6449-8874-1-PB

7/28/2019 6449-8874-1-PB

1/7

Cultural Interaction and Funerary Art in Graeco-

Roman Egypt.

By: Kelly-Anne Pike*

*Kelly-Anne Pike is a 3rd Year Undergraduate Student Studying Archaeology at the University of Toronto.

Abstract

This paper expands upon the idea that funerary art and architecture in Graeco-Roman

Egypt were creations of the cultural syncretism experienced by the Egyptian and non-

Egyptian peoples through religion, myth, and beliefs in the afterlife. Although differences

in socio-economic status and traditions existed in this period due to the division of the

different ethnic groups, funerary motifs show all groups shared with each other the beliefthat the dead were sacred. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to prove that although

ethnic groups are by no means unified in their approach to everyday political, social, or

educational matters, death binds them together, allowing for interaction in the funerary

sphere. The examination of various material artifacts (coffins, masks, wooden portraits

etc.) and combinations of different architectural styles, along with depictions of gods and

goddesses used for mortuary rites, relay that ethnic boundaries were put aside in order to

honour and protect the dead.

Society in Egypt during the Ptolemaic and Early Roman Periods wasmade up of many different ethnic groups who each had their own traditions,institutions, and customs. However, because of administrative and politicalagendas, the people of Egypt were not looked upon as a truly unified society, butone that was plagued by barriers related to the many distinct peoples that livedthere. Cultural integration between Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians has been atthe forefront of new studies pertaining to this ancient time. Yet some scholarsbelieve that even if such evidence were found to suggest cultural integration itwould not accurately reflect the realities of a divided population. Through thearchaeological evidence found within the funerary sphere such doubts can be putto rest, for artistic and religious motifs found in Greek, Roman, and Egyptian

burial contexts clearly showcase that cultural interaction did indeed take placebetween these cultures living in Ancient Egypt.

The first indication of funerary cultural integration between Greek,Roman, and Egyptian peoples comes to us through the wide variety of artifactsthat are directly connected to the burials of deceased persons who lived inGraeco-Roman times. It should be noted that many of these artifacts come fromthe burial places of specifically Greek individuals, who lived in predominantlyGreek populated cities in Egypt, such as Naucratis, Memphis, and Alexandria.

Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology 1: 73-79 (2009)

72 Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009.

7/28/2019 6449-8874-1-PB

2/7

According to Christina Riggs (2002), funerary art varied both stylistically andregionally. Between the 2nd century B.C. and 3rd century A.D. the funerary artbeing produced included: portraits, painted shrouds, decorated tombs, mummycases, wooden coffins, plaster masks, funerary stelae, and tomb sculptures(Riggs, 2002). Like any other material culture many of these types of funerary

artifacts went in and out of style. However, it can be said that because of themany different kinds of funerary art that existed, the choice made by thedeceased prior to their death, may reflect either personal or familial identity.

An example of a wooden coffin (Fig. 1) whose designs showcase bothEgyptian and Greek visual elements can be best described through thedocumentation of C.C. Edgar. The coffin is four-sided with a flat lid, and housedthe mummified remains of two individuals, one who was a young adult and theother a small child (Edgar, 1905). Winding around the sides of the coffin are threepatterned bands, one of which looks like afloral design. Jewels, of different sizesand colours, are located within the patterning of these bands as well as elsewhereon the coffin. Edgar (1905) describes the two painted panels found at the head

and foot of the coffin as showing clear Egyptian influence. The head of the coffindepicts a human figure kneeling between two large birds who both lift one oftheir wings and lower the other. The foot of the coffin shows the Egyptian godAnubis, protector of the dead and mummification rites, wearing a wig andloincloth and holding a cup in his right hand. He is possibly standing in front ofa small shrine, perhaps dedicated to the god of the Egyptian underworld, Osiris.These paintings, while emulating Egyptian relief painting techniques, look to bethe likely handiwork of local Greek craftsmen (Edgar, 1905), but usingEgyptian mortuary practices, and accompanying this with highly decoratedfunerary art, may itself signal that the people thus memorialized wereparticularly involved with native cults and temples (Riggs, 2002, p.106). This

indicates the growing respect Greek, and later the Romans, had for nativeEgyptian religious beliefs.

