Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks  

Gabriele Pieke
The Oxford Handbook of Egyptian Epigraphy and Paleography
Edited by Vanessa Davies and Dimitri Laboury

Print Publication Date: Apr 2020 Subject: Archaeology, Egyptian Archaeology

Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190604653.013.18

Abstract and Keywords

Art history has its own demands for recording visual representations. Objectivity and au­
thenticity are the twin pillars of recording artistic data. As such, techniques relevant to
epigraphic study, such as making line drawings, may not always be the best approach to
an art historical study, which addresses, for example, questions about natural context and
materiality of the artwork, the semantic, syntactic, and chronological relation between
image and text, work procedures, work zones, and workshop traditions, and interactions
with formal structures and beholders. Issues critical to collecting data for an art histori­
cal analysis include recording all relevant information without overcrowding the data set,
creating neutral (i.e., not subjective) photographic images, collecting accurate color data,
and, most critically, firsthand empirical study of the original artwork. A call for greater
communication in Egyptology between epigraphy/palaeography and art history is rein­
forced by drawing attention to images as tools of communication and the close connec­
tion between the written word and figural art in ancient Egypt.

Keywords: art history, objectivity, authenticity, line drawing, photographic image, color data, image

Art and Text: Point of Departure

ANCIENT Egyptian culture has bequeathed a myriad of monuments and artworks, and
there are many ways to approach them. A particularly strong interconnection of images
and texts seems a basic condition for material inheritances and can be designated as a
specific cultural phenomenon for ancient Egypt at least from 3000 BCE onward. Scholars
like Henry George Fischer (1986, 24–50) even stated that art and writing were one in an­
cient Egypt. With countless pictorial representations, the study of multiple epigraphic,
palaeographic, and philological questions has always been a main concern in Egyptology.
Due to the field’s genesis and tradition—with deciphering hieroglyphs at its nucleus—art
historical studies are widely underrepresented, and the vast majority of artwork still lacks
thorough documentation and research despite the fact that art in ancient Egypt is multi­
fold and diverse, with many layers and polysemous iconic representations that fulfill vari­

Page 1 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

ous functions at the same time. In a widely illiterate Egyptian society, pictorial represen­
tations were key media for communicating a wide range of information to distinct audi­
ences.

Images are perceptual containers and crucial instruments for knowledge production;
iconic cognizance has been defined as exemplary thinking following its own logic (Boehm
2008; Bredekamp 2010). According to this premise, art history deals with historical and
systematic problems of the visual arts. It tackles questions based on definition of forms,
concept, and composition and asks about domains of iconography and typology of single
artworks or monuments and stylistic criteria. The field explores a critical inventory of
oeuvre and monuments, interpretations of single artworks and series of artworks, analy­
sis of magical, religious, and social functions of art, the social framework (p. 130) and rele­
vant conditions of art production, its direct implications on work process, and intended
reception of images with respect to the beholder. Thus, historical-philological source criti­
cism belongs to the traditional methodological frame. Against this background, recording
and analyses of inscriptions as an integral part of many artworks, based on epigraphy,
palaeography, and linguistic studies, seems a conditio sine qua non for any comprehen­
sive understanding, not least because epigraphy provides essential information on owner­
ship, prosopographical data, context, and purpose of artworks, chronological and topo­
graphical developments, and religious, historical, sociocultural, and many other types of
evidence. Essential data can be gleaned about the role of and links between workshops
and the relation and impact of clients. Art history, however, has its own demands for
recording visual representations and their multiple layers. Naturally, research demands
decision-making. In art history, documentation directly hinges on concrete questions
about the artwork(s) and the addressed art genre. Therefore, and based on the interpene­
tration of visual and textual elements, it seems necessary to take epigraphy and palaeog­
raphy as complementary sciences in order to arrive at a better understanding of written
sources, the meanings they carry, and the artwork’s coding.

With regard to recording and analyzing texts, the significance and importance of docu­
menting the material quality of inscriptions has recently been emphasized (Polis and
Razanajao 2016). Context and location of inscriptions are crucial for understanding, par­
ticularly when they are part of a larger concept and composition of an artwork (compare
Fischer 1976; Eaton-Krauss 2009). Essential details include scrutinizing place and orien­
tation of “picture writing” (Davies 1958) in relation to image and documenting the ap­
plied technique, for example, whether sunk or raised relief or painted or ink inscription.
Yet in addition to classical epigraphic and palaeographic questions, for art history, some
issues are relevant: What is the general concept of the writing with regard to the image it
belongs to? What is the precise layout of the text? How does it interact with typology and
concept? What is the semantic and syntactic relation between image and text? Which spe­
cific text formula is used, and is it linked to context and/or image? Is it interdependent
with formal structures, such as back pillars, bases, negative spaces, main figures, smaller
motifs, and larger wall compositions? Is there an interaction with the beholder’s situa­
tion? Are there column lines, graphemes, or other items that enhance visibility and read­
ability? Does the application technique for text correspond to the rest of the image or dif­
Page 2 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

fer from it? Do details indicate individual “hands” of artists? Do the colors of the text cor­
respond to or diverge from the rest of the composition? Is text contemporary to image, or
is it part of a redesign and (re-)conceptualization? What is the work procedure, and are
work zones visible? Is there a connection to workshop tradition(s), be it chronological or
topographical? These and many questions can be raised in a holistic approach to studying
epigraphic sources.

For art history, material quality is a natural starting point of this endeavor, and recording
ancient texts is one part of the puzzle. Like in any other traditional comparative science,
access to faithful illustrations is of utmost value. Difficulties of access and the wide lack
of thorough documentation, however, mean that many art historical studies still deal with
inscription as marginal. Also, the practice of separating texts and (p. 131) images in analy­
ses of sculptures, stelae, tombs, and temples is still widely practiced despite this being
scientifically unsatisfactory. Indisputably, this unconnected study constitutes a disadvan­
tage for both fields due to a lack of context and proper understanding, which leads to
misinterpretation or a distorted picture. A remedy for this profound deficiency seems
overdue.

A vast number of objects, such as statuettes, furniture, coffins, or cosmetic articles, were
designed to hold writings. Most of these artifacts belong to the field of decorative art, and
they are not perceived as real works of “art” in a classical sense. Columns, obelisks, and
shrines are here understood as architectural elements even though they regularly incor­
porate images in their conceptual layout. Yet in Egyptology, a proper distinction between
art and decorative art, crafts, or architecture is often blurred. Stimulated by the pictorial
and iconic turn (Mitchell 1994; Maar and Burda 2004) and in the context of image studies
and visual culture (Belting 2001; Sachs-Hombach 2009; Davis 2014), these objects and
monuments are rightly understood as essential carriers of multilayered information. How­
ever, due to more than four thousand years of pictorial tradition and several different art
genres, each of which called for an adapted approach, the following remarks can only
give a brief overview on dealing with artistic creations. Accordingly, the discussion focus­
es on documentation of “classical artworks,” from relief and painting to sculpture in the
round. Questions of graphemes, linguistic problems, or text semantics cannot be dis­
cussed in such an overview of diverse artworks due to their wide-ranging time period,
material, and context, despite the reasonable numbers of unanswered questions about
texts on sculptures, stelae, temples, and tombs.

