PORTRAIT MUMMIES IN CONTEXT - ALEXANDRA BOENDER DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Department of Archaeology
and Ancient History
Portrait mummies in context
Alexandra Boender
MA thesis 45 credits in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History
Spring term 2021
Supervisors: Dominic Ingemark
Andreas Dorn
Abstract
Boender, A. 2021. Porträttmumier i kontext.
Boender, A. 2021. Portrait mummies in context.
The present thesis aims to expand and acquire new knowledge on the emergence of portrait
mummies during the Roman period in Egypt and their socio-religious status. The emergence
and decorative program of these mummies are commonly understood as an artistic expression
of Hellenistic Greek and Roman settlers in Egypt. This attestation is often based upon
uncontextualized isolated portraits. The study of uncontextualized isolated portraits has also
caused an unsatisfactory approach to dating criteria. In response, the present thesis aims to study
contextualized portrait mummies – with the image of the deceased still forming part of the
mummy and ideally with an attested find spot – in light of a multicultural society consisting of
Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman cultural and religious traditions.
A total of 85 portrait mummies have been collected to provide context for the expressed
cultural traditions. Seven group burials have been reconstructed based upon excavation reports
for further contextualization. The results of the collected portrait mummies and reconstructed
group burials are subsequently studied against a background of Egyptian, Hellenistic and
Roman cultural and religious traditions to highlight dominant cultural features.
The results of the present thesis illustrate portrait mummies were an expression of a
culturally complex society. The treatment of the body and decorative program suggests cultural
and religious notions were rooted within Egyptian traditions that were appropriated, re-defined
and adapted by a society comprised of Egyptians, Hellenes and Romans. Portrait mummies
consequently express multiple cultural layers. Previously established dating criteria were found
to remain to be the most valid and reliable. Contextualized portrait mummies, however, have
put forward a new dating criterion that ought to be taken into consideration: octagonal framing.
Keywords: Portrait mummy, Egypt, Hellenistic, Roman, cultural hybridization, mortuary
traditions
Master thesis in Classical history and archaeology 45 hp. Supervisors: Dominic Ingemark and
Andreas Dorn. Defended and passed 2021-06-15.
© Alexandra Boender
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126
Uppsala, SwedenContents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7
1.1. Aims and objectives ....................................................................................................... 7
1.2. The terminology of “portrait’’ ....................................................................................... 8
1.3. The mummies................................................................................................................. 9
1.3.1. Rhombic mummies ................................................................................................ 9
1.3.2. Red-shrouded mummies ........................................................................................ 9
1.3.3. Stucco mummies .................................................................................................. 10
1.3.4. Shrouded mummies ............................................................................................. 10
1.4. The emergence of portrait mummies ........................................................................... 10
1.5. The burials ................................................................................................................... 11
1.5.1. The excavation reports ......................................................................................... 11
1.5.2. Petrie’s group burials ........................................................................................... 12
1.5.3. Tomb of Aline ...................................................................................................... 12
1.5.4. Marina el-Alamein burial ..................................................................................... 12
1.6. Material and method .................................................................................................... 13
1.6.1. Acquisition history of the material ...................................................................... 13
1.6.2. Problems and limitations...................................................................................... 14
1.6.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 15
1.6.4. Terminology ......................................................................................................... 15
1.7. Previous research and the academic climate ................................................................ 16
1.7.1. Egyptological approach ....................................................................................... 16
1.7.2. Classical archaeological approach ....................................................................... 17
1.7.3. Artistic approach .................................................................................................. 17
1.7.4. Working towards a solution ................................................................................. 18
1.8. Theoretical framework ................................................................................................. 19
1.8.1. Collective memory ............................................................................................... 19
1.8.2. Cultural memory .................................................................................................. 19
1.8.3. Cultural hybridization .......................................................................................... 20
1.8.4. Religious syncretism ............................................................................................ 20
2. The people and social context ...................................................................................... 21
2.1. People of the Fayum Oasis .......................................................................................... 21
2.2. Age profile ................................................................................................................... 22
2.3. The social context of portrait mummies ...................................................................... 23
3. Wrapped for eternity .................................................................................................... 27
3.1. Egyptian treatment of the body .................................................................................... 27
3.1.1. Mummification .................................................................................................... 28
3.1.2. Three mummification treatments ......................................................................... 283.1.3. The organs and canopic jars ................................................................................. 29
3.1.4. Help for the dead .................................................................................................. 29
3.1.5. Amuletic powers .................................................................................................. 30
3.2. Treatment of portrait mummies ................................................................................... 31
3.2.1. Rhombic mummies .............................................................................................. 31
3.2.2. Red-shrouded mummies ...................................................................................... 32
3.2.3. Stucco mummies .................................................................................................. 34
3.2.4. Shrouded mummies ............................................................................................. 35
3.3. The treatment of the body in light of a multicultural society ...................................... 36
3.3.1. Egyptian traditions ............................................................................................... 36
3.3.2. Hellenistic traditions ............................................................................................ 37
3.3.3. Roman traditions .................................................................................................. 37
3.3.4. The mummified ibis bird in No. 56 ...................................................................... 38
3.3.5. The cultural traditions of portrait mummies ........................................................ 38
3.3.6. Portrait mummies and the Egyptian mummy ...................................................... 39
4. Burial of portrait mummies in context ......................................................................... 40
4.1. The ideal Egyptian burial ............................................................................................. 40
