Lenguaje XML

featured using local materials and iconic style using exotic material (see 4.4 for a discussion of the exotic).

2. For artefacts, iconic style must be witnessed by the receiver. For lithics, and sickle blades in particular, many distinguishing characteristics are hidden by hafting (Rosen 1997, 147–148). These are probably a result of group learning, of habitus, and thus are isochrestic. However, some scholars dispute the importance of visibility (4.2.4).

56 3. One may see a fourth measure of iconic style in geographical distribution (Plog 1995). While isochrestic style shows clinal distribution, style connected with the symbolic/metaphoric does not. Certainly Egyptian lithics are very different from those of the Mediterranean and Levant (e.g. Rosen 1997). However, the study of Egyptian lithics, in relation to north-African lithics, is undeveloped. Nevertheless, it does seem that certain items are specific to Egypt, notably ‘razors’ and bifacial knives (Appendix

1). One may thus see these types as ideologically important of Egypt.

Tilley (1999, 264–265) states that much material metaphor is implicit and artefacts are only explicitly used metaphorically in special practices such as

ceremonies and rituals. However, deliberate signalling may also occur outside rituals, for example in the style of clothes. One might concede, however, that explicit

metaphors are commonly used in rituals, as discussed in the connection between ritual and metaphor, above.

Text is always produced with the express intention of communication,

deliberately and consciously (see Moreland 2003, 103 for references). For Egypt there are few items such as personal diaries or private musings, and even if there were, this is still deliberate communication made with a receiver in mind. Text, then, can become a vehicle for distortion of the truth. For this reason one may argue that text demands a consideration of the biases of its creator, artefacts less so. One might argue as to whether, or not, text was a means of propaganda (deliberate distortion) for ancient Egypt or rather ideology reflecting consensus (see Smith 2003, 168–206 with

references), but we must agree that textual artefacts do appear more iconic. This is not to deny an element of the implicit.

While Egyptian literature may express ideological statements it cannot always be described as pure propaganda because many texts must be assumed to have been written only for the minority, and because the nature of texts is so ‘diverse, ambiguous and ironic’ so as to be an unsatisfactory means of advocating state values (Parkinson 2002, 14–16). Such a situation of course varies from period to period and from literary genre to literary genre. As with archaeology, context is important in understanding its role. Monumental texts on temple walls are perhaps most likely to be propagandist. For flint references, these include the inscriptions on the walls of Dendera (map 6) and Edfu (maps 2 and 8). However, while the populace could enter the exterior areas of temples (Sadek 1987), inner areas were seen only by selected priests. Thus, the propaganda role of such texts was inevitably limited.

57

2.3.1.2 SPECIALISED AND ELITE NATURE OF TEXT

Both text and non-text are elite biased, but the specialised nature of reading texts makes it particularly biased. Here it is first demonstrated that reading is a specialised technology particularly related to the male elite.

While some archaeological items can only have been associated with the elite, archaeology is democratised through inclusion of commonplace technologies, many produced by non-specialists. For example, crudely made borers found on Old Kingdom sites were probably made on the spot from river pebbles, presumably by non-specialists (Pawlik 2005, 204). In Chapter 4 it is shown that certain flint tools were associated with wealth, others were not.

In contrast, text was always a technology of a literate minority. While the nature of Egyptian texts varies from period to period and literary genre to literary genre, generally texts concern a small, elite world (Gardiner 1961, 54–60; Parkinson 2002, 49, 66–78). Estimates for Dynastic Egyptian literacy rates usually vary from 10% in unusual settlements such as that of craftsmen at Deir el-Medina (map 7), downwards, though the picture is complicated by the probability of different levels of literacy (Richards 2000, 43). Baines (1983, 584) estimates that in most periods only 1% of the population was literate. This is tempered by the probability that text is to some extent built upon oral tradition (Parkinson 2002, 55–57), with some texts made for performance (Parkinson 1997, 11) and colloquial language within them common (Parkinson 1997, 12).

The difference between text and non-text however, lies not so much in the specialisation of production but rather of reading. Reading text is a specialised skill. Because metaphors associated with it are more arbitrary than those connected with non-text, and because text needs to be precise in order to communicate over spatial and chronological distance, creating and understanding text requires a lengthy formal apprenticeship. Meaning behind non-textual artefacts is generally more self-evident and informally learnt because it relates to physical use and context. It is therefore more widely accessible.

