Each of my classes this quarter has its own distinct personality. My ancient art students are especially curious, and I love the questions that they raise in class. And for some reason, a lot of our recent topics have meandered (or perhaps slithered?) toward a discussion of snakes. I suppose this shouldn't be surprising, since snakes held symbolic significance in a lot of ancient cultures. Here are some of the works that we have been discussing at length (and some topics that we'll be discussing in the next few weeks):
I can't even express how much I love the Minoan Snake Goddess (shown left, c. 1700-1550 BCE, image courtesy Flickr via Xosé Castro). This was one of the first statues that I loved as an AP art history student in high school. A few weeks ago, my students and I discussed how the snake could have held multiple symbolic associations for the Minoans. Snakes are associated with rejuvenation in many ancient Mediterranean cultures, since snakes can rejuvenate themselves by shedding their skin. Snakes are also associated with resurrection, since they can move both above and beneath the ground.
Last week, when discussing Hellenistic art, a student asked why Alkyoneos (depicted in part of the Gigantomachy frieze at the Altar of Zeus, Pergamon, c. 175-150 BCE) was entwined with a snake. (We were also looking at another Hellenistic sculpture, the Laocoön (1st century BC), and the student noticed a visual similarity between the writhing snakes.) I had never paid attention to the Alkyoneos snake before, but discovered that the snake helps the viewer to identify that Alkyoneos is battling with the Olympian goddess Athena. The snake aids Athena in her victory, similar to how serpents aid the Olympian gods (specifically Athena, according to some accounts) in the killing of Laocoön, the Trojan priest.
Athena was often identified with snakes (I joked with my students that she might have been a Parselmouth). Not only was the snake associated with wisdom (which was one of Athena's attributes), but snake also served as the symbol for Erectheus, the mythical king of Athens. As the patron goddess of Athens, it makes sense that Athena would also be associated Erectheus (and Athens) through the snake symbol. Athena was depicted with a snake in the monumental "Athena Parthenos" statue by Phidias (original dated 438 BC, see reconstruction from Royal Ontario Museum here).
In about a week, I'll be talking about snakes with my ancient art students again, this time in connection with the Etruscans. Scholar Kristen Lee Hostetler recently explored how snake imagery is found in depictions of Etruscan demons (such as the wall painting of the demon Tuchulcha, Tomba dell'Orco II, Tarquinia, last quarter of the 4th century BC; shown left). It appears that snakes (specifically the extremely poisonous adder) were feared by the Etruscans. Hostetler points out that the distinct adder markings are noticeable in the demon imagery1. In addition, some of these Etruscan demons have blue flesh (as seen in the "Tomb of the Blue Demons" in Tarquinia, late 5th - early 4th century BC), which is reminiscent to the skin discoloration caused by an adder snakebite.2
Earlier in the quarter, my students and I have discussed the significance of the enraged uraeus snake in Egyptian pharaonic imagery (as can be seen in the funerary mask of King Tutankhamun, c. 1327 BCE). The snake is a reference to the Wadjet, the cobra goddess of Lower Egypt. According to mythology, the pharaoh sat at coronation to receive his crown from this goddess.3 The cobra was one of the earliest of Egyptian royal insignia.
Do you have a favorite work of art which includes snake imagery? It's interesting that snakes have obviously fascinated (and intimidated) the human race for so many centuries. I can think of many other examples, even extending outside the realm of ancient art. Biblical images of Eve with snakes have been popular in Christian art for centuries. Snakes can also appear in conjunction with the Virgin; my favorite Baroque example is Caravaggio's Madonna with the Serpent (1606 CE).
1 Kristin Lee Hostetler, "Serpent Iconography," in Etruscan Studies 10, no. 16 (2007): 203.
2 Ibid., 206.
3 Nancy Luomala, "Matrilineal Reinterpretation of some Egyptian Sacred Cows," in Feminism and Art History: Questioning the Litany by Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard, eds. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982), 27.
Showing posts with label Egyptian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egyptian. Show all posts
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
"Masculine" vs. "Feminine" vs. "Androgynous"
This quarter I have been peppering my lectures with some discussion about women in the visual arts, following some of the ideas that Christine Havice presented in Women's Studies Quarterly. 1 Although art historical practice and publications have changed since Havice published her article in 1987, I think that many of her suggestions are still appropriate in the classroom today.