4.1.1. Burial and tomb chambers ................................................................................... 40
4.1.2. Provisions for the dead......................................................................................... 41
4.1.3. Mortuary cult ....................................................................................................... 41
4.2. Group burials of portrait mummies.............................................................................. 42
4.2.1. Changes in burial practices .................................................................................. 42
4.3. Burial of portrait mummies in context ......................................................................... 43
4.3.1. The Hellenistic burial ........................................................................................... 43
4.3.2. The Roman burial ................................................................................................ 44
4.3.3. The cultural context of the burial of portrait mummies ....................................... 44
4.4. Coexistence with other burial practices ....................................................................... 45
4.4.1. Bahariya Oasis ..................................................................................................... 45
4.4.2. Tomb 54 ............................................................................................................... 46
4.4.3. Grave goods ......................................................................................................... 46
4.4.4. Portrait versus mask ............................................................................................. 47
4.5. Portrait mummies, a representation of Roman imagines? ........................................... 48
4.5.1. Remembering the dead in ancient Rome ............................................................. 48
4.5.2. The cultural expression of portrait mummies ...................................................... 49
5. Religion ........................................................................................................................ 51
5.1. The wrappings .............................................................................................................. 51
5.1.1. Rhombic technique .............................................................................................. 51
5.1.2. The colour red ...................................................................................................... 52
5.2. Religious motifs ........................................................................................................... 53
5.2.1. Egyptian motifs .................................................................................................... 53
5.2.2. Botanical objects and garlands............................................................................. 54
5.3. Continuity and change ................................................................................................. 55
6. Chronology .................................................................................................................. 57
6.1. Relative dating methods ............................................................................................... 576.1.1. Hairstyle ............................................................................................................... 57
6.1.2. Hawara mummies ................................................................................................ 58
6.1.3. Tomb of Aline ...................................................................................................... 58
6.2. Absolute dating methods.............................................................................................. 60
6.3. Portrait and mummy .................................................................................................... 60
6.3.1. Case study on rhombic mummies ........................................................................ 61
6.3.2. Limitations of the dating method ......................................................................... 65
6.3.3. The perfect dating method ................................................................................... 65
7. Results .......................................................................................................................... 66
7.1. The socio-religious status ............................................................................................ 66
7.2. Cultural context ............................................................................................................ 67
7.3. Chronology .................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix 1: Glossary ............................................................................................................... 76
Appendix 2: Plates .................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix 3: Catalogue ............................................................................................................. 84
Front cover: Photograph by Alexandra Boender, 2016. Egyptian Museum Cairo, CG 33226.1. Introduction
The Roman period of Egypt, ca. 30 B.C.–400 A.D., exhibited a new form of mummy
decoration. Protective helmet-shaped masks associated with Pharaonic Egypt were now being
replaced by portraits painted either on a wooden board or shroud.1 The emergence of mummies
with painted portraits is often perceived as a combination of Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman
artistic traditions. Scholarship on mummies with portraits tends to explain the development
from helmet masks to painted portraits in a Hellenistic context. Hellenes settled in Egypt during
the Ptolemaic period (ca. 305–30 B.C.) and adopted and adjusted Egyptian burial habits.2 This
practice developed further under the influence of Roman artistic traditions when Egypt was
conquered by the Romans in 30 B.C.3
The cultural complexity of Roman Egypt and the emergence of mummies with portraits
have proven difficult to understand. As rightfully pointed out by Christina Riggs, the mixture
of artistic traditions noted in mummies with portraits were based on very different cultural,
artistic and religious traditions. Therefore, each of these assumptions and alterations to the
mummy served a different function and objective.4 Past research on mummies with portraits
has often concentrated on one cultural aspect to understand the emergence and function of the
portrait. This, however, is not satisfactory. Each independent project provided only limited
results based on the physical elements of mummies with a portrait. The entire potential of
understanding portrait mummies has consequently not been reached. A new study
concentrating on all cultural aspects, that is, Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman, is thus needed.
The present thesis, therefore, aims to obtain new data on mummies with portraits through an
all-encompassing study of the three cultural traditions the mummies express.
1.1. Aims and objectives
The research aim of this thesis is three-fold. The first objective is to evaluate the socio-religious
status of mummies with a portrait. This includes a survey of underlying factors in the process
from masks to painted wooden panels or shrouds and the religious implications this may have
had in an Egyptian context. This objective includes three main points in need of further
assessment:
• The treatment of the body
• Burial practices
• Decorative program
1
Ikram 1998, 29; Taylor 2001, 60.
2
Edgar 1905a, 2–3. A note, however, ought to be made on the Greek settlement of Naucratis. It was the first
permanent Greek settlement in Egypt between the seventh and fifth centuries B.C. A cultural crossroad between
Egyptian and Greek traditions may thus have been established as early as the seventh century B.C. (Boardman
1980, 118–132). No portrait mummies, however, have been uncovered at Naucratis. This suggests a new form of
settling and adaptation to Egyptian cultural traditions took place during the Ptolemaic period.
3
Petrie 2013 [1911a], 6–7.
4
Riggs 2005, 6.
7The socio-religious status of mummies with a portrait can be further understood through the
question of whom these were commissioned for. Were they, for example, on view for the
family of the deceased to remember the dead or were portraits added for the benefit of the
deceased?
The second objective, which closely relates to the first objective, is to examine the cultural
context of mummies with a portrait. The intent is to understand Egyptian, Hellenistic and
Roman mortuary traditions and if/how they are expressed in these mummies. Through this
contextualization of mummies with a portrait an understanding of the cultural context of this
form of decoration may emerge. This assessment may also highlight to what degree the
mummies illustrate continued notions of the Egyptian afterlife and if they display alterations
after exposure to Hellenistic and Roman traditions.