A Line Is a Line: Different Techniques of

Recording
Many art historians have stressed the importance of meticulous observation and study of
artworks due to their complex nature. Certainly in-depth documentation is an essential
basis for art historical analyses. A systematic, accurate recording is of intrinsic value and
yields information of enormous significance. Thorough documentation, however, seems
sufficient for tackling only some research questions, such as iconographic or typological
Page 3 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

studies, since interpretation, which transforms the object, distant in time and space to the
present, is its very nature (Strudwick 2015). With regard to art history, most answers can
only be given with the artwork in front of the observer. Given this awareness, Winckel­
mann implemented the “Autopsie” of artworks instead of studying illustrations (Graepler
2013, 119–121). For many art historical topics, for example, questions of stylistic features
or in-depth understanding of the production of artworks can only be supported, but not
substituted, by recorded information.

The main concerns have always been questions of authenticity (compare Fless et al. 2016)
and objectivity. In his seminal work on the history of ancient art, Winckelmann (1764, ix)
criticized incorrect illustrations of sculptures and reflected on the quality of drawings and
engravings. Regardless of faithful rendering or matters of objectivity and authenticity, il­
lustrations of any kind do not reflect timeless statements, but rather time-bound ideas of
a collective (Fless et al. 2016, 496). Visual rendering of artworks is deeply influenced by
the creator’s knowledge, understanding, and zeitgeist. For this reason, thorough studies
are based on direct confrontation with artwork, while its documentation in whatever form
can only be supportive and not replace the “autopsy” of the original.

With regard to authenticity, the widespread cultural practice in Egypt to usurp or adapt
older monuments (Magen 2011; Eaton-Krauss 2015; Gilli 2016) constitutes an obstacle to
correctly understanding them and causes specific challenges in recording. Due to the
concept of “ideal image” (Laboury 2010; Bryan 2015), representation could easily be
transferred to new ownership just by adding or altering name(s) and accompanying texts,
sometimes combined with a stylistic or iconography remodeling (Fischer 1974, 7; Bács
2015; Pieke 2018; see chapters by Bács, Brand). Erasure and redecoration of monuments
were common practices, whose evidence can only be gathered by close and prolonged ex­
amination, is easily missed if not actively sought (Spencer 1982, 26), and is often over­
looked in recording, consequently leading to erroneous interpretation. Therefore, it is of
the utmost importance to actively consider this issue and adjust research questions and
documentation. In this regard, art historical research and connoisseurship can be of great
benefit since stylistic analyses and material expertise belong to the field’s core tasks.

Line Drawing
Line drawing plays an integral part of Egyptological documentation even though illustra­
tions of three-dimensional artworks are much less common today. Conventions have been
developed for graphic documentation and issues, such as relief techniques, paintings,
supplements, and additions (Strudwick 2001; see chapters by McClain, Vértes). Digital
epigraphy is now standard (see chapter by Manuelian). These so-called facsimile draw­
ings (Strudwick 2001, 127–131) are not facsimiles in the proper sense. They are line
drawings whose contours try to follow the original. In order to understand sculptors’
hands, one must observe, among other considerations, whether contours are hard-edged
or soft, angular or flat, without even extending the discussion to sequences of brush
strokes (Figure I.9.1). Consequently, in terms of documentation and visualization of stylis­

Page 4 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

tic features, a line drawing is not enough. In addition, as mentioned earlier, many texts
are not contemporary with images, a challenging issue for documentation by line draw­
ing. The use of different artistic techniques might indicate the life-span of specific monu­
ments, which were regularly used by family members and cult personnel to secure their
own afterlife by appropriation of minor figures (Pieke 2018, 296–301).

Figure I.9.1. The two lower registers of the Dynasty

11 stela of Meru (Museo Egizio, Turin, Drovetti col­
lection [1824], C. 1447) demonstrate a potpourri of
different artistic techniques. All figurative motifs and
the main text are executed in raised relief, while the
two lower registers demonstrate three different tech­
niques. All text orientation follows the motif they ac­
company. The use of sunk relief for the list of offer­
ings to the right might be explained by its placement
on a higher relief plane, thus referring to Old King­
dom compositions of offering lists in a syntactically
demarcated area. This text panel’s particular form
reveals a change of concept during the work process,
further indicated by the slightly different color
scheme in this area, while the captions in the bottom
register are rendered in ink. This evidence suggests
the later addition of minor texts, as well as a seman­
tic hierarchy of motifs. Courtesy of Museo Egizio,
Turin.

Representations determine cognition and our level of awareness (Schürmann 2011). In

epistemological terms, they have led to idiosyncratic analyses in Egyptology. In art
(p. 133) history, line drawings are useful only due to their diminution of the image. Accura­

cy of lines is vital in following an outer or inner contour line, distinguishing between loss­
es and supplements, and being as neutral as possible. In addition, information of scale is
essential. A critical stance toward drawings as a medium for accurate visualization of art­
works is already reflected in seminal works of the early twentieth century (Capart 1907;
Fechheimer 1913, 1921; Wreszinski 1923–1936; Mekhitarian 1954, who trusted the medi­
um of photography more). Founded on archaeological and not art historical conventions,
line drawings reduce the materiality and three-dimensionality of a complex representa­
tion to a number of lines. This reduction and readability seems advantageous for certain

Page 5 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

specific questions, but a drawing involves a complete loss of (p. 134) material quality,
which is intrinsic for art history (compare Laboury and Tavier 2016). Therefore, line
drawings are only of value as additional mediums for certain specific issues of the
artwork’s representations.

Photographic Documentation

Since its discovery in the first half of the nineteenth century, photography offers an effec­
tive technique of documentation and illustration of sites, architecture, artworks, and oth­
er finds (see chapters by Manniche, Emery). From William Henry Fox Talbot’s pioneering
book The Pencil of Nature (1844), the use of photography was established for document­
ing, reproducing, and copying as well as producing pictorial illustrations. The benefits of
photography are a relative objectiveness and authenticity and a high level of accuracy.
Photography, though, is also a spatial engagement (Shanks and Svabo 2013), which ought
to be used consciously and based on specific concepts. In particular, camera perspective
and lighting, as well as proximity, intensity, and direction of the light source, can have a
strong impact on the motif’s effect and can produce subjective images, rather than neu­
tral ones required for research documentation.

Photography alone cannot capture all details. Taking and reproducing true color photog­
raphy is now standard, at least as documentation, providing that the image is taken fol­
lowing professional principles regarding daylight-balanced light sources, use of color tar­
gets, and calibration of technical equipment (Langenbacher and Rivenc 2017). Since art
history is a comparative science, accurate recording is of intrinsic value, and subjectivity
must be reduced to a minimum. For qualitative comparison, a photographic procedure
that involves color accuracy in the processing of digital data and printing is crucial. Un­
fortunately, high-quality reproduction is rarely achieved due to the limitations and finan­
cial constraints of academic publications. Yet compared to drawings, photography cap­
tures artwork at one moment and offers much more authenticity with multiplex informa­
tion. Although photography is vital in epigraphic work (Bell 1995, 103) for its complemen­
tary control of line drawings, in art history, the reverse is true: a photo is much more
valid than a drawing due to its higher convergence to materiality. The photographer, how­
ever, can only catch what s/he sees and understands, so photographic documentation
needs direct Egyptological input.