A second example of an artifact type commonly used in the earlyPtolemaic Period, known as a Medusa Mask (Fig. 2), may have been placed overthe face of a mummified individual or simply a part of their grave goods. Edgardescribes the mask as reddish-brown in colour because it was made of terracotta,flat-backed, and plastered with stucco (Edgar, 1905). The white rounded face ofthe Medusa figure has a worried expression with thick slightly parted pink lips,sad eyes, and contracted brow. Its hair is wavy and gilded, with green and bluesnakes throughout the hair. The general shape and features of the face againpoint to a Greek origin, as does the myth of the gorgons itself. Artifacts such as

these shed light on the complex cultural context in which they were often made.Reactions pertaining to the variety of artifacts used in the Ptolemaic and

Roman Periods, and what this meant socially and demographically, differaccordingly. While many scholars believe that economic matters did not play intowhat type of funerary art was used by people, for there were often manycombinations used, most agree that a certain amount of wealth was possessed bya person or their family in order to afford these goods (MacCrimmon, 1945). It isalso agreed upon by most authors that because Greek citizens were more likely

Kelly-Anne Pike

Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009. 73

7/28/2019 6449-8874-1-PB

3/7

to hold higher job or official positions than native Egyptians due to Greek, language and education becoming more then ever the technical support foradministration, marriage, and preservation of social privilege (Bingen, 2007, p.229), that Greeks were the ones who had the money to buy such things. Thisevidence is backed up by Edgar (1905) that many of the pieces of artwork he

catalogued were found in major Greek cities in Egypt.However, it is here that a conflict between views arises. Not all Greekswere a part of the aristocratic or middle class. Many lived in the countrysidealongside the poorer native Egyptians. If one believes in the idea that wealth wasneeded to buy splendid burial goods, then these less wealthy Greeks clearlycould not have contributed to the innovations in funerary art of the time. Someauthors, such as Bingen (2007), believe that amongst the Egyptians and Greeks ofthe countryside there was an even more serious distinction between the twocultural units than in the cities, for he states the most evident feature in therelations between the two co-existing communities is a marked reciprocalopaquness which sometimes goes as far as rejection of the other, (p.243). Yet,

others like Riggs believe that although the lower Greek and Egyptian classes didnot participate as much in producing mixed heritage funerary art it was notbecause of clear-cut cultural divisions between the two, but the mere fact thatthey could not afford such materials (Riggs, 2002). Riggs (2002) also suggests thatbecause of inadequate funds smaller burials were performed overall, whetherindividuals were mummified, inhumated, or in traditional Greek funerary rites,cremated. Such findings may well be underrepresented, or overshadowed byluxurious grave good and burials, in the archaeological record.

One form of funerary art that overshadows all others and shows thegreatest combination of Egyptian and Greek visual traits are the famous plastermasks and wooden portraits of the Late Ptolemaic and Early Roman Periods. The

popularity of masks and portraits has been attested by the modern day public,which flocks to see such exhibitions at museums all over the world. The idea ofknowing the body of a person, which was once very much alive, is behind amask can instill curiousity, emotion, and sometimes even fear into the everydayperson (Bierbrier, 1997). The following examples of masks and portraits showthe transition from strongly Egyptian influenced funerary artworks to moreabstract, Graeco-Roman in style, portrait pieces.