The third objective is to assess the generally accepted chronology and dating criteria based
upon physical features of the portraits.5 The mummies are commonly dated through a relative
dating method with little regard to the entire context of mummy and burial circumstances. This
is not satisfactory and problematic. This thesis, therefore, aims to assess the previously
established dating criteria and their applicability to contextualized mummies with a portrait.
1.2. The terminology of “portrait’’
The mummies assessed in this study are always classified as mummies decorated with a portrait
by scholarship on the topic. The term “portrait’’, however, is not entirely satisfactory as it bears
the modern connotation of the physical likeness of an individual. Further clarification is
therefore necessary.
The discussion surrounding the degree to which human representations should and can be
considered a portrait is not new to Egyptology. Dows Dunham rightfully raised this issue in
1943 already. Dunham argued human representations were not created to remember what
someone once looked like. Instead, they served as an artificial shell to embody the spirit of the
deceased.6 This, however, juxtaposes the desire to preserve one’s identity through portraiture
according to the mortuary culture of ancient Egypt. Dimitri Laboury has consequently argued
portraiture requires an assessment in the context of ancient Egyptian art and thought.7
The same principle applies to the study of mummies with a portrait. It is essential to not
view the human representations on these mummies as a “portrait’’ but to examine them in the
context of ancient Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman artistic culture and thought. This, however,
questions the suitability of the commonly used term “portrait mummies’’. This designation
came to be established in 1889 by William M. Flinders Petrie and has subsequently been used
by scholars.8 The term portrait mummy will, therefore, be used in the present thesis, despite its
problematic connotations. The term portrait mummy is so firmly established within scholarship
on the topic that other designations only will provide confusion.
The problematic connotations of “portrait’’ also apply to the commonly used umbrella
term “Fayum portrait’’.9 The problem of this designation is two-fold. Firstly, “Fayum portrait’’
refers to a geographical location. Secondly, as already pointed out by Lorelei Corcoran, it refers
to a disassociated object from the original context of the mummy.10 Although the vast majority
of portrait mummies have been uncovered in the Fayum Oasis, Fig. 1 illustrates portrait
5
The hairstyle of the individuals represented in the portraits is most commonly applied as a means of dating as
they are found to reflect the hairstyles from Imperial Rome (Graul 1888).
6
Dunham 1943, 68.
7
Laboury 2010, 3.
8
Petrie 1889, 15.
9
See for example Doxiadis 1995, Freccero 2000 & Geoffroy-Schneiter 1998 for the usage of the term “Fayum
portrait’’.
10
Corcoran 1995, 35.
8mummies have been recovered from sites across Egypt and are not exclusive to one
geographical area. The designation “Fayum portrait’’ is therefore problematic and not suitable.
The related term “mummy portrait’’, on the other hand, associates itself with the original
context of the mummy.11 Using this term, however, alongside portrait mummy will only cause
complications. In this thesis, therefore, human representations detached from the mummy will
be referred to as isolated portraits.
1.3. The mummies
The mummies assessed in this study are identified as complete mummies with a portrait still
attached or mummies that have been recorded prior to the removal of the portrait. Portrait
mummies are generally divided into three different categories: rhombic, red-shrouded, and
stucco mummies, a division based on recorded complete mummies.12 I would, however,
suggest that a fourth category should be taken into consideration as they are different in
execution than the previously accepted three categories: shrouded mummies. The four
categories comprise the corpus of this paper and will be discussed below.
1.3.1. Rhombic mummies
Rhombic mummies (Nos. 1–38, Fig. 2/A) are the most common form of wrapping that have
survived until the present day. These mummies are identified by the multiple layers of
bandaging arranged in a manner that creates a rhombic or diamond-shaped pattern across the
entire body field of the mummy. The centre of a rhomboid was occasionally embellished with
a gilded button. Other forms of decoration of the body field include horizontally placed
cartonnage strips with inlaid gems, either real or handmade copies created from a type of paste,
and painted cartonnage foot cases. The portrait either is painted on wooden panels or linen
shrouds of which the former is the most common in the surviving corpus of rhombic mummies.
In both instances, the portrait was placed over the head and bound into the wrappings.13 The
rhombic wrapping technique was not exclusive to portrait mummies as mummies decorated
with cartonnage masks also display this technique.14
1.3.2. Red-shrouded mummies
Red-shrouded mummies (Nos. 39–64, Fig. 2/B) are easily identified by the red colour that
covers the entire body field of the mummy. The mummies were first wrapped in bandages
followed by the addition of a plain shroud to create the outer casing. The shroud was then
treated with stucco, painted red and decorated with mythological and funerary scenes, often in
horizontal registers and occasionally gilded. Some mummies were further decorated with a
cartonnage foot case. It was more common, however, for the feet to be painted directly onto
the red shroud.15 The corpus of surviving red-shrouded mummies suggests it was common to
paint the portrait on a wooden panel that was bound into the wrappings of the mummy similarly
to rhombic mummies.
11
See Borg 1996, Drerup 1933, Ewigleben & Parlasca 2000 and Möller 1966 for the usage of the term
“mummy portrait’’.
12
Corcoran 1995, 7–8; Corcoran & Svoboda 2010, 11–12.
13
Corcoran 1995, 7.
14
Hawass 2000.
15
Corcoran 1995, 7. See for example red-shrouded mummies Nos. 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 56, & 57.
91.3.3. Stucco mummies
Stucco mummies (Nos. 65–84, Fig. 2/C) are similar in execution to red-shrouded mummies in
terms of the outer casing being treated with stucco. However, they are differentiated by the
final treatment of the outer layer. The surviving corpus of stuccoed mummies illustrates a
variety of treatments for the outer decorations. Certain mummies were entirely gilded,
embellished with gems and decorated with mythological and mortuary scenes in raised relief
in horizontal registers. The portraits of these mummies were painted on a wooden panel and
bound into the wrappings of the mummy as is suggested by the surviving corpus.