Recently I've been talking with my students about Akhenaten and the Amarna period in Egyptian art (on the left is the colossal figure of Akhenaten, c. 1353-1336 BC). This topic easily segued into a discussion (prompted by Havice) about the problematic nature of the labeling an artistic style or work of art as "masculine" and "feminine." We discussed how our 21st century idea (i.e. construct) of "masculine" and "feminine" differs greatly (or likely didn't even exist) in prehistoric and ancient times, and by using those labels we are superimposing our cultural ideology on a work of art. All in all, using such adjectives in art historical discussions implies that a similar "masculine" or "feminine" construct existed at the time the art was created.
Sigh. And such is the challenge for art historians. I think it is often difficult to find correct (i.e. objective) adjectives and phrases to describe works of art, because we always interpret works of our through our own cultural lenses. I'd like to think that Michael Ann Holly would agree with me on this subject, since she has much lamented the melancholic separation between historians and the objects of their scholarly discussion.
So, what do we do? Search for different adjectives? Continue to describe works of art in the best way that we know how, yet recognizing the surrounding culture from whence our biases spring? We obviously can't ditch adjectives altogether; the discipline of art history revolves around the limited translation of images to words.
I don't know the answers to solve such conundrums regarding adjectives, but I have formed one opinion about adjectives for the Amarna style. I think it is just as problematic to try and neutralize ground between the "masculine" and "feminine" terms by saying that Akenaten's colossal statue "suggest[s] androgyny" (sorry, Marilyn Stokstad).2 Do we know if Akhenaten was trying to appear androgynous in his art? No! Even without using the "masculine" or "feminine" label, Stokstad is trying to define this statue on sexual grounds, in this case suggesting the lack or combination of sexual characteristics as a definition. (Besides, do we even know if the concept of androgyny existed in ancient Egypt?) I think it would have been more appropriate for Stokstad to say that the sculpture may suggest androgyny to the modern viewer.
1 Christine Havice, "Teaching about Women in the Visual Arts: The Art History Survey Transfigured," Women's Studies Quarterly 15, no. 1/2 (Spring-Summer 1987): 17-20.
2 Marilyn Stokstad and Michael W. Cothren, Art History, 4th edition (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011), 71.
Recently I've been talking with my students about Akhenaten and the Amarna period in Egyptian art (on the left is the colossal figure of Akhenaten, c. 1353-1336 BC). This topic easily segued into a discussion (prompted by Havice) about the problematic nature of the labeling an artistic style or work of art as "masculine" and "feminine." We discussed how our 21st century idea (i.e. construct) of "masculine" and "feminine" differs greatly (or likely didn't even exist) in prehistoric and ancient times, and by using those labels we are superimposing our cultural ideology on a work of art. All in all, using such adjectives in art historical discussions implies that a similar "masculine" or "feminine" construct existed at the time the art was created.
Sigh. And such is the challenge for art historians. I think it is often difficult to find correct (i.e. objective) adjectives and phrases to describe works of art, because we always interpret works of our through our own cultural lenses. I'd like to think that Michael Ann Holly would agree with me on this subject, since she has much lamented the melancholic separation between historians and the objects of their scholarly discussion.
So, what do we do? Search for different adjectives? Continue to describe works of art in the best way that we know how, yet recognizing the surrounding culture from whence our biases spring? We obviously can't ditch adjectives altogether; the discipline of art history revolves around the limited translation of images to words.
I don't know the answers to solve such conundrums regarding adjectives, but I have formed one opinion about adjectives for the Amarna style. I think it is just as problematic to try and neutralize ground between the "masculine" and "feminine" terms by saying that Akenaten's colossal statue "suggest[s] androgyny" (sorry, Marilyn Stokstad).2 Do we know if Akhenaten was trying to appear androgynous in his art? No! Even without using the "masculine" or "feminine" label, Stokstad is trying to define this statue on sexual grounds, in this case suggesting the lack or combination of sexual characteristics as a definition. (Besides, do we even know if the concept of androgyny existed in ancient Egypt?) I think it would have been more appropriate for Stokstad to say that the sculpture may suggest androgyny to the modern viewer.
1 Christine Havice, "Teaching about Women in the Visual Arts: The Art History Survey Transfigured," Women's Studies Quarterly 15, no. 1/2 (Spring-Summer 1987): 17-20.
