La poca información que tienen las PYMES de la Alianza del Pacifico

As discussed above, the context of art is key to interpretation; this relates both to the social and cultural context and to the more literal context. While the graffiti discussed previously are found almost exclusively on royal monuments the depictions studied here are in private tombs; as immovable parts of the decoration, most of them remain in their original location. It is, therefore, possible to analyse the landscape in which the depiction was created which may allow a better understanding of the image itself.41

It is arguable that while graffiti were the results of a spur of the moment decision to mark the walls of a monument and were, therefore, informal representations of memory,42 tomb depictions were the result of careful planning by the tomb owner or artisans. Egyptian people spent a great deal of time and expense preparing for the afterlife and the creation of a tomb was a key part of this.43 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that care was taken over what was depicted in order to create the best possible result. The time taken to create the decoration of an Egyptian tomb also allows for the possibility that there may have been a higher level of state control over what was included; tombs were both lasting and highly visible and so it would have been in the interests of the state to ensure that their content acquiesced to

41

See Bahn (2008: 18-19) for more on this idea. 42

See chs. 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 for discussion of the informal nature of graffiti. 43

137

appropriate ideas. The concept of decorum, therefore, must be taken into account.44 As already noted, Baines defines decorum as ‘a set of rules defining what may be represented ... in which context and in what form’ (Baines 1990: 20),45 while Sorenson (1989: 21) classifies decorum as ‘social restrictions to divine access’,46

thus emphasising its social basis, and also the importance of restricting powerful knowledge and access. In both understandings, decorum played a part in ensuring that a desired understanding of the world was propagated and reinforced.47

If fixed ideas did exist, the question of how they were enforced, and the degree to which they were adhered to, remains. It is probable that pattern books were used by artisans to guide the depictions that they included in their work.48 If these existed then it is likely that they showed only scenes which were considered to conform to accepted values, thus propagating the ‘decorum’ put forward by Baines. Wachsmann (1987: 24), however, suggests that the master scenes were not copied exactly, but were used as a template from which the artisan developed

44

This may be equated with Assmann’s fifth characteristic of cultural memory, which relates to a ‘clear system of values and differentiations in importance which structure the cultural supply of knowledge and the symbols’ (Assmann 1995: 131).

45

He notes (1990: 6) that ‘knowledge is an instrument of power’ and is, therefore, a valuable resource. As such he attributes it a ‘legitimizing function’ (Baines 2007: 15).

46

Sorensen (1989) discusses the ways in which restricted access and decorum played a part in Egyptian art and culture in the pharaonic period, arguing that the distinction between elite and non-elite in terms of divine access gradually faded in a process of ‘democratization’.

47

According to Baines (2007: 16), decorum had a key role to play in ‘representing the proper order of the world’. Studies of decorum in later periods of history have also emphasised the role of artistic pieces as ‘guides to appropriate behaviour’ and ‘socially acceptable conduct’ (Ames-Lewis 1992: 12), and as signifying ‘what was fitting’ (Gombrich 1972: 7).

48

Wachsmann (1987: 12-25) suggests the possibility of such pattern books from which tomb decoration may be copied, writing that these ‘collections of master drawings would theoretically have contained the archetypes of the familiar “stock scenes”’ (Wachsmann 1987: 13).Wachsmann (1987: 12-17) includes references to other works on the same topic, including Furumark (1950: 233) who suggested that tombs were not accessible to later artisans and so books must have been used, and Schäfer (1986: 62) who appears to accept their existence. Vercoutter (1956: 197-199), in contrast, argued against the existence of pattern books. Wachsmann (1987: 13) also suggests an alternative, wherein artists visited existing tombs and copied scenes from them. This is discussed in more detail below. See Wachsmann (1987: 17-25) for an analysis of a stock scene, in which the possibility of a pattern book is analysed. He concludes (1987: 24) that ‘there must have existed some form of master drawings which laid out the various elements of each scene’. It it, however, important to note that no pattern books have been identified in archaeological evidence and so this remains a theory based on the evidence of tomb decoration.

138

a decorative scheme; this, he argues, allows for the variation found in the decoration of Egyptian tombs. The implementation of decorum through this medium, therefore, should not be seen as all encompassing, but as general guidance.