Another type of treatment represented in the corpus is the addition of a stuccoed shroud
covering the entire body field of the mummy with the portrait painted directly on it. The legs
were commonly covered with a stuccoed apron of small squares in raised relief to create a grid
pattern. The squares were occasionally decorated with small mythical figures.16
1.3.4. Shrouded mummies
Shrouded mummies (No. 85, Fig. 2/D) are often included within the corpus of stuccoed
mummies.17 They are, however, not treated with stucco and should thus be considered as a
separate category, even though they are underrepresented in the entire corpus of surviving
portrait mummies. Shrouded mummies are identified by a painted shroud that contains the
portrait and the entire body of an individual in which the mummy is enveloped.
1.4. The emergence of portrait mummies
The artistic traditions portrait mummies display are often referred to as Greek by scholarship
on the topic. Campbell Cowan Edgar, for example, comprised an entire catalogue of mummy
masks, isolated portraits and portrait mummies based on prominent Greek features.18 The
question to be raised here is when these Greek features started to occur and how portrait
mummies, dated to the Roman period, fit within this context. The aim of this sub-chapter,
therefore, is to briefly outline the historical background of the development from mummy
masks to portraits to provide a historical context for portrait mummies.
In Pharaonic Egypt, from the end of the Old Kingdom onwards (ca. 2181 B.C.) the head
of the deceased was protected by a mummy mask that fitted over the head like a helmet.19 This
practice witnessed a change after Egypt became a Hellenistic state under the rule of the
Ptolemies. Native Egyptian religious, mortuary and artistic traditions continued to be practised.
As time progressed, and more Hellenes migrated to Egypt, cultural traditions started to blend.
The helmet-shaped mummy masks began to be replaced by cartonnage masks painted with life-
like human representations and Egyptian mortuary iconography (Fig. 3/C).20
In 30 B.C. Egypt was established as a Roman province and modifications to cartonnage
mummy masks continued amongst the Hellenistic community. Alongside the cartonnage
masks a new tradition developed, a two-dimensional painted portrait which came to be
associated with Roman Egypt. It is assumed that the earliest portraits date approximately to 50
A.D.21 Scholarship tends to attribute the emergence of portrait mummies to Hellenes from
mainland Greece settling in Egypt during the Ptolemaic period.22 This, however, is not a
satisfactory explanation. The terminology of “settlers’ implies each alteration was made by a
new group of Hellenistic settlers over a length of time. However, cultural distinctions between
16
Corcoran 1995, 7–8.
17
Corcoran 1995, 12.
18
Edgar 1905a, 1.
19
Ikram 1998, 29; Taylor 2001, 60.
20
Ikram 1998, 187.
21
Corbelli 2006, 53–62. See for example rhombic mummies Nos. 1 & 2.
22
Corcoran 1995, 35; Walker 1997a, 5.
10the Hellenistic Greeks and native Egyptians blurred over time. This is evidenced by the
historical background and development of portrait mummies that indicate generations of
interpretations and adaptations to the mummy mask. Similarly, portrait mummies did not
suddenly emerge after Egypt became a Roman province. It took several generations within the
community to develop this new form of mortuary object. I would, therefore, propose to deter
from the terminology “settlers’’ and use Hellenistic community instead as it is found to better
encompass the cultural complexity portrait mummies display.
1.5. The burials
Portrait mummies did not exist in the artistic vacuum often attributed to portrait mummies and
isolated portraits alike, they were a part of mortuary practices of the Roman period in Egypt.
As with any culture, the body had to be disposed of after death. The following sub-chapter
outlines the burial circumstances of portrait mummies to place them in a funerary context.
1.5.1. The excavation reports
Excavation reports recording the burial context of portrait mummies are scarce. Only Petrie’s
reports from his excavations at Hawara 1888–89 and 1911 provide some general descriptions
of the burial of portrait mummies which suggest they were commonly buried in groups.23 Petrie
lists ten group burials in total from both seasons at Hawara. Six of these burials could be
reconstructed to some degree.24 This is largely due to the fact data that can be derived from
Petrie’s excavation reports is highly limited owing to the burials and their contents being poorly
recorded. For example, only the types of mummies found within each burial are listed by Petrie
using poorly defined terminology. The mummies are categorized according to facial
decorations which Petrie defines as “plain’’, “wedge face’’, “gilt’’ and “portrait’’.25 Although
gilt and portrait mummies are quite straightforward, it is unclear what Petrie defined as a plain
or wedge-faced mummy. The reconstructed burials proposed in this thesis are, therefore,
subject to inaccurate interpretations.
The inadequate reports of Petrie’s excavations at Hawara are problematic as they contain
the greatest number of portrait mummies that have been systematically excavated and
subsequently published.26 The contexts of the reconstructed burials will consequently remain
ambiguous. However, the few burials that could be reconstructed contain valuable data to
understand the burial context. It is, therefore, essential to assess these burials.
Petrie’s data, fortunately, can be complemented by two additional group burials. The first
burial, also located at Hawara, is the so-called tomb of Aline, excavated in 1892. Although no
excavation reports are published, much of the data on the context has survived into the present
day.27 The second group burials were uncovered in 1991 at the cemetery of Marina El-
Alamein.28 This burial in particular is an interesting case as it is the only recorded example
near Alexandria which can provide insight into burial practices outside the Fayum Oasis.
23
Petrie 1889, 8–21.