Modern Techniques of Recording and Visualization

For scientific documentation and visualization, a well-rounded approach is fruitful for ren­
dering data that is otherwise difficult to assess, and several modern, nondestructive tech­
niques can aid in generating images of objects as a whole. Reflectance transformation
imaging (RTI), in particular, can reveal otherwise hardly visible etching on degraded sur­
faces (see chapter by Wendrich), while x-ray radiography, UV-fluorescence, (p. 135) and in­
frared reflectography are well established in the field of restoration-conservation. Recent­
ly, multimodal imaging of subsurface texts produced promising results (Gibson et al.
2018), and these methods are also valuable for a better understanding of figurative im­

Page 6 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

ages. For analyzing wall painting and polychrome layers, high intensity and pure UV light
is suitable for documentation of specific artistic techniques, helping to enhance the visi­
bility of images and texts depending on surface coating (for example, blue pigments and
also varnishes: Parkinson 2008; Den Doncker and Tavier, 2018). Virtual modeling and re­
construction adds new dimensions particularly to the visualization of architecture and its
decoration. As Lengyl and Toulouse (2014; Fless et al. 2016, 499–502) have rightly point­
ed out, however, the more realistic the visualization aims to be, the more it diverges from
confirmed evidence and becomes fictional. For this reason, they have established a “visu­
alization of uncertainty.” Egyptology could profit immensely from this method to meet the
highest requirements.

A main concern for computer simulation is colors, which presently cannot match the val­
ues and textures of original paint. In this regard, photography offers significant advances
in capturing colors more accurately. High-end scanning is common in art collections in
condition surveying, safeguarding artifacts, and state of the art research. For the future
of our field, this high-resolution documentation offers undeniable benefits particularly for
recording three-dimensional aspects, textures, or polychromy. In addition to classical pho­
tography, orthophotography or 3D scans are useful for a general understanding of the
artwork’s concept and of crucial importance for quick assessment and documentation of
monuments (see chapter by Revez), especially in light of the immense quantity of art­
works and their ongoing deterioration. The high-end scanning of Tutankhamun’s painted
burial chamber (www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/) testifies to this method’s
exceedingly authentic visualization, including many details of painting processes, techni­
cal issues of the “painter’s hand” or surface structures, and soiling. Being extremely effi­
cient, noninvasive, and offering high-resolution documentation and visualization, this
process will play an essential role in the future.

Recording Colors

Colors are crucial media of artistic expression in all art genres though they are one of the
most difficult fields to record, offering a potential for error both in documentation and in
reproduction (Strudwick 2001, 132–137). Modern devices, such as spectrophotometers,
allow the collection of objective data by on-site color measurements (Langenbacher and
Rivenc 2017, 8–10; Strudwick 2016, 162–168). Certainly, it is important to document the
actual state in long-term perspective. For everyday use in art history, charts with color
codes are only partly feasible since comparative data exists only for very few monuments.
A trained eye is a highly sensitive tool for perceiving and recording colors. The use of
Munsell color order systems (Landa and Fairchild 2005), while perhaps only a subjective
approximation (Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid 1987, 121–122), still seems helpful (p. 136) for
quick recording particularly since software can translate all Munsell notation to color
spectrophotometric data and vice versa. This color data can easily be integrated in future
comparisons (e.g., Shedid 1988, 164–165; Strudwick 2016, 166).

Page 7 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

The Devil Is in the Details: Dealing with Differ­

ent Art Genres
Following these general comments, it is important to take a quick glance at specific is­
sues in connection with the particular needs of certain art genres.

Living with Limitations: Recording Three-Dimensional Images

The most important medium to document sculpture is photography. Sculptural art ap­
pears in many forms, and each perspective can focus different aspects, hence defining
the best angle or the right balance between light and shadow are only two of many chal­
lenges. Photographic illustrations strongly influence the scientific view and assessment of
three-dimensional bodies, particularly the one of “portraits.” Egyptology still lacks bind­
ing standards and a media-critical reflection on issues like focal length, shooting location,
distance and camera angle, picture section, and lighting. Black and white photography of­
fers much higher contrast value and is certainly preferable in many cases for the docu­
mentation of sculpture in the round, despite induced abstraction. In light of significant
concerns about color authenticity in recording and reproduction, a visualization of corpo­
real vividness and perspectival figures in black and white photography offers advantages.
However, color photography is essential for the visualization of material, like the color of
the stone, its veins, and texture or staining. In addition, wider parts of statuary were orig­
inally bordered in color. Polychromy is a crucial instrument of Egyptian artists, and its
recording is indispensable. In general, a formalized procedure is imperative in any com­
parative field, though, each artwork is different from the other and, depending on the
precise position and viewing direction of the face, it is necessary to adapt the documenta­
tion (Kyrieleis 1988; Wiegand 1991, 33).

In sharp contrast to traditional art historical fields, line drawings were retained for the
study of Egyptian statuary because of Egyptology’s close association with nineteenth-cen­
tury expeditions and with the archaeological approach of organizing material culture into
typological series. Unrivaled are the eight volumes of slip boxes with drawings of distinct
statue types published by the Danish sculptor and photographer Bodil Hornemann (1951–
1969). The art historian Hans Gerhard Evers (1929), with his seminal work on Middle
Kingdom sculptures, implemented the typology of iconographic and stylistic details by us­
ing line drawings as supportive medium in addition to photography. (p. 137) Still today, re­
searchers use this form of imaging for specific details, although drawings are no longer
understood as the correct medium to visualize three-dimensional art in its complexity
(Figure I.9.2). Drawings are commonly used to explicitly focus on specific features by
omitting other aspects; to simplify representations of main form contours, stylistic de­
tails, or iconographic features; and in reconstruction drawings.

Because of publishing constraints and lack of access to high-quality photographs of sculp­

tures, many publications use more easily reproducible visualization techniques in addi­
tion to photography. Drawings can be extremely useful to record statues’ inscriptions,

Page 8 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

which might be tricky to display in photographs. For palaeographic comparison, a “fac­

simile” is essential, while the true haptic quality of hieroglyphs can only be understood
(p. 138) by visual examination. In general, it is paramount to reflect the texts’ concrete

settings, which render information about concept, interconnections, and influences of dis­
tinct epigraphic choices, as well as the Selbstthematisierung of its owner (Assmann
1996).

Figure I.9.2. Dynasty 4 sitting figure of vizier Hem-

iunu (Roemer-Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim, PM
1962) with inscription consisting of sunk relief with
color-paste. This technique is extremely rare, the
specific use is a direct dating criterion, and links the
statue owner to the royal family in Meidum. Paste re­
lief is otherwise attested in the tomb of prince Nefer­
maat, most likely the father of Hemiunu, who even
claims to be the inventor of this technique. Thus, al­
ready on a purely visual level, the polychrome color
paste points to prestige and social networks. With re­
gard to the text itself, the particular use and omis­
sion of column lines for specific titles seems of inter­
est, as well as their specific location on the statue
base. The length of the lines indicate that they were
carved before the hieroglyphs and not entirely in cor­
respondence with them. Photo credit: Photo Archive
Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim.

Of particular importance are proper names given for monumental sculptures (e.g.,
Habachi 1969; Müller 1988, 72–73) that indicate certain functions of temple statues, in
addition to ancient Egyptian terms for sculptures (Hoffmann, forthcoming).

Page 9 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

From Low to Flat: Documenting Relief and Painting

As for relief and painting used in different art genres, the ultimate goal is a high level of
detail and accuracy in rendering representations. Tomb and temple decoration are by def­
inition closely related to architecture as its image carrier. Concept and composition have
to react immediately on this concrete architectural setting. Thus, for understanding icon­
ic references, semantic interaction, or interpretation of the overall concept of decoration,
the connection with architecture, as well as specific placing of themes and motifs, is of
the utmost importance. Since Lepsius’s epigraphic campaign (see chapter by Loeben),
tomb decoration has been documented by outline drawings with at least one sketch for
each wall. Still today, this method is used to convey information about general conceptual
layout and detailed organization of picture planes, and it offers an intelligible overview of
the iconographic program, thus being a classical point of departure for art historical stud­
ies.