It is likely, therefore, that standardised formulae of what was appropriate for inclusion in tomb depictions were adhered to and the norms of representation followed.49 The direct involvement of the state in the building and decoration of tombs, however, does not appear to have been high; surely if tomb decoration was checked by state officials there would be more evidence of corrections to designs or of the erasure of images that were deemed unsuitable.50 Instead, as already noted, influence may have been exerted through the control of standardised formulae,51 possibly in the form of pattern books or other master copies, and even through the centralised training of artisans.52

Given that state control of tomb decoration was probably not total, and was issued in the form of guidance rather than specific direction, it is likely that individual personalities had an effect

49

Bryson (1991: 66-67) supports this idea, relating it to power structures; he suggests that in order to understand art one must look first to the power structures of society, analysing who the ruling elite were and what ideology is used by these people to legitimise their power. He refers (1991: 66-67) to this phenomenon as the ‘base’, which he defines as looking at ‘the questions of who owns the means of production and distribution of wealth, to what constitutes the dominant class, to the ideology this class uses to justify its power; and then to the arts, and to painting, as aspects of that legitimation and that monopoly’.

50

Chauvet (2007) discusses royal involvement in the building of private tombs in the Old Kingdom, noting that there appears to have been little royal influence on the actual design of the tombs regardless of the need, in this period, for a royal concession to build such a monument (2007: 320). See also Schäfer (1986: 59-60) who discusses the possibility of a ‘court’ and a ‘popular’ style of art which may have existed aside each other, concluding that these attributions cannot be accurately applied in ancient Egypt. While similar studies have not been carried out in relation to tombs of the New Kingdom, it seems likely that direct state involvement was not the case in the building of individual tombs.

51

The inclusion of certain themes on state buildings, such as temples, may also have encouraged their use in private contexts. Luiselli (2011: 13-18) discusses the scene of the smiting king, noting that it is found on temple walls (and other official objects) throughout pharaonic history, but that it can also be identified on private objects, such as scarabs and votive stelae dated to the New Kingdom and later. This shows not only the development of cultural memory relating to the idea of a smiting king over a period of time, but also the movement of ideas from state to private contexts.

52

Cooney (2007: 131), for example, notes that the tomb builders of Deir el-Medina were trained by the state; they then carried out private requests in the time that they were not employed in their primary role. Although only one, arguably unrepresentative, site, this does show the role of the state in training men who would go on to produce private funerary monuments in the Theban area.

139

on tomb motifs.53 The fact that only a small proportion of Eighteenth Dynasty tombs included depictions of deceased royal figures suggests that their inclusion was a matter of choice rather than of necessity, which points to the conclusion that while standardised forms may have been responsible for the general themes and ideas found in tomb decoration, specific scenes maybe attributed to individual preference.54 The scenes should not, therefore, be understood simply as copies of official ideology, but as representations of individual preference in the context of Egyptian society, in which state ideas played a role.

When analysing tomb depictions it is important, therefore, to look at all aspects of the composition taking into account the levels of description discussed earlier55 as well as the context both within the tomb,56 in the wider landscape, and the social context.57 Baines, for example, emphasises the need to look at the subject, iconography, style and function of Egyptian art,58 which demonstrates the various pathways one must venture down in order to understand more fully the compositions within private Egyptian tombs and some of the issues that must be addressed. Tombs must not be looked at in isolation, both because their

decoration was affected by the society in which they were created and because they,

53

Schäfer (1986: 59) notes that a large proportion of grand works of art in ancient Egypt were due to

commissions, so that both the artist and the patron would have had some influence on the finished piece. He goes on to write that ‘some pictures in the entrances to tombs from the end of the Old Kingdom show that the part of the man commissioning the work was considerable’, thus supporting Chauvet’s suggestion that the majority of influence on such pieces was wielded by the owner of the tomb.

54

Wachsmann (1987: 24) supports this hypothesis. 55

The three levels of iconography will not be referred to explicitly during this chapter but the differing levels of meaning will be analysed throughout.

56

The scenes that are found alongside those discussed are looked at below, see ch. 3.2.4. 57

By which is meant what can be known about the society in which the scenes were created and how this may have affected them. See above, in this section, for further discussion of the importance of context when analysing art.

58

He writes that ‘features of [the] decoration need to be analysed in a variety of ways, among which are the study of subject matter, such as the actions performed, and iconography, notable elements of dress and

accoutrement. The only route to an overall interpretation is through taking into account the functions of the tomb as a place of repose and return for the deceased, cult place, and meeting place with the living. As their owners’ principle monumental projects, tombs must also have been a major loci of display and aesthetic interest during the last part of their lives and when they died ... In part because tombs relate to one another through chains of artistic connection as much as they relate to the simple aim of providing a place for the deceased’s body, much in the decoration may be far removed from any narrowly defined programme’ (Baines 2008: 107).

140

themselves, may have served as sites of memory.59 But the aims of the tomb owner must also be addressed, to understand what particular motivations led to the inclusion of a specific decorative programme and the adoption of certain iconography. As already noted, such questions must be looked at while recognising the challenges of interpreting art and the issues of separating original meaning from subsequent ones (Graefe 1981: 72).60

3.2. INTRODUCTION TO THE EVIDENCE