24
This is a very small number in relation to the total number of 1004 published portrait mummies and isolated
portraits. These burials are, however, the best documented considering the acquisition history (see 1.6.1.) and are,
therefore, a valuable source of information to gaining and understanding of the burial context.
25
Petrie 2013 [1911a], 4.
26
The exact number is unclear. Petrie Museum at London houses at least 53 portrait fragments that are published
in Picton, Quirke & Roberts 2007. In the catalogue of the present thesis fifteen portrait mummies have been
recorded to have been excavated by Petrie (Nos 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 41, 42 & 44).
27
Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 1993.
28
Daszewski 1992.
111.5.2. Petrie’s group burials
Six group burials in total could be reconstructed from Petrie’s excavations at Hawara (Plates
I–VI). The burials on average contained four to five mummies. Two to three mummies were
decorated with a portrait or a gilded mask. More common, however, were what Petrie defined
as plain mummies. Petrie noted that several mummies illustrated evidence of portrait removal
before being buried and suggests these portraits were kept at home to remember the deceased.
He based this assumption on the findings of a framed badly preserved portrait from one of the
burials (Fig. 4).29 He also noted several mummies were possibly damaged before burial. Petrie
attributed this damage to his belief portrait mummies were kept at home for an extended period,
similar to the tradition of Roman imagines.30
All group burials were discovered in subterranean shallow pits either dug into the open
ground or in the mass of rock chips that covered the tomb wells.31
Petrie beliefs shallow pits are some of the earlier models of portrait mummy burials. He
noted that towards the end of the second century and onwards it became more frequent with
pits dug into tomb floors of chambers.32 The lack of superstructure or other grave markers to
mark the burials is common to all types of burials.33 The proposed chronology of the burials
by Petrie, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained. The burials are only described in a broad sense
but not for each group burial. Owing to this, a particular type of burial cannot be matched to a
type of mummy.
1.5.3. Tomb of Aline
The tomb of Aline consists of eight mummies found lying on top of each other. One adult
female, possibly named Aline based on an inscription found in association with the mummy,
with a portrait painted on linen, one adult male decorated with a cartonnage gilded mask, two
children with portraits painted on linen (rhombic mummies Nos. 1 & 2), and one child with a
cartonnage mask of which the face is gilded (Pl. VII).34 An additional three undecorated
mummies were uncovered which have not been documented. The tomb of Aline is a unique
case as it is one of the few for which grave goods and the approximate discovery contexts of
the mummies have survived until the present day. However, excavated by R.V. Kaufmann in
1892, no excavation report is available which would have been essential to understanding the
tomb and its context on a more reliable level. This assessment is therefore based purely on
what later authors have written.35
The mummies were discovered in a pit lined with mudbrick. The adult woman and the two
children with painted portraits (rhombic mummies Nos. 1 & 2) lay at the bottom with the
mummies with a cartonnage mask on top.36
1.5.4. Marina el-Alamein burial
Polish excavations in 1991 at Marina el-Alamein yielded two burials containing portrait
mummies. Both burials were discovered in a monumental tomb complex with an aboveground
vault. A stairway led to an underground complex consisting of a funerary chamber with an altar
and rock-cut benches. Two burial chambers were discovered about halfway down from the
stairways.37
29
Petrie 1889, 10; Petrie 2013 [1911a], 7–8.
30
Petrie 1889, 16; Petrie 2013 [1911a], 6.
31
Petrie 1889, 20.
32
Petrie 1889, 20.
33
Petrie 2013 [1911a], 2.
34
Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 1993, 186.
35
Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 1993, 186.
36
Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 1993, 186–88.
37
Daszewski 1992, 33.
12The first chamber, located to the east of the stairway, contained the burials of eleven
individuals. Two of the mummies were bandaged and adorned with portraits. Due to the
humidity in the chamber, these portraits were destroyed.38 Photographs (Fig. 5), although poor
in quality, suggest the mummies were of the rhombic type. Wiktor Daszewski suggests the
mummies interred in the eastern chamber belonged to several generations and did not appear
to all have been placed there during the same occasion.39
The second chamber, located to the west of the stairway, contained four burials, three
belonging to adults and one to a child. All four mummies were decorated with a badly preserved
portrait. Gilding on the outer surface of the wrappings was preserved on one mummy.40 The
three adult mummies were placed furthest in the chamber and the child was closest to the
entrance.41 The order in which the mummies were found suggests the adults were buried first
and the child last. It is difficult to ascertain, however, if they were all buried at the same time
or on different occasions. Daszewski believes the individuals were likely buried all at the same
time. He does raise the problem of this interpretation and the unlikeliness of all four having
died at the same time. Daszewski, therefore, supports Petrie’s earlier interpretation of portrait
mummies being kept above ground for an extended period before internment. It is also
suggested the chambers above ground may have served for this purpose.42
1.6. Material and method
This sub-chapter outlines the acquisition history of the material and its direct influence on the
accessible material used in the present thesis. This is followed by a discussion on the problems
and limitations caused by the acquisition history and other factors that limit the information
that can be obtained from the material. The subsequent sub-chapter outlines how the accessible
material is used, and the methodologies applied in this thesis. Finally, the common terminology
used in this thesis is clarified.
1.6.1. Acquisition history of the material
The first to describe and bring portrait mummies to Europe was Italian explorer Pietro Della
Valle in 1615 (stucco mummies Nos. 75 & 76). The two mummies were acquired by Della
Valle after locals supposedly found them in rock-cut tombs in Saqqara and were subsequently
published in his 1674 travelogue (printed 1950).43 It was not until the 19th century, however,
that the interest in portrait mummies became widespread, predominantly amongst art dealers.