As mentioned earlier, line drawings almost completely disguise physical and artistic di­
mensions of artworks (Laboury and Tavier 2016, 60). A line drawing is the wrong medium
to visualize haptic information or the wealth of variants and shades of colors of an origi­
nal stroke drawn by a brush—all crucial for understanding of stylistic features or “hands”
of particular artists (e.g., Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid 1987, 139–142; Shedid 1988, 88–92;
Laboury and Tavier 2016). Indeed, close-up photography or high-end scanning are better
solutions, maintaining higher levels of authenticity. The image carrier’s material and the
techniques used—sunk or raised relief and layers of architectural and pictorial coatings,
primers, or colors—are essential information about individual strategies adapted to the
monument (Figure I.9.3). Technical issues directly govern the production of images. Con­
sequently, their understanding and recording is indispensable for art historical questions
(for mural painting, see Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid 1987, 114–119; Tavier 2012; Laboury
and Tavier 2016; Madden and Tavier, 2018; for painted relief, Williams 1932; Smith 1949,
244–272; Pieke 2011). In order to understand work process, information such as grids,
guidelines, or corrections is as crucial as conceiving of work areas and processes (e.g.,
Bryan 2001; Wenzel 2007; Laboury and Tavier 2016).

Page 10 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Figure I.9.3. Mutnofret offering to her parents in the

Dynasty 18 tomb of Amenemope (TT 29). The wall
paintings provide precise information about work
procedures. An offering scene on the long hall’s
south side displays the daughter of Amenemope’s
cousin Sennefer offering to her parents. The image
captions consist of eight columns each for Mutnofret
and her parents, and the orientation of hieroglyphs
follows the figures. The actual work process for the
text panel was executed in two steps from left to
right—the easier way for right-handers—as indicated
by a decreasing quality of details in this direction.
The area division is not text-/content-related, but
based on ergonomic work conditions. The first col­
umn of the daughter’s text belongs to the right work
zone with the texts for Sennefer and his wife. Cour­
tesy of Mission Archéologique belge dans la Nécrop­
ole Thébaine. Photo credit: Matjaz Kacicnik.

The work of the Oxford Expedition to Egypt “Egypt in Miniature” series records relief-cut
wall decorations and offers systematic, close-up (black and white) photography of scene
details supplemented with descriptions, archaeological data, and line drawings
(www.oxfordexpeditiontoegypt.com/index.html). This technique reveals surface structure,
tool marks, erasures, additions, and details of relief cut. It is difficult, however, to (p. 139)
publish a huge monument using detail photography. Currently, therefore, photography
combined with auxiliary “facsimile” drawings seems the most convincing way to deal with
relief and paintings. Thereby, a clear vision is necessary in order to decide which informa­
tion shall be include or omitted from drawings.

In general, the circumstances for recording tombs apply to relief and paintings in sanctu­
aries or on smaller monuments like chapels or stelae. The monumental character and
large size of many temple walls, however, leads to much poorer accessibility and conse­
quent problems for analysis. Perhaps for this reason, they generally lack proper art his­
torical studies, and research still focuses on epigraphic and religious interpretation of
monuments. Still awaiting research is the outstanding artistic contribution of the master
conceptual mind who, acquainted with intellectual, sacral agendas, executed the highly
(p. 140) sophisticated layout of a wall concept. Only an artist, the “layout designer,” is ca­

Page 11 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

pable of structuring large picture plans in different pictorial units. The textual is subordi­
nate to the figurative program, as further documented by the working process. Another
important point is physical accessibility (e.g., Fitzenreiter 2014) for makers, beholders,
and researchers. Texts and motifs on upper parts of walls, in particular, must have been
invisible due to height and bad lighting conditions. Art historical studies have emphasized
that the position of the beholder was directly considered during the working process
(Myśliwiec 1988, 9; Laboury 2008; Pieke 2011, 2015). Future studies should certainly re­
flect this relevant issue during documentation.

Let’s Do It! An Appeal Instead of a Summary

The immense treasury of Egyptian images offers enormous potential and needs funda­
mental work to study and document preserved artworks. Indeed, regarding many art his­
torical questions, we are just at the beginning. A media critical reflection for future docu­
mentation and analysis seems essential, while working with existing illustrations requires
serious source criticism. Traditional and cutting edge methods of recording and analysis
can make accessible a wide range of information coded in artworks, leading to a new un­
derstanding of work organization, relationship between makers and beneficiaries, and so­
cial hierarchy and art as powerful instruments to communicate certain meanings. A holis­
tic approach seems indispensable due to the interwoven character of image and text. Epi­
graphic and art historical research can greatly benefit from mutual knowledge and under­
standing. The process of documentation in the past, present, and future calls for discus­
sions, such as the development of standards for photography or digital visualizations. It is
foreseeable that new technologies will soon become the dominant method of image cap­
turing and will be integrated into professional protocols. For art history, however, docu­
mentation can act as a visual support, but cannot serve as a substitute for a direct con­
frontation with the original.

In its current state, epigraphy is widely explored by philologists, and documentation does
not often facilitate art historical analyses other than for iconographic questions. Record­
ing and analyzing texts is only one piece of a big puzzle. Allowing this research to stand
alone without complementing it with the bigger picture, such as issues of form definition,
iconographic program, and precise context, induces misinterpretation or a lack of under­
standing. In this regard, art history has much to offer Egyptology and can help in formu­
lating new perceptions. Complex analyses can contribute better insights into all kinds of
monuments, thus leading to thoughtful conclusions about culture. Because images were,
and are, dominant communication tools, thorough studies in the future will bear much
fruit and result in an appreciation of meaning, purpose, and structure of the material cul­
ture of ancient Egypt and its outstanding artworks. The (p. 141) dichotomy between an
analysis predominantly of writing versus art historical studies with only a secondary inte­
gration of textual sources seems an unwelcome impediment in Egyptology, one that
should be overcome. Artworks are a primary source of cultural knowledge and under­
standing of ancient Egyptian culture, thus requiring an “art history of complexity” (Kemp
1991). Egyptology would widely benefit from orienting toward nonlinear scholarship, de­
Page 12 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

veloping new thinking and research habits, focusing on studies and recordings based on
structural and dynamic complexity, and interacting better with different areas.

Bibliography
Assmann, J. 1996. “Preservation and Presentation of Self in Ancient Egyptian Portrai­
ture.” In Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, vol. 1, edited by P. Der Manuelian,
55–81. Boston.

Bács, T. A. 2015. “Some Aspects of Tomb Reuse during the Twentieth Dynasty.” In Joyful
in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Betsy M. Bryan, edited by R. Jasnow and K.
M. Cooney, 1–9. Atlanta.

Beinlich-Seeber, C., and A. G. Shedid. 1987. Das Grab des Userhat (TT 56). AVDAIK 50.
Mainz.

Bell, L. 1995. “New Kingdom Epigraphy.” In The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt:
Essays, edited by N. Thomas, 96–109. Los Angeles.

Belting, H. 2001. Bild-Anthropologie: Entwürfe für eine Bildwissenschaft. Munich.

Boehm, G. 2008. Wie Bilder Sinn erzeugen: Die Macht des Zeigens. Berlin.

Bredekamp, H. 2010. Theorie des Bildakts: Frankfurter Adorno Vorlesungen 2007. Berlin.

