Iconography and chronology
Janice Yellin
The use of iconography for chronology is based on an assumption that certain features of iconography would be chronologically limited in their usage and datable by other appearances of that feature in dated context(s).
As Dr. Lohwasser rightly points out the use of iconography in Meroe is fraught with difficulties. I do think that the use of iconography for chronological purposes in Meroe remains feasible if care is taken to control for the types problems presented by Dr. Lohwasser.
In Meroe, iconography can be most useful for chronological seriation when one or more examples within a typological grouping have a known chronological context. When this occurs, using iconography typologies can move beyond establishing contemporaneous relationships into chronological seriation. When studying objects and/or their decoration for this type of seriation, the possibility of extended use of the object is a potential problem [1] . However, there are objects that have a fairly clear “life span” such as funerary objects made for the deceased that were found in situ (see offering table typologies below) or decorations and objects made for a specific architectural context also found in situ(see discussion of faience “cylinders”).
When using iconography for chronological purposes, several points, including possible solutions to difficulties encountered in Meroe, should be considered.
I. A distinction ought to be made between iconography and stylisation, both of which can be used separately or in combination as dating criteria.
Iconography refers to what is shown. It is based on the presence of distinctive feature(s) often having specific, culturally understood meaning. If the iconography is borrowed from a “foreign” source, it is important to be familiar with the original source to avoid mis-identification of the possible parallel(s) which then creates misunderstandings in dating and interpretation (see faience “cylinders” below).
Stylisation(s) refers to characteristics of how an image is made. This can refer, but not be limited to proportions, degree of detailing, curvilinearity of shapes, degrees of abstraction. Consistent types of stylisation (such as the distorted forms and proportions, and the greater degree of curvilinearity in the art of Egypt’s Amarna period) can be useful for chronology.
In Meroe, while there are general trends in proportions (figures tend to be heavier later in the Meroitic period), no grid for proportions is used and so there is no fixed canon of proportions for the figure. In fact, as noted by Dr. Lohwasser, the proportions change according to the space used, so figural proportions are not of particular use for dating.
Therefore, the key for using overall imagery and stylisation as dating criteria is the degree of consistency within a definable time frame. The Montemhet sculptures are an excellent example of problems encountered during a period that archaises heavily and so has different visual styles and sources of iconography. When [2] this phenomenon occurs in Meroitic art needs to be identified and then taken into account for iconography studies.
II. The impact of its context on the selection of iconography and style should be considered for each image.
One needs to recognise and consider what impact the context might make on style and iconography, rather than assuming the selection of particular iconography is the same in all contexts from the same time period. As discussed by Dr. Lohwasser, context governs the use an Egyptian style or Meroitic style. This in turn effects iconography and stylisation. As a result, differences in iconography and style can occur within the same time period. Preliminary research suggests that there may be a fairly consistent pattern for the use of a Meroitic or Egyptian context. The iconography of the representations in these two contexts could be treated as the basis for two separate typologies.
III. Iconography to establish fixed dates
Two types of iconography can be explored in the hopes of establishing fixed dating.
Indigenous iconography could help establish fixed dates for a historical sequence when a distinctive feature of iconography is identified and one or more examples are known from contexts firmly datable by other methods. Given the lack of fixed dates for Meroitic history, this use of iconography for fixing dates of objects and events within Meroitic history is not likely.
Foreign Iconography from dated source(s) outside the culture is most useful if it appears in both Meroe and the other culture in a chronologically consistent and limited context. Familiarity with potential original sources for the iconography is essential. If the iconography proves to have had a long history of use in one or both cultures, it can be used to establish a terminus post quem. In Meroe, there is second-degree borrowing via Egyptian sources (i.e. Hellenistic art used in Egypt which then transmitted to Meroe through these Egyptian uses). So when examining Hellenistic motifs, the possibility of transmission via Egypt and implications for dating should be considered.
When studying an object, the issue of its longevity also needs to be considered. As noted their are types of objects whose period of use can be fixed. The faience “cylinders” discussed below appear to have been made for and thus date to the context in which they were discovered. Identifying their classical source and its date would be helpful for Meroitic chronology.