2 Marilyn Stokstad and Michael W. Cothren, Art History, 4th edition (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011), 71.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
King Tut's Gold Throne
I came across this stunning image of from the back of King Tut's gold throne (left, c. 1332-1322 BC) tonight. Isn't it gorgeous? (Click on the image to enlarge it, if you don't believe me.) I love the striking, bold colors. And I especially love that Tutankhamun is depicted with the lil' Amarna-style belly that his dad popularized in Egyptian art (see the relief Ahkenaten and His Family, c. 1353-1336 BC, for one another example of the Amarna style).
This throne shows Tutakhamun being anointed with perfume by his wife, Ankhesenamun. I love the fine details in Ankhesanumun's robe, and I especially love that you can see the outline of her legs beneath the flowing material. It gives the impression that the material is very lightweight. (There is a little more information about this throne here.)
Speaking of King Tut, have you seen the reconstruction of his face? In 2005, National Geographic reported that scientists used 3-D CT scans to reconstruct the first mummy of the ancient pharaoh. Kinda cool, but also kinda creepy. Check out this image of the bust on display at the Field Museum in Chicago - it totally reminds me of the heads that the witch Mombi stored in the "Return to Oz" movie. Yikes!
This throne shows Tutakhamun being anointed with perfume by his wife, Ankhesenamun. I love the fine details in Ankhesanumun's robe, and I especially love that you can see the outline of her legs beneath the flowing material. It gives the impression that the material is very lightweight. (There is a little more information about this throne here.)
Speaking of King Tut, have you seen the reconstruction of his face? In 2005, National Geographic reported that scientists used 3-D CT scans to reconstruct the first mummy of the ancient pharaoh. Kinda cool, but also kinda creepy. Check out this image of the bust on display at the Field Museum in Chicago - it totally reminds me of the heads that the witch Mombi stored in the "Return to Oz" movie. Yikes!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Imhotep = Joseph of Egypt?
About a decade ago, when I was sitting in one of my early art history courses, my professor offhandedly mentioned some speculations that Imhotep, the architect of the Stepped Pyramid at Djoser (ca. 2530-2611 BC, shown right), may have been the biblical figure Joseph of Egypt. I have been quite skeptical of this theory for years, largely because none of my art history textbooks allude to any connection between the two historical figures. For years I have meant to research this topic and see what speculations exist, and I decided that today was the day.
After doing an initial search, I discovered that a lot of people speculate that Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. If you're curious, you can see two less-scholarly sites here and here. I was surprised to see that someone thinks that the stepped pyramid was actually created to store grain (for the biblical famine associated with Joseph). Seriously? I find that incredibly unlikely.
As I suspected, I couldn't find any reputable scholars discussing such a topic. It also seems unlikely that Imhotep and Joseph are the same person, since the Djoser pyramid predates Joseph's arrival into Egypt by about 1,000 years. (You can follow some of the theories regarding Joseph's historical timeline here).
I also learned a few new things about Imhotep during my research. He seemed like a very interesting and intelligent man. In addition to creating the stepped pyramid at Djoser (the shape of which is seen as the precursor to the sleek angles of the Pyramids at Giza), Imhotep was probably the architect for the step-pyramid complex Horus Sekhemkhet at Saqqara.1 By the Late Period (c. 750-332 BC, which is about two thousand years after Imhotep lived), the architect had achieved the status of a god. As a deified being, Imhotep was associated with medical learning and healing. There are many Late (and Greco-Roman) period statues of Imhotep seated and holding a papyrus scroll (you can see an example here).
If anyone can provide some solid, scholarly evidence to support a connection between the Joseph and Imhotep, I'd be interested in reading it. For now, though, I've decided that the apparent lack of connection is for the best. It's quite awkward to sing, "Go, go, go, Imhotep!" anyway.
1 Nabil Swelim, "Imhotep," in Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T039994. Accessed 28 May 2010.
After doing an initial search, I discovered that a lot of people speculate that Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. If you're curious, you can see two less-scholarly sites here and here. I was surprised to see that someone thinks that the stepped pyramid was actually created to store grain (for the biblical famine associated with Joseph). Seriously? I find that incredibly unlikely.
As I suspected, I couldn't find any reputable scholars discussing such a topic. It also seems unlikely that Imhotep and Joseph are the same person, since the Djoser pyramid predates Joseph's arrival into Egypt by about 1,000 years. (You can follow some of the theories regarding Joseph's historical timeline here).