Bryan, B. M. 2001. “Painting Techniques and Artisan Organization in the Tomb of Suemni­
wet, Theban Tomb 92.” In Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt, edited by W. V. Davies,
63–72. London.

Bryan, B. M. 2015. “Portraiture.” In A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, edited by M. K.

Hartwig, 375–396. Chichester.

Capart, J. 1907. Une rue de tombeaux à Saqqarah. Brussels.

Davies, N. M. 1958. Picture Writing in Ancient Egypt. London.

Davis, W. 2014. A General Theory of Visual Culture. Princeton.

Den Doncker, A., and H. Tavier. 2018. “Scented Resins for Scented Figures.” EA 53, 16–
19.

Eaton-Krauss, M. 2009. “The Location of Inscriptions on Statues of the Old Kingdom.” In

Sitting beside Lepsius: Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute, edited
by D. Magee, J. Bourriau, and S. Quirke, 129–153. Leuven.

Eaton-Krauss, M. 2015. “Usurpation.” In Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological Studies in Honor

of Betsy M. Bryan, edited by R. Jasnow and K. M. Cooney, 97–104. Atlanta.

Page 13 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Evers, H. G. 1929. Staat aus dem Stein, Denkmäler, Geschichte und Bedeutung der Ägyp­
tischen Plastik während des Mittleren Reiches. 2 vols. Munich.

Fechheimer, H. 1913. Die Plastik der Ägypter: Dreizehntes bis Siebzehntes Tausend. Die
Kunst des Ostens 1. Berlin.

Fechheimer, H. 1921. Die Kleinplastik der Ägypter. Die Kunst des Ostens 3. Berlin.

Fischer, H. G. 1974. “The Mark of a Second Hand on Ancient Egyptian Antiquities.” MMJ
9:5–34.

Fischer, H. G. 1976. “Archaeological Aspects of Epigraphy and Palaeography.” In Ancient

Egyptian Epigraphy and Palaeography, 27–50. New York.

Fischer, H. G. 1986. L’écriture et l’art de l’Égypte ancienne: Quatres leçons sur la

(p. 142)

palaeographie et l`épigraphie pharaoniques. Collège de France. Essais et conférences.

Paris.

Fitzenreiter, M. 2014. “(Un)zugänglichkeit: Über Performanz und Emgerenz von Schrift

und Bild.” In Schriftträger–Textträger: Zur materialen Präsenz des Geschriebenen in
frühen Gesellschaften, edited by A. Kehnel and D. Panagiotopoulos, 179–208. Materiale
Textkulturen 6. Berlin.

Fless, F., B. Graf, O. Dall, U. Franke, C. Gerbich, et al. 2016. “Authenticity and Communi­
cation.” eTopoi, Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 6, Space and Knowledge,
481–524.

Gibson, A., K. E. Piquette, U. Bergmann, W. Christens-Barry, G. Davis, et al. 2018. “An As­
sessment of Multimodal Imaging of Subsurface Text in Mummy Cartonnage Using Surro­
gate Papyrus Phantoms.” Heritage Science 6 (1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40494-018-0175-4.

Gilli, B. 2016. “How to Build a Capital: The Second Life of Pre-Ramesside Materials in Pi-
Ramessse.” In Fenster in die Vergangenheit öffnen: Festschrift für Edgar B Pusch zum 70.
Geburtstag, edited by H. Franzmeier, T. Rehren, and R. Schulz, 137–175. FR 10.
Hildesheim.

Graepler, D. 2013. “‘Die Kupfer sind erbärmlich’—Die Reproduktion der Antike als quel­
lenkritisches Problem im 18. Jahrhundert.” In Abgekupfert. Roms Antiken in der Repro­
duktionsmedien der frühen Neuzeit: Katalog zur Ausstellung Kunstsammlung und Samm­
lung der Gipsabgüsse, Universität Göttingen 27. Oktober 2013 bis 16. Februar 2014, edit­
ed by M. Luchterhandt, L. Roemer, J. Bergemann, and D. Graepler, 115–132. Petersburg.

Habachi, L. 1969. Features of the Deification of Ramesses II. ADAIK 5. Glückstadt.

Hoffmann, F. Forthcoming. “Zu den Bild- und Statuenbegriffen im Ägyptischen.” In “Die

Mittel der Kunst im Auge”: Neue Studien zur Kunst des Alten Ägypten I, edited by C.-B.
Arnst. Norderstedt.

Page 14 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Hornemann, B. 1951–1969. Types of Egyptian Statuary, Vols. I–VIII. Copenhagen.

Kemp, W. 1991. “Kontexte: Für eine Kunstgeschichte der Komplexität.” Texte zur Kunst
2:89–101.

Kyrieleis, H. 1988. “Ein klassischer Kopf, erneut betrachtet.” In Kanon: Festschrift Ernst
Berger zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by M. Schmidt, 108–111. Beiheft zur Halbjahresschrift
Antiken Kunst 15. Basel.

Laboury, D. 2008. “Colosses et perspective: De la prise en consideration de la parallaxe

dans la statuaire pharaonique de grandes dimensions au nouvel empire.” RdE 59:181–
230.

Laboury, D. 2010. “Portrait versus Ideal Image.” UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, edit­
ed by W. Wendrich, J. Dieleman, E. Frood, and J. Baines. Los Angeles. http://
digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0025jjv0.

Laboury, D., and H. Tavier. 2016. “In Search of Painters in the Theban Necropolis of the
18th Dynasty. Prolegomena to Analysis of Pictorial Practices in the Tomb of Amenemope
(TT 29).” In Artists and Paintings in Ancient Egypt, edited by V. Angenot and F. Tiradritti,
57–77. Studi Poliziani di Egittologia 1. Montepulciano.

Landa, E. R., and M. D. Fairchild. 2005. “Charing Color from the Eye of the Beholder.”
American Scientist 93 (5):436–443.

Langenbacher, J., and R. Rivenc. 2017. Documenting Painted Surfaces for Outdoor Paint­
ed Sculptures: A Manual of Laboratory and Field Test Methods. Los Angeles.

Lengyel, D., and C. Toulouse. 2014. “3D-Scans für die Rekontextualisierung antiker Skulp­
tur.” In Elektronische Medien & Kunst, Kultur, Historie, Konferenzband, edited by A. Bi­
enert, J. Hemsley, and P. Santos, 135–142. Darmstadt.

Maar, C., and H. Burda, eds. 2004. Iconic Turn: Die neue Macht der Bilder.
(p. 143)

Cologne.

Madden, B., and H. Tavier. 2018. “Original Painting Techniques. Methods and Materials in
18th Dynasty Tombs, in the Valley of the Nobles, Egypt.” In Tracing Technoscapes: The
Production of Bronze Age Wall Paintings in the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by J. Beck­
er, J. Jungfleisch, and C. von Rüden, 120–148. Leiden.

Magen, B. 2011. Steinerne Palimpseste: Zur Wiederverwendung von Statuen durch Ram­
ses II. und seine Nachfolger. Wiesbaden.

Mekhitarian, A. 1954. La peinture égyptienne. Geneva.

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chica­
go.

Müller, M. 1988. Die Kunst Amenophis’ III. und Echnatons. Basel.

Page 15 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Myśliwiec, K. 1988. Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI–XXX. Mainz.

Parkinson, R. B. 2008. The Painted Tomb-Chapel of Nebamun: Masterpieces of Ancient

Egyptian Art. London.