A typical Early Ptolemaic plaster mask (Fig.3) documented by Edgarshows some of the earliest combinations of Greek and Egyptian physical featuresand afterlife iconography. The mask is made of canvas and plaster and is wellpreserved. The female figure wears a chiton, a typical Greek ladys garment, but

her face has purely Egyptian features; an oval face and defined kohl rimmedpainted eyes and eyebrows (Edgar, 1905). Her hairstyle is in the commonEgyptian fashion and resembles the wig styles of the period. Both the ears andthe neck of the mask have small holes drilled in them, where jewellery for thedeceased could be placed. On the bottom of the plaster mask, below the femalefigures face, there appearsto be a mythical scene of various Egyptian deitiesapproaching one of the symbols of Osiris known as the Vulture of LowerEgypt (Edgar, 1905, p.24). These figures on the left side of the mask, depicted in

Cultural Interaction and Funerary Art


7/28/2019 6449-8874-1-PB

4/7

the illustration provided, approaching from left to right are: Sis, Bastet andAnubis (Edgar, 1905). They are portrayed in the traditional Egyptian style, andwere probably placed on the mask to protect the deceaseds body from anydisturbance, as well as guide her into the afterlife. Plaster masks such as thiswere placed over the mummified, and usually shrouded, remains of the

deceased. These masks were quite large, and could measure from the top of thehead down to the middle of the torso.Moving forward into a time of growing Graeco-Roman influence and style

is the mummy and gilded mask of a woman named Sambathion (Fig.4). She hailsfrom Hawara, and has been dated to sometime in the Late Ptolemaic or EarlyRoman Period (Edgar, 1905). It has been suggested that the reason the mask wasmade of gold was not only to signify the wealth of the individual, but that it wasreligiously symbolic as well; The ancient Egyptians believed that the flesh of thegods was made of gold and their bones of silver, gold thus became a symbol ofeternity and immortality, (Rozenberg, 1997, p.112). Her name is written in Greekon the top of her mask, just above her hair, which is coiffed in tight ringlets. The

right arm is bent, an Egyptian pose, and holds a wreath of flowers. She is dressedin a chiton,and a mantle that drapes over her shoulders with realistic folds.

Snake bracelets adorn both of her arms, winding their way from justbeneath her elbows to the middle of her hands, and some of her fingers also haverings on them. Her other jewellery consists of round-shaped earrings and anecklace, as well as a longer chain that extends down her chest in a rosettespattern (Edgar, 1905). Her facial features consist of a smaller but rounder face,with large eyes, fine eyebrows, straight nose, and tiny lips which show a hint of asmile. The mask extends over the deceaseds face and down the chest. She iswrapped intricately in linen, which forms a diamond-shaped pattern over therest of the body. There is no arguing that she represents a fusion of Egyptian and

Graeco-Roman elements. This beautiful mask must have cost quite a bit ofmoney, making Sambathion most likely a woman of wealth and prominence whowas decorated in the aristocratic ideal of the afterlife of the Greeks and Romansliving at this time in Egypt.

The Royal Ontario Museum is home to two unusual portraits whichshowcase the further developments in funerary art made after the PtolemaicPeriod (Fig.5). These portraits look overwhelmingly more Greek than Egyptian inthe way the face and body of the deceased is portrayed. However, there is stillone highly symbolic feature of these masks which clearly link them to theEgyptian god of the underworld, Osiris. Both faces of each individual are drawnin an almost cartoon-like fashion with thick heavy outlines of the deceaseds

head, hair, ears and facial features. While this sets them apart from the masksalready previously described, the other component that makes them unique fromboth earlier masks and portraits from the same time is that their skin is painted astriking greenish-blue (MacCrimmon, 1945). The skin colour of both the portraits,in MacCrimmons opinion (1945), was deliberately painted the greenish-blue huein order represent these individuals as being dead and in the afterlife like theEgyptian god Osiris. Osiris, in traditional Egyptian art, is depicted as havinggreenish-blue skin to mark him as the god of the underworld.