I also learned a few new things about Imhotep during my research. He seemed like a very interesting and intelligent man. In addition to creating the stepped pyramid at Djoser (the shape of which is seen as the precursor to the sleek angles of the Pyramids at Giza), Imhotep was probably the architect for the step-pyramid complex Horus Sekhemkhet at Saqqara.1 By the Late Period (c. 750-332 BC, which is about two thousand years after Imhotep lived), the architect had achieved the status of a god. As a deified being, Imhotep was associated with medical learning and healing. There are many Late (and Greco-Roman) period statues of Imhotep seated and holding a papyrus scroll (you can see an example here).
If anyone can provide some solid, scholarly evidence to support a connection between the Joseph and Imhotep, I'd be interested in reading it. For now, though, I've decided that the apparent lack of connection is for the best. It's quite awkward to sing, "Go, go, go, Imhotep!" anyway.
1 Nabil Swelim, "Imhotep," in Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T039994. Accessed 28 May 2010.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Meritamen and Rosette Musings
For several weeks I've wanted to reconnect with my ancient art self. Lately I haven't had many opportunities to think about any art created before c. 1400, which makes me sad. So tonight I sat down with this book that I recently got as a present, and just perused through the first hundred pages or so. This statue of Meritamen, nicknamed White Queen (shown left, c. 1240 BC, Egyptian Museum, Cairo) caught my eye, largely because I thought it was interesting that instead of depicting a nipple, her left breast is decorated with a rosette. I tried to do some research and see if there was any precedent or symbolism for this, but I can't find anything definitive (although this site suggests that the rosette may be associated with kingship, but that doesn't make too much sense in this context for a queen, right?).
I think the flower looks too different from a lotus to make any symbolic associations (which is too bad, since the lotus is associated with creation and birth, which could tie into the nurturing function of the breast). It also would have been cool (and also added significance) if this breast-rosette was drawn in the same pattern as the Flower of Life, but unfortunately I don't much visual similarity.
Thoughts, anyone? Maybe I'm looking to deeply for answers. Perhaps the Egyptian artist just wasn't good at depicting nipples, and decided to cover up one breast with a goddess statue and depict a rosette on the other? Ha!
Meritamen was the daughter-turned-wife of Ramesses II. There is an inscription on the back pillar of this statue, but the name is missing. This sculpture wasn't determined as a depiction of Meritamen until after 1981, when a colossal statue of Meritamen was discovered at Akhmim. This colossal statue has similar inscriptions to the Egyptian Museum statue, which solidified the attribution. You'll notice, though, that the Ahkmim statue does not have similar rosettes on her breasts. Hmm...
I think the flower looks too different from a lotus to make any symbolic associations (which is too bad, since the lotus is associated with creation and birth, which could tie into the nurturing function of the breast). It also would have been cool (and also added significance) if this breast-rosette was drawn in the same pattern as the Flower of Life, but unfortunately I don't much visual similarity.
Thoughts, anyone? Maybe I'm looking to deeply for answers. Perhaps the Egyptian artist just wasn't good at depicting nipples, and decided to cover up one breast with a goddess statue and depict a rosette on the other? Ha!
Meritamen was the daughter-turned-wife of Ramesses II. There is an inscription on the back pillar of this statue, but the name is missing. This sculpture wasn't determined as a depiction of Meritamen until after 1981, when a colossal statue of Meritamen was discovered at Akhmim. This colossal statue has similar inscriptions to the Egyptian Museum statue, which solidified the attribution. You'll notice, though, that the Ahkmim statue does not have similar rosettes on her breasts. Hmm...
Monday, July 6, 2009
Taweret, Egyptian Childbirth, and LOST
I know that I just barely did a post on ancient female fertility figurines, but I'm going to continue in this vein and talk about Taweret statues too. Taweret is the goddess who protects women who are pregnant or in childbirth. (If you watch LOST, you can see how the destruction of this statue ties into the problems women experience with pregnancy on the island.) The figurine on the left (assumed to be Taweret) is from the Ptolemaic Period (ca. 332-30 BC).1 The combination of human, crocodile, lion and hippopotamus features create a fearsome combination - Taweret was supposed to scare off demons and other deadly creatures that posed a threat to the mother and baby during childbirth.
Egyptian women also wore Taweret amulets to protect them during childbirth. I particularly like this one.