Pieke, G. 2011. “The Evidence of Images: Art and Working Technique in the Mastaba of
Mereruka.” In Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750–2150
bc, edited by N. Strudwick and H. Strudwick, 216–228. Oxford.

Pieke, G. 2015. “Principles of Decoration: Concept and Style in the Mastaba of Mereruka
in Saqqara.” In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, Univer­
sity of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22–29 May 2008, vol. 2, edited by P. Kousoulis and N.
Lazaridis, 1791–1806. OLA 241. Leuven.

Pieke, G. 2018. “‘Lass deinen Namen hervorkommen’: Zur Appropriation von Einzelmotiv­
en der Grabdekoration in Sakkara.” In “ … Denn das eigentliche Studium der Menschen
ist der Mensch,” Beiträge aus der Ägyptologie, der Linguistik, der Medizin und ihrer
Geschichte, der Musikwissenschaft, der Politikwissenschaft und der Provenienzforschung
und der Rechtsgeschichte zu Ehren Alfred Grimms anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstags,
edited by B. Magen, 274–309. Wiesbaden.

Polis, S., and V. Razanajao. 2016. “Ancient Egyptian Texts in Context: Towards a Concep­
tual Data Model (The Thot Data Model–TDM).” Institute of Classical Studies 59/2:24–41.

Sachs-Hombach, K., ed. 2009. Bildtheorien: Anthropologische und kulturelle Grundlagen

des Visualistic Turn. Frankfurt.

Schürmann, E. 2011. “Transitions from Seeing to Thinking. On the Relation of Perception,

Worldview and World-Disclosure.” In Bilder–Sehen–Denken. Zum Verhältnis von begrif­
flich-philosophischen und empirisch-psychologischen Ansätzen in der bildwis­
senschaftlichen Forschung, edited by K. Sachs-Hombach and R. Totzke, 93–105. Cologne.

Shanks, M., and C. Svabo. 2013. “Archaeology and Photography: A Pragmatology.” In Re­
claiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity, edited by A. Gonzáles-Ruibal, 89–
102. New York.

Shedid, A. G. 1988. Stil der Grabmalereien in der Zeit Amenophis’ II: Untersucht an den
Thebanischen Gräbern Nr. 104 und Nr. 80. AVDAIK 66. Mainz.

Smith, W. S. 1949. A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom. 2nd
ed. Oxford.

Spencer, A. J. 1982. “First and Second Owners of a Memphite Tomb Chapel.” JEA 68:20–
26.

Strudwick, N. 2001. “Problems of Recording and Publication of Paintings in the Private

Tombs of Thebes.” In Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt, edited by W. V. Davies, 126–
140. London.

Page 16 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Strudwick, N. 2015. “Interpretation.” In A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, edited by

M. Hartwig, 485–503. Chichester.

Strudwick, N., ed. 2016. The Tomb of Pharaoh’s Chancellor Senneferi at Thebes
(p. 144)

(TT 99), Volume I: New Kingdom. Oxford.

Talbot, W. H. F. 1844. The Pencil of Nature. London.

Tavier, H. 2012. “Pour une approach matérielle et expérimentale de la peinture thébaine.”

In Art and Society: Ancient and Modern Contexts of Egyptian Art: Proceedings of the In­
ternational Conference held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15 May 2010, edit­
ed by K. A. Kóthay, 209–215. Budapest.

Wenzel, G. 2007. “Die Funktion der Hilfslinien im Grab des Pepi-anch-Heni-kem (Meir
A2).” MDAIK 63:337–358.

Wiegand, T. 1991. “Über das Fotografieren antiker Skulpturen.” In Apollon und Athena:
Klassische Götterstatuen in Abgüssen und Rekonstruktionen, edited by P. Gercke, 28–38.
Kassel.

Williams, C. R. 1932. The Decoration of the Tomb of Per-neb. The Technique and the Color
Conventions. New York.

Winkelmann, J. J. 1764. Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums. Vol. 1. Dresden.

Wreszinski, W. 1923–1936. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. 7 vols. Leipzig.

Further Reading
Antikenmuseum Basel and Sammlung Ludwig, ed. 2017. Scanning Sethos: Die Wiederge­
burt eines Pharaonengrabes. Basel.

Arnheim, R. 1970. Visual Thinking. London.

Assmann, J. 1990. “Die Macht der Bilder: Rahmenbedingungen ikonischen Handelns.” In

Genres in Visual Representation: Visible Religion Annual for Religious Iconography VII,
edited by H. G. Kippenberg, L. P. van den Bosch, and L. Leertouwer, 1–20. Leiden.

Assmann, J. 2009. “Altägyptische Bildpraxen und ihre impliziten Theorien.” In Bildtheo­

rien: Anthropologische und kulturelle Grundlagen des Visualistic Turn, edited by K.
Sachs-Homburg, 74–103. Frankfurt.

Baines, J. 1994. “On the Status and Purpose of Ancient Egyptian Art.” CAJ 4.1:67–94.

Barta, W. 1970. Das Selbstzeugnis eines altägyptischen Künstlers (Stele Louvre C 14).
MÄS 22. Berlin.

Bätschmann, O. 2001. Einführung in die kunsthistorische Hermeneutik: Die Auslegung

von Bildern. 5th updated ed. Darmstadt.

Page 17 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Bavay, L. 2007. “La tombe thébaine d’Aménémope vizir d’Amenhotep II.” ÉAO 45 (Les
Tombes Thébaines 29 et 96): 7–20.

Bavay, L., and D. Laboury. 2012. “Dans l’entourage de Pharaon: Art et archéologie dans la
nécropole thébaine.” In Ceci n’est pas une pyramide …: Un siècle de recherche
archéologique belge en Égypte, edited by L. Bavay, 62–79. Leuven.

Belting, H. 1983. Das Ende der Kunstgeschichte? Munich.

Belting, H. 1990. Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst.
Munich.

Bernhauer, E. 2003. Innovationen in der Privatplastik: Die 18. Dynastie und ihre Entwick­
lung. Philippika 27. Wiesbaden.

Bernhauer, E. 2006. “Zur Typologie rundplastischer Menschendarstellungen am Beispiel

der altägyptischen Privatplastik.” SAK 34:33–49.

Boehm, G., ed. 1994. Was ist ein Bild? Munich.

Bothmer, B. 1978. “On Photographing Egyptian Art.” SAK 6:51–53.

Brandl, H. 2008. Untersuchungen zur steinernen Privatplastik der dritten Zwischenzeit:

Typology, Ikonographie, Stilistik. Berlin.

Bryan, B. M. 1996. “The Disjunction of Text and Image in Egyptian Art.” In Studies in
Honor of William Kelly Simpson, vol. 1, edited by P. Der Manuelian, 161–168. Boston.

Capart, J. 1905. Primitive Art in Egypt. Translated from the revised and augmented origi­
nal edition by A. S. Griffith. London.

Caminos, R. 1976. “The Recording of Inscriptions and Scenes in Tombs and Temples.” In
Ancient Egyptian Epigraphy and Palaeography, 1–25. New York.

Cleland, T. M. 1969. A Grammar of Color: Basic Treatise on the Color System of Albert H.
Munsell. New York.

Cody, M. E., ed. 2004. Egyptian Art: Selected Writings of Bernhard v. Bothmer. New York.

Connor, S. 2018. “Sculpture Workshops: Who, Where and for Whom?” In The Arts of Mak­
ing in Ancient Egypt, edited by G. Miniaci, G. Moreno Garcia, J. C. Quirke, and S. A.
Stauder, 11–30. Leiden.