They viewed the portrait mummies not as ancient artefacts but as ancient works of art.
Consequently, portraits were removed from their mummy and sold as art pieces.44 Most notably
art dealer Theodor von Graf acquired large numbers of the isolated portraits during his travels
through Egypt between 1887–89. These portraits were promoted to the public with the aid of
Egyptologist Georg Ebers in 1893.45 A comprehensive sale catalogue of the Graf collection
was compiled and published by Paul Buberl in 1922.46 It is worth noting that out of the fifty-
one portraits published in this collection, only one portrait is still in its mummy.47
Unfortunately, the provenance for any of the isolated portraits is not stated by Buberl. The
38
Daszewski 1992, 33–34.
39
Daszewski 1997, 64, pl. 28/2.
40
Daszewski 1992, 33–34, fig. 3.
41
Daszewski 1997, 63.
42
Daszewski 1997, 64.
43
Borg 1995, 5–7; Della Valle 1950 [1674], 198; Zesch et al. 2020.
44
Borg 1995, 13; Shore 1972, 10.
45
Ebers 1893, 3; Parlasca 1966, 24.
46
Buberl 1922.
47
Buberl 1922, nr. 94.
13isolated portraits present in the Graf collection are generally described as coming from er-
Rubayyat or to the east of the Fayum oasis.48
The first extensive archaeological excavations of portrait mummies were carried out by
Petrie in 1888–89 at Hawara.49 Petrie returned in 1911 during which more portrait mummies
were discovered.50 Mummies in good condition were kept intact by Petrie while those
considered too rotten were discarded after removing the portrait.51 Aside from Petrie’s work at
Hawara, other excavations also yielded portrait mummies. Papyrologists Bernard Grenfell and
Arthur Hunt discovered some portrait mummies between 1899–1900 in Tebtunis, and in 1901
at er-Rubayyat and el-Hibeh.52 Albert Gayert excavated the cemetery at Antinoopolis in 1897
which yielded a vast amount of portrait mummies which today are largely still intact. Since the
heyday of discoveries of portrait mummies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, no more
discoveries have been made except for at Marina al-Alamein in 1991.53
1.6.2. Problems and limitations
The acquisition history of portrait mummies directly affects the material available today and
the data which can be obtained. There are four general overarching limitations and problems
to the study of portrait mummies and isolated portraits alike, and some that are limiting to the
present thesis only. Firstly, the overarching limitations are comprised by the degree to which
early art collectors preferred to remove the portrait from its mummy. Consequently, the entire
corpus of portrait mummies and isolated portraits is dominated by isolated portraits. This
becomes particularly visible in the four-piece series Ritratti di Mummie by Klaus Parlasca in
which all portrait mummies and isolated portraits identified across the world are published.54
In total 1008 portrait mummies and isolated portraits are published of which approximately
eighty still are complete.
A second problem and limitation as a direct result of the 19th-century art dealers collecting
isolated portraits is a lack of provenance for many of the isolated portraits.55 In the case of
Graf’s collection, for example, only approximate finding locations are known but no exact site
or context in which the portrait mummies were discovered. In addition, it is difficult to ascertain
if these isolated portraits indeed came from the sites stated by Ebers as there are no records of
their discovery. Morris L. Bierbrier suggests the discoveries by Grenfell and Hunt confirm the
location of some of the discoveries made by Graf. He does not, however, provide any evidence
for this suggestion.56
The third limitation is caused by the lack of archaeological context of the isolated portraits.
Not only are isolated portraits themselves disassociated from their original context of the
mummy, but little is known about the burial circumstances. In some cases, as with the
mummies acquired by Della Valle, some degree of context is stated in the form of what type
of burial the mummies were discovered in. This, however, is not enough data to understand the
funerary practices regarding portrait mummies.
The last problem and limitation worth noting is the challenge of assigning a chronological
order to isolated portraits because dating criteria can be based on physical features only. This
48
Ebers 1893, 4–7.
49
Petrie 1889.
50
Petrie 2013 [1911a].
51
Petrie 1911b, 20.
52
Grenfell & Hunt 1902, 2–5; Grenfell & Hunt 1903, 1.
53
Bierbrier1997b, 24.
54
Parlasca 1969; Parlasca 1977; Parlasca 1980; Parlasca 2003.
55
It must be noted the provenance is not known for all portrait mummies either. 21/85 mummies in the catalogue
of the present thesis lack a secure provenance. How this number relates to the total number of isolated portraits
without a known provenance is beyond the scope of this thesis.
56
Bierbrier 1997b, 24.
14limitation directly affects the general chronology assigned to portrait mummies and isolated
portraits alike.57
The above-mentioned problems and limitations also apply to the present thesis. The
general problems and limitations in the scholarship on portrait mummies indicate the need for
re-contextualization. Although the total number of portrait mummies is small in comparison to
isolated portraits, it is here that the answers to the research questions of this thesis can be found.
The material that is at my disposal can contribute to reconstructing the context of portrait
mummies, but it is the interpretation that will be difficult owing to the acquisition history and
lack of data.
1.6.3. Methodology
The methodological approach to this thesis was based on the aim of systematically describing
the characteristics of portrait mummies. These characteristics include the physical appearance
of portrait mummies, the post-mortem treatment of the body and the burial circumstances.
Qualitative data was needed to highlight the three characteristics described above. The
qualitative data was comprised of secondary data.
The corpus of portrait mummies of the present theses was largely collected through the
four-piece series Ritratti di Mummie by Parlasca in which all known portrait mummies and
isolated portraits across the world are published, accompanied by a photograph and
description.58 Portrait mummies were selected based upon their completeness, that is,
mummies decorated with a portrait, either in the form of a painted wooden panel or a shroud.