And sorry if you don't like depictions of childbirth, but I had to include this interesting relief from the Temple of Hathor at Dendera (ca. 304-30 BC; Egyptian Museum, Cairo). This relief shows a squatting woman in childbirth (using a birth stool), while being assisted by two goddesses (possibly Hathor and Taweret, although I don't think either figure distinctly looks like Taweret). It's an interesting relief, though, huh? It's thought that this birth position was an alternative, possibly less-frequent method that the ancient Egyptian woman used for childbirth.2Anyhow, back to Taweret. So far, I have not found any information regarding the depiction of Taweret's breasts in art. Since Taweret also is linked to fertility, are the breasts a connection to that? I haven't read anything that specifically makes this connection, but perhaps that just can be assumed? Or perhaps the breasts were depicted to emphasize that this was a female goddess? What do people think?
From what I can tell, it seems like most depictions of Taweret are small figurines or amulets. I kind of doubt that there were any monumental statues created of this goddess (like the one shown in LOST). However, if you know of any monumental Taweret statues, let me know. I'd be interested to see them and find out why they were created on a monumental scale.
1 This statuette is part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection. You can read more information about it here.
2 Eugen Strouhal, Evžen Strouhal, and Werner Forman, Life of the Ancient Egyptians (Vigo, Spain: Editorial Galaxia, 1992), 16-17. Since I have some friends who are fascinated by childbirth (cough, Pamy, cough), here is the link to these pages in a Google Book preview, in case you want to read more.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Nefertiti and CT
I never thought I would be interested in reading an article in my father-in-law's Radiology magazine. However, I was intrigued that the cover of their recent issue has a picture of the famous Nefertiti statue bust (made by the artist Thutmose, Dynasty XVIII (ca. 1353-1335 BC)). Recently, some computed tomography (CT) performed on the core and surface of the statue bust has revealed new information.
According to this article, there are slightly different physical characteristics which appear on the inner core of the statue (consequently revealing a "second hidden face").1 On the inner core, the CT revealed that there "creases around the corners of the mouth and cheeks, a less harmonious nose ridge, and less prominent cheekbones. The nose [also] showed a slight bump."2
Although the outer surface of stucco refined and softened these wrinkles and bumps, it is also interesting that there is a more pronounced shaping of the eyelid corners on the outer layer (see image below). This emphasis on the outer eyes supports interpretations that this bust was supposed to be recognized as a depiction of a mature woman, not of a woman of flawless beauty."4
The shaping of the eyelid corners on the outer (visible) surface can be seen on the right (indicated by *). On the inner core (left) creases in the corners of the mouth (arrows) were found.
I think it's fascinating to look at different facial characteristics on the inner core - perhaps the inner core is a more correct representation of how Nefertiti appeared in life. It's great that technology can help historians and archaeologists learn more about art. In this study, CT also showed more information regarding the types of tools and materials that were used to sculpt the bust. In addition, further details were revealed about the thickness of the stucco, which will serve as useful information for conservators.
Although I didn't understand all of the scientific terminology or system of measurement used in this article, it was still interesting to read. Perhaps I should pick up Radiology more often?
1 Alexander Huppertz et al, "Nondestructive Insights into Composition of the Sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti with CT," Radiology 251, no. 1 (April 2009): 236.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., 239.
4 Ibid.
According to this article, there are slightly different physical characteristics which appear on the inner core of the statue (consequently revealing a "second hidden face").1 On the inner core, the CT revealed that there "creases around the corners of the mouth and cheeks, a less harmonious nose ridge, and less prominent cheekbones. The nose [also] showed a slight bump."2
The visible outer layer (left) and the inner layer (right) show a difference in the nose (the bump is indicated by an arrow)
Although the outer surface of stucco refined and softened these wrinkles and bumps, it is also interesting that there is a more pronounced shaping of the eyelid corners on the outer layer (see image below). This emphasis on the outer eyes supports interpretations that this bust was supposed to be recognized as a depiction of a mature woman, not of a woman of flawless beauty."4
The shaping of the eyelid corners on the outer (visible) surface can be seen on the right (indicated by *). On the inner core (left) creases in the corners of the mouth (arrows) were found.I think it's fascinating to look at different facial characteristics on the inner core - perhaps the inner core is a more correct representation of how Nefertiti appeared in life. It's great that technology can help historians and archaeologists learn more about art. In this study, CT also showed more information regarding the types of tools and materials that were used to sculpt the bust. In addition, further details were revealed about the thickness of the stucco, which will serve as useful information for conservators.
Although I didn't understand all of the scientific terminology or system of measurement used in this article, it was still interesting to read. Perhaps I should pick up Radiology more often?
1 Alexander Huppertz et al, "Nondestructive Insights into Composition of the Sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti with CT," Radiology 251, no. 1 (April 2009): 236.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., 239.
4 Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