Davies, W. V., ed. 2010. Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt. London.

Davis, W. 1989. The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art. Cambridge.

Eaton-Krauss, M., and E. Graefe, eds. 1990. Studien zur ägyptischen Kunstgeschichte,
Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beträge 29. Hildesheim.

Page 18 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Eaton-Krauss, M. 2007. “The Art of TT 100: The Tomb of the Vizier Rekhmire.” BES
17:61–65.

Fischer, H. G. 1977. The Orientation of Hieroglyphs: Part I, Reversals. Egyptian Studies 3.

New York.

Fittschen, K. 1974. “Über das Photographieren römischer Porträts.” AA 89/3: 484−494.

Fitzenreither, M., and M. Herb, eds. 2006. Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich:
Methodik und Interpretation. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 6.
Berlin.

Freier, E., and S. Grunert. 1988. Eine Reise durch Ägypten nach den Zeichnungen des
Lepsius-Expedition in den Jahren 1842–1845. Berlin.

Gadamaer, H.-G. 1994. “Bildkunst und Wortkunst.” In Was ist ein Bild?, 4th ed., edited by
G. Boehm, 90–104. Munich.

Grimm, A. 1995. Theatrum Hieroglyphicum: Ägyptisierende Bildwerke des Barock. MJBK

45. Munich.

Groenewegen-Frankfort, H. A. 1972. Arrest and Movement: An Essay on Space and Time

in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East. New York.

Hanke, R. 1961. Untersuchungen zur Komposition des ägyptischen Flachbildes. Lünen.

Harpur, Y. 1987. Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom. London.

Harpur, Y. 2001. The Tombs of Nefermaat and Rahotep at Maidum: Discovery, Destruction
and Reconstruction. EgTombs 1. Prestbury, Cheltenham.

Hartwig, M. 2004. Tomb Painting and Identity in Ancient Thebes, 1419–1372 BCE. Mon­
Aeg 10, Série IMAGO 2. Brussels.

Hofmann, T. 2000. “Die Gliederung des menschlichen Körpers anhand der sichtbaren
Merkmale ägyptischer Plastik.” GM 175:29–38.

Hill, M. 2015. “Later Life of Middle Kingdom Monuments interrogating Tanis.” In Ancient
Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom, edited by A. Oppenheim, D. Arnold, D. Arnold,
and K. Yamamoto, 294–304. New York.

Hofmann, E. 2012. Im Dienst des Pharao–Loyalität und Selbstdarstellung. Innovative

Bilder in thebanischen Beamtengräbern in der 18. Dynastie. HÄB Sonderband 2.
Hildesheim.

Hornung, E. 1973. “Bedeutung und Wirklichkeit des Bildes im alten Ägypten.” In Kunst
und Realität Akademische Vorträge, gehalten an der Universität Basel 8, 35–46. Basel.

Hornung, E. 1981. “Von zweierlei Grenzen.” Eranos Jahrbuch 49:393–427. Frankfurt.

Page 19 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Hornung, E. 2001. “‘Hieroglyphisch denken’ Bild und Schrift im alten Ägypten.” In Homo
pictor, edited by G. Boehm, 76–86. Colloquium Rauricum Band 7. Munich.

Hudáková, L., P. Jánosi, and A. Kahlbacher, eds. 2016. Change and Innovation in Middle
Kingdom Arts. Middle Kingdom Studies 4. London.

Hüttner, M. 2016. Von Alexandria nach Abu Simbel: Ägypten in frühen Fotografien 1849–
1875. Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien in Zusammenarbeit mit
der Galerie Johannes Faber, Wien, 7. Juni bis 25. September 2016. Vienna.

Iverson, E. 1975. Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art. Warminster.

Johnson, W. R. 2014. “Epigraphic Survey.” In Digital Epigraphy, edited by K. Vértes, 9–20.

Chicago.

Josephson, J. A. 1997. Egyptian Royal Sculpture of the Late Period 400–246 B.C. SDAIK
30. Mainz.

Jonas, Hans. 1994. “Homo pictor: Von der Freiheit des Bildens.” In Das Prinzip Leben: An­
sätze zu einer philosophischen Biologie, edited by H. Jonas, 265–302. Frankfurt.

Johnson, W. R., M. de Jong, S. Osgood, and K. Vértes. 2014. “Drawing Conventions.” In

Digital Epigraphy, edited by K. Vértes, 21–56. Chicago.

Junker, H. 1959. “Die gesellschaftliche Stellung der ägyptischen Künstler im Alten Reich.”
SÖAW 233,1. Vienna.

Keller, C. A. 2001. “A Family Affair: The Decoration of Theban Tomb 259.” In Colour and
Painting in Ancient Egypt, edited by W. V. Davies, 73–93. London.

Kemp, W. 1998. “The Work of Art and Its Beholder: The Methodology of the Aesthetic of
Reception.” In The Subjects of Art History: Historical Objects in Contemporary Perspec­
tives, edited by M. A. Cheetham, 180–196. New York.

Kopf, B. 2007. “Skulptur im Bild: Visuelle Dokumentation und deren Beitrag zur Entwick­
lung der archäologischen Wissenschaft.” In Verwandte Bilder: Die Fragen der Bildwis­
senschaft, edited by I. Reichle, S. Siegel, and A. Spelten, 149–167. Berlin.

Kóthay, K. A., ed. 2012. Art and Society: Ancient and Modern Contexts of Egyptian Art:
Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest,
13–15 May 2010. Budapest.

Krauss, R., and C. Loeben. 2003. “Epigrafiker-Kopien eines Amarna-Reliefs im Vergleich.”

In Es werde niedergelegt als Schriftstück: Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65.
Geburtstag, edited by N. Kloth, K. Martin, and E. Parday, 231–246. SAK Bh 9. Hamburg.

Kunze, M. 1999. “Archäologie aus der Sicht Winkelmanns.” In Von der Schönheit weißen
Marmors: Zum 200. Todestag von B. Cavaceppi, edited by T. Weiss, 11–16. Mainz.

Page 20 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Kyrieleis, H. 1988. “Ein klassischer Kopf, erneut betrachtet.” In Kanon: Festschrift Ernst
Berger zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by M. Schmidt, 108–111. Beiheft zur Halbjahresschrift
Antiken Kunst 15. Basel.

Laboury, D. 2012. “Tracking Ancient Egyptian Artists: A Problem of Methodology. The

Case of the Painters of Private Tombs in the Theban Necropolis during the Eighteenth Dy­
nasty.” In Art and Society: Ancient and Modern Contexts of Egyptian Art. Proceedings of
the International Conference Held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15 May
2010, edited by K. A. Kóthay, 199–208. Budapest.

Laboury, D. 2013. “L’artiste égyptien, ce grand méconnu de l’égyptologie.” In L’art du con­

tour: Le dessin dans l’Égypte ancienne, edited by G. Andreu-Lanoë in collaboration with
S. Labbé-Toutée and P. Rigault, 28–35. Catalogue for an Exhibition in Paris, Musée du
Louvre, and Bruxelles, Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Paris.

Laboury, D. 2014. “Citations et usages de l’art du Moyen Empire à l’époque thoutmoside.”

In Vergangenheit und Zukunft: Die Konstruktion historischer Zeit in der 18. Dynastie,
edited by S. Bickel, 3–20. AH 22. Basel.

Laboury, D. 2017. “Traditions and Creativity: Toward a Study of Intericonicity in Ancient

Egyptian Art.” In (Re)productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt, edited by T. Gillen, 229–258.
AegLeo 10. Liège.