Reading objects, unlike reading text, is not age specific or tied to a particular learning level (Shu 1994, 82–83). Most age groups and abilities can understand basic meaning behind an object if they belong to the cultural group framing that meaning. This does not mean that ‘deeper’ meaning of all objects is available to all. To some extent this still requires learning, sometimes extensive learning.

58 Thus, because reading text, unlike reading artefacts, was specialised and

because archaeology also includes non-specialised artefacts, textual artefacts are more biased in favour of the elite. The question is then; could the elite speak for the

majority? There are arguments surrounding the degree of cultural heterogeneity of ancient Egyptian society (Baines 1983, 586; Parkinson 2002, 17–18; Smith 2003, 177– 187). What is agreed is that the elite lived very different lives from those of the

majority (Meskell 2002, 12–13) and I would say a restricted technology must always be suspect even if democratic credentials are claimed for it.

By way of support for this argument, the religious life of the royal city of Amarna (maps 3 and 5) is evidenced differently in text and non-text. From text it appears that the new religion was centred upon the Aten and the royal couple, a viewpoint expressed by the elite. In contrast, from archaeology we see that traditional deities continued to be worshipped (Meskell 2002, 11 with further references).

Moreland (2003, 104–105) argues that the statement that text does not include the ‘oppressed’ is overstated. Text is important in understanding the ‘voiceless’ because it can be a technology of suppression. This is correct,11 though the fact that it is a technology for suppression only allows a partial insight into the lives of the non- elite. One can hardly argue against the notion that text more readily illuminates the thoughts of the rich.

2.3.1.3 THE CONTENT OF TEXT

Ancient Egyptian literature tends to give more information on the lives of the richer members of society. Even, the ‘Tale of the Eloquent Peasant’ actually recounts the misfortunes of a merchant, not the poorest of the poor. However, court records do include information of the ‘ordinary’ people of ancient Egypt. Since archaeology incorporates artefacts used and made by both rich and poor, messages incorporated therein give information on rich and poor.

2.3.2 THE MULTIVOCAL AND ‘MESSY’ NATURE OF ARTEFACTS

Messages supplied through text are frequently complex, multivocal and ambiguous, yet compared to artefactual messages, textual messages are usually simple and clear, especially for a reader separated by time or space. The multivocality of non-text compared to the precision of text, is predicated upon the following:

11 _{Certainly for Egypt text was used in the maintenance of law and order and ensuring payment of taxes,}

59 • The meaning of artefacts lies in their relationship with ideas and each other,

with their physicality, context and biographies

• This, plus additional factors, allows artefacts to condense meanings, but shorthand means loss of specificity

• Arguably, the emotional response demanded of artefacts contrasts with the more abstracted way in which text signifies

• Because text deals with abstract symbols (icononic and univocal metaphors), the meaning of text has to be agreed upon and the basics needed for

understanding this must be formally taught. The meaning of artefacts is not usually so formally taught

• Text is employed to communicate over greater time and space than artefacts and thus must be clearer and more precise in meaning

Several of these facets are interrelated. It should not be assumed however, that ambiguity of message is always problematic (Wiessner 1985, 162). Ambiguity of message may have the effect of ensuring that more individuals are convinced.

2.3.2.1 MEANING IN OBJECTS: PHYSICALITY, BIOGRAPHY

AND CONTEXT

Artefacts are not metaphoric/symbolic in the same way as text (Graves-Brown, P. 1995; Jordan 2003, 276, 280; Boivin 2004; Piquette 2007, 97–98), though one could argue that differences are those of degree. While all messages depend in part upon their medium and the human mind, for non-textual artefacts the meaning is particularly ingrained in the medium, the physical attributes of the object, its biography as well as its context (Tilley 1999, 263–4; Boivin 2004). Thus, artefact meaning is not arbitrary to the degree that is so with text (Barth 1975, 208; Hodder 1992, 14; Tilley 1999, 28, 265) and moreover it is particularly multivocal. The contextual dependence of artefact meaning is problematic for Egyptologists where original context is often impossible to reconstruct. As objects are more abundant than text, their contexts are more variable, even for one object type, and each context could give rise to a different meaning. See