Kelly-Anne Pike


7/28/2019 6449-8874-1-PB

5/7

The mummy masks and portraits described have shown the transitionalart techniques used from the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period and into theRoman Period in Egypt. However, the actual artwork also signifies a shift inGreek religious beliefs and the adoption of Egyptian deities and funerary rites.Mummification was written about by Greek and Roman authors who lived

before Graeco-Roman times as a disturbing and unnatural way to bury the dead(Bagnall, 1997). Yet, from the evidence presented, it is clear that Greeks andRomans who moved into Egypt began using the practice of mummification on afairly wide-spread scale. The Egyptian belief that, the soul could remainimmortal as long as it had a body in which to dwell (Bagnall, 2004, p.23)appealed to the newly arrived Mediterranean peoples, as did the protection ofthe exotic foreign gods. Also, animal worship and mummification wasperformed by Greek and Roman populations of Egypt regularly, even though intheir native lands it was considered one of the most unfavourable conceptionsof Egypt, as propagated by non-Egyptian authors (Bagnall, 2004, p.33).

Both the Graeco-Roman and Egyptian populations understood that the

dead needed to be cared for in this lifetime and in the next, and that no matterwhere certain burial beliefs came from, personal losses of friends or family, oreven the death of a pet or sacred animal, should be treated with the utmostrespect. In this way, the many social classes and cultural groups that lived in thePtolemaic and Early Roman Egypt could relate to one another.

Lastly, the tombs of both Egyptian natives and Greeks living in Graeco-Roman Egypt also share features that tie them to a growing cultural interactionbetween the two cultures. One such example is the well-known Tomb ofPetosiris, located at the site of Tuna el-Gebel. According to the man thatexcavated the tomb, Gustave Lefebvre (1923), Petosiris was a popular high priestof the Egyptian god Thoth at Hermopolis, and his tomb, dated to around Early

Ptolemaic times, attests to his fame. Modern day Egyptians living at the site callthe tomb The Temple because of its highly decorated doorway and columns(Lefebvre, 1923).

Architecturally, the first room that one would enter in the tomb is called apronaos (Lefebvre, 1923), which incidentally was the first room entered in a GreekTemple before the inner sanctuary (cella). Here thepronaos functions as the placeof the family funerary cult and comes before the inner burial chamber. On thewalls of this first room graffiti has been written, not in Egyptian but in Greek(Lefebvre, 1923), which attests to the fact that the Greeks recognized theimportance of Petosiriss funerary cult. The graffiti ranges from the simpleHello to series of names of Greeks who had visited the spot (Lefebvre, 1923).

There is also a short sentence written in Greek which reveres Petosiris as abrilliant man; I invoke Petosiris, whose body is the ground, but whose spiritresides in the company of the gods: this wise man has been reunited with thewise ones (Lefebvre, 1923, p.24).

Reliefs painted on the walls of tombs can also indicate the exchange ofideas in the Greek and Egyptian funerary sphere. Petosiriss tomb has reliefs onits walls which do not resemble the static Egyptian scenes usually found, butinstead replaces them with Greek influenced reliefs of natural day-to-day living.



7/28/2019 6449-8874-1-PB

6/7

Some of these depictions include men working in the fields, Petosiris and hisfamily making offerings to the gods, and labourers taking care of livestock(Lefebvre, 1923), all of which can be found in the tombs of many deceased Greekswho lived and were buried in Memphis.

Two tombs from Alexandria also showcase a fusion of Greek and Egyptian

deities said to be the protectors of the dead; the Stagnai Painted Tomb and theTomb of Tigrane Pasha Street. In the Stagnai Painted Tomb two exterior pierswhich flank a sarcophagus niche show a small, naked, petal-winged boy who isassumed to represent the god Greek god Eros (Venit, 1999). Eros accompanies theGreek goddess Aphrodite, as well as the Egyptian god Anubis who, standsgarbed as a Roman soldier (Venit, 1999, p.650). By using these two motifs theowner of the tomb harkened back to his Greek and Roman heritage as well asdisplaying his respect for Egyptian gods and funerary beliefs. The Tigrane PashaStreet Tomb similarly depicts Graeco-Roman and Egyptian visual techniques inthe form of a funeral procession (Fig.6). Its central sarcophagi niche shows, amummy wrapped in the Graeco-Roman style with its head to the left, supine on

a bier, attended by two female figures (Venit, 1997, p.704), who are againassumed to represent Isis and her sister Nepthys who commonly decorateEgyptian sarcophagi and tombs. It can be seen from these examples that Graeco-Roman and Egyptian iconography was used in a variety of combinations thatlent to the overall dynamic of funerary artwork.