For some examples, only the upper section is photographed or is it the only section to have
survived. Although these mummies are not recorded in their complete form, they have been
included in the corpus of this thesis because the portraits can be affixed to a mummy context
and are, therefore, not isolated portraits. Published museum catalogues were used in addition
to Parlasca.59
The collected data was subsequently divided into four categories based on previous
assessments (see 1.3. The mummies). In this thesis, the four categories of portrait mummies
are further divided into sub-categories based upon provenance and proposed dating. This was
done to highlight local differences and chronological factors based upon physical features.
Furthermore, the four different main categories and sub-categories have, to some degree,
contributed to data on the burial practices as several portrait mummies could be attributed to
the same group burial. Through this an understanding of how the different types of mummies
related to each other, both physically and chronologically, could be created.
This methodological approach was, therefore, found to be most suitable to contextualize,
to obtain data on the socio-religious status and to assess chronological factors of portrait
mummies.
1.6.4. Terminology
The mixture of cultures and artistic traditions the portrait mummies display requires a
definition of the terms that will be used frequently throughout this thesis to describe particular
traditions. This is essential in being able to assign artistic traditions and religious notions to a
certain cultural group and to understand the function and objective of each. The three terms
that require further clarification are Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman.
In this thesis, the term Egyptian is defined as cultural expressions and religious notions
that are associated with Pharaonic Egypt from the Early Dynastic Period to the Late Period, ca.
57
Drerup, H. 1933. Datierung der Mumienporträts, Paderborn (work unavailable).
58
Parlasca 1969; Parlasca 1977; Parlasca 1980; Parlasca 2003.
59
Aubert et al. 2008; Walker & Bierbrier 1997.
153400 B.C. to 332 B.C.60 The term Egyptian is consequently used to refer to cultural expressions
and religious notions that find their roots within native ancient Egyptian beliefs.
The common term used to refer to the artistic traditions of portrait mummies is Greek. This
term, however, is found to be too broad as it encompasses Classical and Hellenistic traditions
and occasionally even Roman imperial art.61 To avoid confusing the reader, the term
Hellenistic is preferred. In this thesis Hellenistic refers to mainland Greece and the associated
cultural traditions during the Hellenistic period (ca. 323–30 B.C.). This term also coincides
better with the preceding Ptolemaic period during which Hellenes migrated to Egypt, bringing
their cultural expressions and religious notions to the country.
Lastly, Roman is associated with Roman imperial cultural expressions and religious
notions. Similarly, to the term Hellenistic, this is the most suitable as Egypt was a province of
Imperial Rome during this period.62
1.7. Previous research and the academic climate
Corcoran rightly pointed out, who referred to the research surrounding portrait mummies as
“the academic climate,’’63 previous research has been problematic owing to the cultural mix of
the Roman Period. On the one hand, the mummies and in particular the portraits, are
reminiscent of Hellenistic and Roman artistic traditions that often receive the attention of
Classical scholars.64 To Egyptologists, on the other hand, the mummies are not Egyptian
enough resulting in a lack of attention from the Egyptological discipline.65 In addition, the great
artistic skills the portraits often display have attracted modern artists and conservators to the
subject as well.66 To understand the previous research, and what Corcoran refers to as the
academic climate, is it helpful to place the three different scholarly approaches and the
affiliated scholars into three different categories: Egyptological approach, Classical
archaeological approach and artistic approach. Although the academic climate is a suitable
term to describe previous research surrounding portrait mummies, it is only suitable when all
three approaches are well defined and assessed to illustrate the strengths, weaknesses and gaps
in all three disciplines. The three approaches, therefore, are defined and assessed below to
illustrate which discipline is predominantly attracted to the subject and the consequences this
has on understanding the manifestation of wooden panel paintings during the Roman period in
Egypt.
1.7.1. Egyptological approach
In this thesis the Egyptological approach is defined by methodologies that are rooted in the
discipline of Egyptology, that is, the emphasis is placed on religious, cultural and artistic
aspects of portrait mummies and isolated portraits alike. The scholars studying portrait
mummies using an Egyptological approach have a background within this discipline. There
only is one scholar to have studied portrait mummies and isolated portraits from an
Egyptological perspective.
Corcoran, an Egyptologist presently working as Professor in Egyptian Art and
Archaeology at the University of Memphis,67 highlighted the problem of the portrait mummies
and isolated portrait not entirely fitting within a particular discipline and the lack of
60
Gardiner 1964, 430–53.
61
Riggs 2005, 6.
62
Peacock 2003, 414.
63
Corcoran 1995, 1–2.
64
Parlasca 1966; Borg 1995.
65
Corcoran 1995.
66
Freccero 2000.
67
https://www.memphis.edu/art/people/lcorcoran.php (retrieved 11/03/2021).
16significance placed on the Roman period by the Egyptological discipline.68 Consequently,
Corcoran approached the portrait mummies with an Egyptological approach in her 1995
dissertation to shed light on the gaps often missed by Classical scholars, artists and
conservators. Furthermore, she also criticized these disciplines for often concentrating on
isolated portraits only.69
Corcoran’s study illustrates approaching the portrait mummies with an Egyptological
perspective highlights the Egyptian features often associated with Pharaonic Egypt.70 This
approach, however, is weakened by the lack of inclusion of Hellenistic and Roman elements.
Consequently, the portrait mummies cannot be properly contextualized which is necessary to
understand them.
1.7.2. Classical archaeological approach
This thesis defines the Classical archaeological approach as a methodology based on the study
of ancient Greek and Roman art. Scholars applying this approach commonly have a
background in Classical archaeology and art history. Two Classical scholars and art historians
have studied portrait mummies and isolated portraits using this approach.