Langlotz, E. 1979. “Über das Photographieren griechischer Skulpturen.” JDAI 94:1−17.

Luiselli, M. M. 2010. “Inszenierung von Individualität: Zur Selbst-Thematisierung in der

altägyptischen Porträtkunst des Mittleren Reiches.” Imago Aegypti 3:72–81.

Malatkova, J. 2011. “Searching for an Undistorted Template (Digital Epigraphy in Ac­

tion).” In Old Kingdom, New Perspective: Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750–2150 BC,
edited by N. Strudwick and H. Strudwick, 192–199. Oxford.

Málek, J., and E. Miles. 1989. “Early Squeezes Made in the Tomb of Kahemhet (TT57).”
JEA 75:227–229.

Manuelian, P. Der. 1998. “Digital Epigraphy: An Approach to Streamlining Egyptological

Epigraphic Methods.” JARCE 35:97–113.

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1992. “The Pictorial Turn.” Art Forum, March: 89–95.

Müller, H. W. 1970. Ägyptische Kunst. Monumente Alter Kulturen. Frankfurt.

Müller, H. W. 1973. “Der Kanon in der ägyptischen Kunst.” In Der ‘vermessene’ Mensch:
Anthropometrie in der Kunst und Wissenschaft. 9–31. Munich.

Mysliwiec, K. 1988. Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI–XXX. Mainz.

Neureiter, S. 1993. Der spätzeitliches Archaismus: Ausdruck sozialen Wandels? Hamburg.

Page 21 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Ockinga, B. 1984. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im Alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament. ÄAT
7. Wiesbaden.

Pieke, G. 2013. “Neue Reliefs aus dem Grab des Mereruka in der Berliner
Abklatschsammlung.” In Florilegium Aegyptiacum‒Eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von
Schülern und Freunden für Helmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am 21. Jänner 2013,
edited by J. Budka, R. Gundacker, and G. Pieke, 295–311. GM Beihefte 14. Göttingen.

Pieke, G. 2017. “Lost in Transformation: Artistic Creation between Permanence and

Change.” In (Re)productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt, edited by T. Gillen, 259–304. Ae­
gyptiaca Leodiensia, Liège.

Piquette, K. E. 2016a. “Documenting Artefact Surfaces with Reflectance Transformation

Imaging.” In Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt, edited by S. Zakrzewski, A. Short­
land, and J. Rowland. New York.

Piquette, K. E. 2016b. “Documenting Early Egyptian Imagery: Analysing Past Technolo­

gies and Materialities with the Aid of Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI).” In
Préhistoires de l’écriture: Iconographie, pratiques graphiques et émergence de l’écrit
dans l’Égypte prédynastique, edited by G. Graff and A. Jimenez Serrano. Préhistoires de
la Méditerranée. Aix-en-Provence.

Polz, D. 1987. “Excavation and Recording of a Theban Tomb: Some Remarks on Record­
ing Methods.” In Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology, edited by J. Assmann,
G. Burkhard, and V. Davies, 119–140. Studies in Egyptology. London.

Riggs, C. 2017. “Objects in the Photographic Archive: Between the Field and the Museum
in Egyptian Archaeology.” Museum History Journal 10 (2):104–161. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19369816.2017.1328818.

Robins, G. 1994. Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art. Austin.

Robins, G. 1997. The Art of Ancient Egypt. London.

Russmann, E. R. 1989. Egyptian Sculptures: Cairo and Luxor. Austin.

Sachs-Homburg, K., ed. 2005. Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen, Themen, Methoden. Frank­

furt.

Schäfer, H. 1963. Von ägyptischer Kunst. Eine Grundlage, edited by E. Brunner-Traut. 4th
ed. Wiesbaden.

Schapiro, M. 1973. Words and Pictures: On the Literal and the Symbolic in the Illustra­
tion of a Text. Approaches to Semiotics Series 11, edited by T. A. Sebeok. The Hague.

Schmitz, B. 2010. “ … Ein wirklicher Fürst, mit starkem Willen und voll Würde … ” Die
Geschichte eines ägyptischen Prinzen: Hem-iunu in Giza und Hildesheim. HÄB, Sonder­
band 1. Hildesheim.

Page 22 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Stanwick, P. E. 2003. Portraits of the Ptolemies. Austin.

Taler, A. 2010. “Figura probat: Anmerkungen zum Sagen als Zeigen und Zeigen als Sa­
gen.” In Philosophie des Bildes: Philosophie d’image. Studia Philosophica 69/2010:37–52.
Basel.

Tefnin, R. 1979. “Image et histoire: Réflexions sur l’usage documentaire de l’image égyp­
tienne.” CdÉ 54:218–244.

Tefnin, R. 1980. “Image, écriture, récit à propos des représentations égyptienne de la

bataille de Qadesh.” Annales d’histoire de 1’art et d’archeologie, publication annuelle de
la Section d’Histoire de 1’Art et d’Archeologie de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles 2:7–24.

Tefnin, R. 1984. “Discours et iconicité dans l’art égyptien.” GM 79:55–71.

Tefnin, R., ed. 1997. La peinture égyptienne ancienne: un monde de signes à préserver:
Actes du Colloque international de Bruxelles, avril 1994. MonAeg 7, Série IMAGO 1.
Brussels.

The Brooklyn Museum, ed. 1960. Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period: 700 B.C. to 100
A.D. Catalogue compiled by B. V. Bothmer in collaboration with H. de Meulenaere and H.
W. Müller. Brooklyn.

Tomoum, N. 2005. Sculptors’ Models of the Late and Ptolemaic Periods: A Study of the
Type and Function of a Group of Ancient Egyptian Artefacts. Cairo.

Vandier, J. 1954–1969. Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne. Five vols. Paris.

Van Pelt, P. W., and N. T. B. Staring. 2019. “Interpreting Graffiti in the Saqqara New King­
dom Necropolis as Expressions of Popular Customs and Beliefs.” Rivista del Museo Egizio
3.

Verbovsek, A., B. Backes, and C. Jones, eds. 2011. Methodik und Didaktik in der Ägyptolo­
gie: Herausforderungen eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Paradigmenwechsels in den Alter­
tumswissenschaften. Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft 4. Munich.

Vernus, P. 1985. “Des relations entre texts et representations dans l’Egypte pharaonique.”
In Écritures II, edited by A.-M. Christin, 45–69. Paris.

Vértes, K., ed. 2014. Digital Epigraphy. Chicago.

Wiegand, T. 1991. “Über das Fotografieren antiker Skulpturen.” In Apollon und Athena:
Klassische Götterstatuen in Abgüssen und Rekonstruktionen, edited by P. Gercke, 28–38.
Kassel.

Wilkinson, C. K., and M. Hill. 1983. “Egyptian Wall Paintings: The Metropolitan Museums’
Collection of Facsimiles.” In Egyptian Wall Paintings: The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s
Collection of Facsimiles, edited by J. P. O’Neill and J. Ekman, 8–61. New York.

Page 23 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020

Recording Epigraphic Sources as Part of Artworks

Winand, J. 2006. “L’image dans le texte ou le texte dans l’image? Le cas de l’Égypte anci­
enne.” Visible 2:143–161.

Wolf, W. 1957. Die Kunst Ägyptens: Gestalt und Geschichte. Stuttgart.

Gabriele Pieke

Gabriele Pieke is Curator and Head of the Egyptian Department, Reiss-Engelhorn-

Museen, Mannheim.

Page 24 of 24

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 06 March 2020