Through each of the artifacts discussed within this work, interpretationsand conclusions can be made about how the funerary art produced in this periodreflects upon this past multiethnic society. Although it has been argued by somethat the divisions between the cultural units of people in Egypt were strict, notonly because of political issues but due to prejudice among each of the groups, itis evident that cultural exchange occurred nonetheless. Though administration of

the major cities of Egypt favoured Greek, and later Roman culture, it would havebeen extremely difficult and ignorant for any Greek or Roman to not notice theways of the native Egyptians. Even if in public the population was dividedbecause of their heritage, it cannot be known what peoples thoughts or actionsin private were. However, in the religious and funerary sphere all cultures cametogether. Death did, and still does not, favour any one ethnic group. Byborrowing customs from each culture an individual not only exchangedknowledge of the afterlife with others, but also tried to be protected in any whichway or form for the unknown journey ahead.

Knowing that death would eventually prevail led the Greek, Roman, andEgyptian populations to see each other as just people, as mortals. They all

realized that perhaps there were greater forces at work. This belief may haveinspired them to ask for protection from many deities, as well as preservethemselves in the thoughts of others through mummification, portraits, andtomb reliefs. The artistic style that developed from this interaction proved to beunique and clearly defined a time period of cultural flux and social change. Inthe end only death was certain, and that is why cultural exchange is so evidentwithin the funerary record of Graeco-Roman Egypt.

Kelly-Anne Pike


7/28/2019 6449-8874-1-PB

7/7

References Cited

Bagnall, Roger S. (2004) Egypt: From Alexander to the Early Christians. London: British

Museum Press.

Bagnall, Roger S. (1997) The People of the Roman Fayum. Portraits and Masks: Burial

Customs in Roman Egypt. ed. M.L. Bierbrier. London: British Museum Press.Bierbrier, M.L. (1997) Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London:

British Museum Press.

Bingen, Jean. (2007) Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy and Culture. Los

Ageles: University of California Press.

Edgar, Campbell Cowan. (1905) Graeco-Egyptian Coffins: Masks and Portraits. Cairo:

Institut Francais DArcheologie Orientale.

Lefebvre, Gustave.(1923) Le Tombeau de Petosiris. Cairo: Institut Francais

dArcheologie Orientale.

McCrimmon, Mary. (1945) Graeco-Egyptian Masks and Portraits in the Royal Ontario

Museum. American Journal of Archaeology 49, (1), 52-61.Riggs, Christina. (2002) Facing the Dead: Recent Research on the Funerary Art of

Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. American Journal of Archaeology 106 (1), 85-

101.

Rozenberg, Silvia. (1997) Earlier Plaster Masks from Sinai: Forerunners to the Roman

Plaster Masks. Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. ed. M.L.

Bierbrier. London: British Museum Press.

Venit, Marjorie Susan. (1999) The Stagnai Painted Tomb: Cultural Interchange and

Gender Differentiation in Roman Alexandria. American Journal of Archaeology

103 (4), 641-669.

Venit, Marjorie Susan. (1997) The Tomb from Tigrane Pasha Street and theIconography of Death in Roman Alexandria. American Journal of Archaeology

10 (4), 701-729.

Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009. pp. 73-79.http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/uja/index

This Article 2009 Kelly-Anne PikeLicensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canadian

Version



6449-8874-1-PB

Documents

Transcript of 6449-8874-1-PB