The most prominent Classical scholar and art-historian to have studied portrait mummies
and isolated portraits is Parlasca. Between 1966 and 2003 he published several studies on
portrait mummies and isolated portraits, including the previously discussed four-piece series.71
The portrait mummies and isolated portraits are mostly approached from a Classical
archaeological and art-historical perspective.72 Only one study on the emergence of the practice
of portrait mummies by Parlasca incorporates Egyptological perspectives through the
assessment of Egyptian iconography on a selection of isolated mummy shrouds.73
The second scholar, Barbara Borg, published two studies on portrait mummies and isolated
portraits.74 In both publications, Borg emphasizes the importance of a cultural context and the
dissociation of isolated portraits from their context of the mummy.75 Borg attempts, and quite
well, to contextualize portrait mummies and isolated portraits by applying an Egyptological
approach through the assessment of the associated iconography with Pharaonic Egypt.76 She
also includes some types of burials portrait mummies have been discovered in.77
Parlasca and Borg both display the Classical archaeological approach is conscious of
several of the issues encountered in the study of portrait mummies. They both include, to some
degree, Egyptian elements to provide context. However, both scholars still exhibit a preference
towards isolated portraits and the artistic skills they display, that is, where Hellenistic and
Roman traditions are most prominent. As a result, they do not provide adequate
contextualization. Nevertheless, a strong contributing factor the Classical archaeological
approach provides is an insight into the Hellenistic Greek and Roman elements of portrait
mummies and isolated portraits.
1.7.3. Artistic approach
The artistic approach is defined by a methodology that is preoccupied with technique, artistic
skills and quality of the portrait, often in combination with art history. There is one scholar to
68
Corcoran 1995, 1.
69
Corcoran 1995, 3.
70
Corcoran 1995, 13–14.
71
Parlasca 1969; Parlasca 1977; Parlasca 1980; Parlasca 2003.
72
Parlasca 1966.
73
Parlasca 1966, 152–92.
74
https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/classics/staff/borg/ (retrieved 12/03/2021); Borg 1996. Mumienporträts:
Chronologie und kultureller Kontext, Mainz (work unavailable).
75
Borg 1996; Borg 1998, 61.
76
Borg 1998, 61–85.
77
Borg 1998, 13.
17have studied isolated portraits using this technique. In her 2000 dissertation, Agneta Freccero
studied twenty-seven isolated portraits present in the National Museum in Stockholm to
investigate the materials used during the production and the techniques used. The portraits were
studied in an isolated context of artistic craftmanship. However, Freccero placed the portraits
in a broader cultural context taking Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman traditions into
consideration.78 The results indicate the encaustic technique, pigments mixed with melted
beeswax, was most commonly applied.79
The recently published APPEAR project aimed to understand the same objectives as
Freccero, namely, to understand the manufacture of the isolated portrait.80 In contrast, however,
focus was placed upon the artists behind the portraits, choice of material, development of tools
and mastered techniques. The subject, isolated portraits, were all examined in an isolated
context of artistic craftmanship.81
Although Freccero successfully placed the isolated portraits in a cultural context, the
APPEAR project illustrated that this is not necessarily required. The studies equally
demonstrated that the approach was strengthened by solely focusing on technique which
contributed tremendously to the understanding of manufacture and choice of material.
Consequently, this approach is strong in shedding light on what Egyptologists and Classical
archaeologists often lack knowledge of: painting techniques. However, similarly to the
Classical approach, this approach concerns mostly isolated portraits. One may argue painting
techniques can only be understood from the actual painting, which may be true, but
understanding painting techniques applied to the entire mummy would contribute significantly
to contextualization.
1.7.4. Working towards a solution
The three different approaches often applied to the study of portrait mummies and isolated
portraits each display strengths and weaknesses. The overarching weakness for all is a personal
bias based upon each scholar’s expertise. This has caused gaps through which important data
can fall. A second weakness manifested in all approaches is an emphasis on the physical
elements. Although portraits in their mummy are associated with a context, burial contexts are
overlooked and too often ignored. Aside from contributing to contextualization, assessing the
burial contexts of portrait mummies will also contribute to establishing chronological criteria
based on factors other than physical features. The question, then, is how the study of portrait
mummies can, and should, be approached to avoid data loss. Although admittedly difficult, I
propose several solutions: quality over quantity: inclusion and awareness.
Firstly, quality over quantity: it may be noted in the Classical archaeological and artistic
approach that quantity is favoured over quality. That is, isolated portraits receive more attention
because, in relation to portrait mummies, the corpus is much larger. However, quantity does
not equal quality. Although the entire corpus of portrait mummies is much smaller, more data
can be obtained about the socio-religious status of portrait mummies, context and chronology.
Secondly, inclusion: the assessment of the three approaches illustrated a tendency towards
the exclusion of another approach. Naturally, each scholar has their expertise, but this should
not mean one can only focus on that aspect, especially when dealing with a topic as culturally
complex as portrait mummies. Instead, it is essential to aim to include all three approaches. By
doing so, the chances of a data loss will diminish considerably.
Thirdly, awareness: admittedly, the inclusion of all approaches is difficult. Consequently,
it becomes even more important for any scholar with the endeavour to study the subject of
portrait mummies and isolated portraits to be aware of any potential pitfalls caused by the
multicultural elements they display.
78
Freccero 2000, 11–19.
79
Freccero 2000, 106–07.
80
Ancient Panel Painting: Examination, Analysis and Research (APPEAR).
81
Svoboda & Cartwright 2020.
18You can also read