Example: Classical motifs probably offer the best potential for using iconography, but familiarity with all of the original sources for the iconography is needed. An example is the iconography of a one of the three so-called faience “column drums” or “faience cylinders” found in area 200 by Garstang in Meroe [3]. One of these cylinders shows two young males facing each other dancing, two other males dancing and a dancing Pan. It has long been recognised that the imagery is classical, but there have been problems in identifying the source(s) and of course their dates. A brief study made for the purposes of preparing this paper revealed that there are parallels for these dancing figures, both in iconography and style of representation, on Etruscan cinerary urns [4] and Greek Red Figure vases. Stylistically the small dancing figure on panel 1 is closer to an Etruscan cinerary urn from Ceverteri(!) than the Greek pottery. The dancing Pan has parallels on Apulian Red Figure pots and may be the best chronological marker since its use as a motif appears to be most time limited. Clearly specialists in classical art should be consulted to ensure that the history and dating of this motif (and the others) is properly understood [5].
IV. Problems using Egyptian religious iconography for dating
It is tempting to employ features of Egyptian iconography, but in general it is not good for dating purposes. Egyptian religious iconography is often re-interpreted and combined with Egyptian features from other periods and/or indigenous features in Meroe. In addition the Egyptians themselves were given to using archaisms [6] which could further confuse the dating of the iconography found in Meroe. This can render the proper Egyptian parallel in iconography difficult to identify with certainty.
Example: The appearance of the Sokar Bark Procession in Begrawiyeh North pyramid chapels such as BEG N 7, N 11 follow Ramesside iconography. The Sokar Bark Procession was extremely important in the Greco-Roman Period temples, particularly Dendera, but is not shown with Ramesside iconography [7]. Does the appearance of these images reflect the popularity of contemporary Egypt religious practice? Or does it represent the use of Greco-Roman Temple archives [8] such as is found a bit later in BEG N 1 and BEG N 5? Even when Greco-Roman Period Egyptian source(s) of a feature can be identified, the feature may enjoy a relatively long period of use in Meroe and/or Egypt, so it can only be useful in establishing a terminus post quem and for establishing a relative chronology (see III.B below).
V: Typologies: using iconography to establish a relative chronological sequence (with or without approximate dating)
This is based on identifying specific feature(s) that occur within chronologically limited periods. If an approximate date can be attached to these groups based on the contexts in which some of them appear, these typologies can be used for dating. The model is similar to that used for establishing a ceramic sequence. Typologies based on iconography can be very helpful in placing objects and/or their contexts within the relative sequence of Meroitic history and, when providing a terminus post quem, in establishing a general range of date(s) for the objects and their contexts.
V.A. The use of individual diagnostic features to establish typological groupings
Secondary features of an image such as clothing, elements of royal and elite regalia [9] and various types of objects can often be more useful than the entire image for typological grouping. In using this method, more than one individual feature should be used as a counter-check whenever possible.
Example: The presence of two features of iconography suggests a chronological connection between BEG S 6 and BAR 3.
In the earliest royal pyramids in BEG S (S 10, S 5, S4), the owner is shown with the thin ribbons tying the royal mantle over one of their shoulders as part of the regalia worn by Meroitic elites. The knot is protected by a recumbent ram and the ends of the ribbons lay across their shoulders and down along their upper arms. In the late 2nd century BC, these ribbons are replaced by a tasselled cord which is slung over the ruler’s shoulder. Since these ribbons also appear on the north and south wall of BAR 3, it is tempting to consider an earlier date for this pyramid. However, the ribbons can also be seen on the north wall of BEG N 6 on the shoulder, not of the Queen but one of the princesses saluting her [10]. Clearly the coat ribbons are not limited to one period of Meroitic history and cannot serve alone as a dating criterion.
The style of sandals worn by rulers and other figures also changes in the course of Meroitic history. While more research is needed to confirm the chronological pattern for the iconography of these sandals, there do seem to be three very consistent and distinct styles of sandals worn by Meroitic elites during three distinct periods.
Sandal Style 1 ca. mid-4th -mid-late 1st century BC
This type of sandal has a thick strap of even width across the instep. A large, straight tong rises high from the sole of the sandal and connects to the thick instep strap.
Sandal Style 2A ca. mid-late 1st century BC - mid-1st century AD.
This type of style has a thin straight or curved band across the instep. The tong, which formerly rose straight from the sole of the sandal to the top of the ankle strap, now has a distinctive high flared curve to it [11].
NB: This type of sandal is found in both BEG N 6 and BAR 3.
Sandal Style 2B ca. mid-late 1st century BC - mid-1st century AD.
A far less common variant (BEG N 1, BAR 5) of style 2 sandal has a looped tong that does not connect to the sole of the sandal, but rather flares above the instep band beginning and ending on that part of the sandal.
Sandal Style 3 mid-1st century AD - mid-3rd century AD
This style of sandal has a thick vertical band entirely perpendicular to the sole of the of the foot which rises in front of the instep and is higher than the wearer’s foot [12]. In several instances the top of this perpendicular band is surmounted by ureai. Gone is the tong (strap) that connected the sole of the sandal to the instep straps in the earlier two styles [13].
