body is bear and she wears a feathered skirt and Egyptian crowns.

 

On the pylon of the Lion-temple you find Amanitore in the position of slaughtering the enemies. She is depicted remarkably corpulent. I do not want to go into detail concerning her costume, but you will notice the difference of her traditional Meroitic costume at the Lion temple and the more Egyptian clothing at the Amun temple. The main difference is that he queen is thinner here. Since this temple is dedicated to an Egyptian god, the royal couple prefers to be depicted as ”Egyptian” (in a very broad sense, or in Meroitic interpretation) pharaohs with Egyptian clothing. And since the lion temple is dedicated to the Meroitic god Apedemak, Natakamani and Amanitore there prefer to be depicted as Meroitic rulers with Meroitic clothing. The Meroitic image of Amanitore is very fat, the Egyptian image slimmer, but not as slim as Egyptian queens. Thus we have another factor of determination of iconography: the context of the meaning. I was happy to hear from Rebecca Bradley that on reliefs and plaster fragments found in Meroe 720 the Queen is depicted slim in front of Amun and quite fat in front of the Meroitic god Arensnuphis.

 

Let us have a look at another representation of Amanitore at the Lion-Temple. As we have noticed, she is depicted very plump at the pylon, but on the back side of the temple she is shown monstrously big. Why this difference? In my opinion, we can detect here another factor of the choice of the iconography: the formal surrounding. The representation on the pylon is an upright format, the image is not only stretched by the position of the arm, but also by the proportion of height and width of the figure. On the back side of the temple, the format is oblong, the figure is compressed. The proportion height of figure to width of figure is about 2,8:1, at the pylon about  3,3:1. To show that this factor is not only confined to the lion temple, we should have a look on the doorways of the Amun-temple. At the jambs the figures are placed in a frame of an upright format, at the architrave in an oblong format. And here again we find the difference in the proportion of the queen. The technical surrounding or conditions are influencing as well. The different representations of Amanitore in Naqa seem to be the result of at least two forming factors: context of meaning and the technical precondition. The functional and formal symbioses determines the iconography of the representations.

 

And, last but not least, also accidental circumstances can veil the potential chronological significance of iconography. What I have in mind are dateable objects which were used to date the context of their finding – and led to misinterpretation of these contexts, because the context of the deposition of an object is not its context of creation. Working with these presuppositions, we can on the contrary raise chronological problems instead of solving them. The iconography of finds can shed light on the date of its creation, but not on the date of its deposition. But they are mostly used to date the context of deposition, as the archaeologists find them. The life span of objects is very poorly examined in Meroitic studies. Luxury objects, but also objects of daily use, are inherited, given away several times, robbed or are simply in use for generations. In my paper on the chronology of objects I will give some examples of finds which had extraordinary long life-spans. Although we must not think of several hundred years for all of the finds, we should keep in mind that there are finds of different time of making in one archaeological context. In this context the iconography  advises us to raise questions of chronology.

 

To conclude, I wanted to show by my examples that beside chronology, we have to bear in mind several factors which influence the iconography: cultural context, fashion, context of meaning and formal or technical surrounding. In other words, before we start to seriate images, or to date images because of iconographical details, or to detect details as chronological markers of an image, we have to be aware that we have to consider several other factors which may influence this image. This leads to the pessimistic conclusion, that we will never be able to reconstruct the past in a way that leads us to an accurate reflection of "reality" and it is very difficult to detect the potentials of iconography for the study of chronology.

 

But of course I do not want to end with this pessimistic conclusion. Step by step we should reach a stage of knowledge of the principles which were used to form the images. The more we know about all these possible influences, the more we can understand the depictions, the more we can deal with them, date them, seriate them, and, most of all, interpret them. These forming factors are the same principles the old Meroites were aware of, when they saw or read these images. The patrons, the artists and the recipient had the same cultural education, they could interpret the same details in the same way. For us, who try to understand the view of an insider, but being outsiders, it is important to use all sources to reconstruct the Meroitic culture. The more we know about all aspects of a culture, the more we can exploit some segments of this culture.

 

Dealing with iconography, I came to the conclusion that it is only in clearly defined contexts possible to use iconography for chronological problems. Iconography is a usable source for synchrony or contemporary differentiation. Different iconography is used in different social, ideological or functional contexts.

 

In this connection we should think of possible different ideas of chronology. Nubiologists  - we – have a very abstract linear picture of chronology in mind. We use to explain chronology in terms of before and after, which is the cultural interpretation of the western world in the third millennium. There is another possible interpretation: chronology can be circular,  or understood in different levels. We can create not only a two-dimensional line to represent chronology, perhaps it is more useful to create a three-dimensional structure, not only in terms of before and after, but also above and below, and, most necessary, circular, periodical. I think the periods of archaism illustrate this circular understanding.

 

To conclude, in my opinion iconography is no help to solve chronological problems in our understanding of chronology. Perhaps we should accept another concept of time and chronology, which is maybe nearer to the Meroitic concept. And perhaps iconography can be a useful help for doing that – to detect the Meroitic idea of time, not to solve chronological problems.