BEG N 6 and BAR 3 share two features of iconography. The Type 2 sandals and the coat ribbons. Since the use of the coat ribbons is rare and since they also share the same sandal style, the possibility of a chronological connection between these two monuments is worth pursuing.
V.B. The clustering of multiple features to create typological groupings
In addition to single diagnostic features, clusters and patterns of features can also be used for typologies.
Example: Tomandl’s [14] examined the place of BEG N 10 in the sequence of Meroitic pyramids and of its owner in Meroitic chronology. Using its size, architectural features and patterns of chapel decoration, he demonstrated that BEG N 10 is to be grouped with those pyramids nearest it (BEG N 9, N 11, N 12), rather than later 1st century BC pyramids notably BEG N 22, as is sometimes suggested. In this same study, Tomandl raised the possibility that it was not a royal burial because there was only a single burial chamber. Hinkel found additional blocks not available when Tomandl made this study and an on-site examination in 2001 by the author which included these “new” relief blocks revealed that the owner, despite the single burial chamber, is a king. The crown of the tomb owner from the north wall has been restored. He wears an atef-crown resting on horns with a ureaus and vulture (with red crown on front horn) both on the front and back horns. His face and upper torso are still missing, but the top of a palm branch he is holding can be seen. On new blocks from the south wall, his head is destroyed, but not his upper torso. His left hand holds a flail and crook and a staff, whose top is destroyed, is in his right hand. A small figure stands behind him holding the tasselled cord, which as Török has demonstrated, is an important element of the coronation regalia. Based on the clustering of these elements of royal iconography and despite the single burial chamber, the tomb owner was a ruler.
Combining features that by themselves are not particularly distinctive can be done to create a complex unit that can be considered as “iconography.” In order to create useful chronological typologies it is necessary to identify the appropriate diagnostic features upon which to base these groupings and to be aware that there may be a hierarchy of importance (i.e. some features show variations within the grouping while other features are consistent) . This is not always evident.
Example: While useful for organising offering tables for sorting [15], the published typologies are not useful for chronological purposes because they focus purely on the facts of the decoration giving equal weight to all the elements on them (i.e. how many loaves of bread, how many vessels, how many loaves of bread together with how many vessels, etc.). What has not been taken into account is that there was a hierarchy in the importance of certain features, such as the offering vessels, basins and offering tables and their placement on the tables are more important than other elements, particularly the breads which are not as fixed in their number (typically either four or eight).
Based on organising by obvious type, logically one would expect the presence of Anubis and a companion goddess to be the defining diagnostic feature for a typological grouping of the offering tables and indeed this was the basis for Hofmann’s Style 11. As demonstrated by fig. 1, this is not really the case because the dominant idea in the design of the offering tables is the source of the libation, regardless of how it is portrayed. Therefore, as can be seen in fig. 1, offering vessels can be substituted for the gods on offering tables and that they are not the defining feature in establishing groupings. Once this is recognised, then it becomes clear that the upright oval basin is a significant feature linking many of these offering tables. The cartouche-basin and the two sources of libation (be they gods or vessels) that flank the basins are the defining features of Style 2. In looking at Style 2 offering tables, it is clear that the numbers of loaves of bread could be considered for establishing sub-groupings. For Style 3 which has a number of distinctive features, once again the gods are not the defining feature [16], in the case the consistent feature which links them to one grouping is the pylon shaped offering table with unusual brick-like loaves. This style has several variations including the arrangement of the breads and the presence of an cartouche under the pylon-shaped offering table. Of course the variations seen in Styles 2 and 3 are interesting since they can help identify offering tables from the same provenance and/or time period. In styles 2 and 3 there is a good deal of consistency in their provenance and between their provenance and appearance. These strong similarities make this typology useful for dating offering tables that fit into this style (and their contexts, if secure). Issues of re-use have to be addressed when using offering tables and their typology for dating, but some were found in situ.
Conclusions
Based on this brief summary of iconography for chronology and some suggestions for dealing with problems particular to our current state of knowledge, it should be clear that iconography and stylistic analysis can be a useful tool for chronology. Specific areas of investigation have been suggested based on Dr. Lohwasser’s concerns, in particular patterns for extended use of objects, Meroitic use of archaisms, and the circumstances under which Meroitic or Egyptian principles for representation occur. At present, typological studies using objects and images from time limited contexts are the most fruitful methodology for using iconography for dating. However, other uses of iconography and stylisation could still yield useful results if the difficulties that currently accompany such methods are taken into account.
Bibliography
Bianchi, R.S. 1991 , Graeco-Roman Uses and Abuses of Ramesside Traditions. In Fragments of a Shattered Visage: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Ramesses the Great, ed. by E. Bleiberg and R. Freed, 1-8, Memphis State University, Memphis.
Hofmann, I. 1989 , Die glasierten Säulenfragmente von M 200 (Meroe-Stadt), Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 4, 107-132.
Hofmann, I. 1991 ,Steine für die Ewigkeit. Meroitische Opfertafeln und Totenstelen, (Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 6),Vienna, Druckerei St. Gabriel.
Leclant, J., Heyler, A., Berger el-Naggar, C., Carrier, C., and Rilly, C. 2000 ,Répertoire d'Épigraphie Méroïtique. Corpus des inscriptions publiées. REM 1001 à 1278., Paris, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
Tomandl, H. 1988 , Die Ikonographie der Pyramidenkapellenreliefs von Beg N 10 als Datierungskriterium, Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 3, 96-117.
Török, L. 1987 ,The Royal Crowns of Kush. A study in Middle Nile Valley regalia and Iconogrpahy in the 1st millenium B.C. and A.D., Cambridge, UK, B. A. R.
Török, L. 1990 , The Costume of the Ruler of Meroe. Remarks on its Origin and Significance, Archaeologie du Nil Moyen 4, 151-202.
Török, L. 1997 ,Meroe City An Ancient African Capital John Garstang's Excavations in the Sudan. Part Two: Figures and Plates, London, The Egypt Exploration Society.
Trigger, B.G.C. Berger el-Naggar, G. Clerc, and N. Grimal 1994 , "The John Garstang Cylinders From Meroe in the Redpath Museum at McGill University," in Bibliothèque d'Étude, ed. by C. Berger el-Naggar, G. Clerc, and N. Grimal, 2, Cairo, IFAO 389-397.
Wenig, S. 1964 ,Untersuchungen zur Ikonographie der Darstellungen der meroitischen Königsfamilie und zu Fragen der chronologie des Reiches von Meroe, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin.
Wildung, D. 1996 ,Sudan Antike Königreich am Nil, Tübingen, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag GmbH & Co.
Yellin, J.W. 1979 , A Suggested Interpretation of the Relief Decoration in theType B Chapels at Begrawiyeh North, (Meroitica 5), 157-164.
Notes
- As Dr. Lohwasser suggests, a study of use patterns would be very helpful.
- I.e. archaising style(s) in addition to Meroitic styles may well occur simultaneously during the reigns of Amanitore and Natakamani.
- Hofmann, I., 1989, ; Török, L., 1997, 99-101, pls. 61, 62; Trigger, B. G., 1994.
- For example on a stone cinerary urn from an Etruscan tomb dating perhaps to the ?? centuries BC in Ceverteri (Caere), The dancing Pan is found on two 1st century BC vases from Lecce ( ).
- A lack of familiarity with the original source for iconography can create problems of interpretation. In the instance of this “faience cylinder,” Trigger identified one of the figures as being “Egyptian” in style because he is shown with his shoulders frontal but his legs in profile. Based on this, he suggests that the figure is Osiris. However, this pose, complete with frontal upper torso, is also found in the Etruscan and Greek pot models and owes nothing to Egyptian style.
- Bianchi, R. S., 1991.
- Yellin, J. W., 1979.
- Greco-Roman Temples such as Philae had these archives (Bianchi, op. cit., p 7) and Meroitic priests who served there may have had access to them.
- Studies such as Török, L., 1987, ; Török, L., 1990, ; Wenig, S., (1964), are invaluable starting points for this type of undertaking.
- BAR 3 is probably not the pyramid of a ruling queen, so perhaps the presence of the coat ribbons in both BEG N 6 and BAR 3 indicate that the coat ribbons are now worn by important princesses and royalty wear the tasselled cord.
- Perhaps as early as BEG N 20 (very damaged), the style of sandal definitely appears in BEG N 6, Bar 2, Bar 3, Bar 5, Bar 6, BEG N 1, N 22?, BEG W 14; Meroe, Royal Enclosure, Chapel M 292, Prince (reign of Augustus).
- Found in BEG N 17, N 32, N 26, N 51.
- The south wall of the Lion Temple form Naqa shows the queen wearing a sandal from Style 1 (Wildung, D., 1996, 269).
- Tomandl, H., 1988.
- Such as in Hofmann, I., 1991, 77-111; Leclant, J., Heyler, A., Berger el-Naggar, C., Carrier, C. and Rilly, C., 2000, 1951-1972.
- Although their activities are significant.
