Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Ancient faces: the Fayum mummy portraits of Egypt
The pyramids, Tutankhamen's gold, the massive temples of Luxor and Karnak. . .the civilization of ancient Egypt has left us an incredible legacy, yet of all of these impressive monuments and treasures none has a more personal effect on the viewer than the Fayum mummy portraits.During the Graeco-Roman period, after Egypt had fallen first to Alexander the Great and then to the Romans, the old traditions continued. Temples were still built, priests still wrote in hieroglyphics, and the wealthy were still mummified in order to guarantee their place in the afterlife.
The new rulers of Egypt took on some local customs. They often chose to be mummified in the Egyptian fashion, but added the touch of putting a portrait of the deceased over the wrappings covering the face. Painted on thin slats of wood, they were part of a trend called panel painting, considered by Classical writers to be one of the highest forms of art.
Panel paintings were hung in houses and public buildings all over the Greek and Roman world. Two thousand years of damp, mold, and fire destroyed all of them except those buried in the preserving sands of Egypt, so these mummy portraits give us a look at what would otherwise be a lost art. Panel painting was hugely popular in its day and later influenced the Coptic and Byzantine icons of the Middle Ages.
Looking at a mummy portrait brings you face to face with a real person from the past, like this image of a priest courtesy user Eloquence via Wikimedia Commons. Painted around 140-160 AD, it's realistic enough that we'd know him if he passed us on the street. The portraits vary in quality, but each gives us an individualistic look at a man or woman or child, often with fascinating details like jewelry or hairstyles.
Gallery: Fayum mummy portraits
Mummy portraits appeared around the first century BC and continued in fashion for about 300 years. Many were found in the Fayum, an oasis west of modern Cairo that was a popular place to be buried, but examples have been found all over Egypt.
The Museo Arqueológico Nacional in Madrid has a display of 13 of the best mummy portraits showing until July 24. Most of the museum has been closed for more than two years for refurbishment so it's nice that something is going on there. There's also the exhibit Tesoros del Museo Arqueológico Nacional, a "greatest hits" collection like the British Museum did while it was remodeling.
If you aren't going to Madrid this summer (don't--the autumn or spring are better with fewer tourists and milder weather) there are plenty of other places to see mummy portraits. In London, The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology and the British Museum have two of the largest collections in the world, although many of the best examples from the British Museum are in Madrid at the moment. In New York there's the Met, in Edinburgh the National Museum of Scotland, in Paris the Louvre, in Vienna the Kunsthistorisches Museum, and in Amsterdam the Allard Pierson Museum. And of course there's the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo!
The Museo Arqueológico Nacional in Madrid has a display of 13 of the best mummy portraits showing until July 24. Most of the museum has been closed for more than two years for refurbishment so it's nice that something is going on there. There's also the exhibit Tesoros del Museo Arqueológico Nacional, a "greatest hits" collection like the British Museum did while it was remodeling.
If you aren't going to Madrid this summer (don't--the autumn or spring are better with fewer tourists and milder weather) there are plenty of other places to see mummy portraits. In London, The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology and the British Museum have two of the largest collections in the world, although many of the best examples from the British Museum are in Madrid at the moment. In New York there's the Met, in Edinburgh the National Museum of Scotland, in Paris the Louvre, in Vienna the Kunsthistorisches Museum, and in Amsterdam the Allard Pierson Museum. And of course there's the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo!
Filed under: Arts and Culture, History, Learning, Africa, Europe, Egypt, Spain
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Eugenio Jun 14th 2011 1:54AM
The interpretation of these pictures is incorrect: this typology of portrait is purely roman. In Pompei and in Rome too, are conserved a few of these portraits and it can to follow their evolution in time. This typology, in roman world and in Italy first, begun before the egyptians portraits that you've show here.
Sean McLachlan Jun 14th 2011 6:04AM
"Purely Roman"? No. While you are correct that panel painting started earlier than the mummy portraits, as I said in my article, it was both a Greek and Roman art. The Fayum portraits started during the Ptolemaic (Graeco-Egyptian) rule and in a place where many Greeks and mixed Graeco-Egyptians lived. Plus in the eastern Mediterranean at this time many of the artisans and craftsmen were Greek. In the cosmopolitan world of the eastern Mediterranean, with its constant interaction between cultures, it's hard to say anything is "purely" from one civilization.
taaruoort Jul 24th 2011 9:24PM
Sorry, but maybe I was not clear: The tradition of portraits are certainly
commune to ancient mediterranean civilisations, but the particular kind of
portraits that you've show in the article, its style, and - if I remember right
- its times, are "purely" roman. I invite you to watching the roman portraits
of Pompei and Rome, from the same period, and do a comparison. Anyhow, I know the portraits showed in the article; those appear in the titles of roman
history of art.
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 2:14AM
Sorry, but maybe I was not clear: The tradition of portraits are certainly commune to ancient mediterranean civilisations, but the particular kind of portraits that you've show in the article, its style, and - if I remember right - its times, are "purely" roman. I invite you to watching the roman portraits of Pompei and Rome, from the same period, and do a comparison. Anyhow, I know the portraits showed in the article; those appear in the titles of roman history of art.
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 2:14AM
To think that roman dominance in Egipt passed without signs, is not only incorrect but also unintelligent: in those portraits - like in anothers expressions of art in Egipt, during the roman period - the faces, the clothings and others objects, are propers to egiptian tradition, but the people portraited partecipates to the dominant climate, which roman archetype of portraits - that has a long tradition - was one of several expression.
Eugenio
Sean McLachlan Jul 25th 2011 2:19AM
And where in my article or comments do I say the Romans passed though Egypt without a trace? This sort of comment (along with calling me unintelligent), and the fact that you have given no hard evidence that the portraits are only Roman beyond simply saying so, shows that you aren't arguing from any real knowledge, but an insecure nationalism that has no place in archaeology.
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 10:38AM
You are very susceptible, and you confirm to be inintelligent: first: I don't said you have said that Romans passed without traces in Egipt, but this way to represent history (anti-roman, substantially), is typical of german (mostly), french and english way to studies mediterranean-european civilizations (if you want I may to make a "great" example of this). Then, the "nationalism" which you speak is a typical barbaric - and idiot - product of those cultures; not of mine!!! I don't know where you came from, but your (no) knowledge says that your preparation is product by the "nationalism" about you speak, without realize that one which you accuse me, is exactly that you demonstrate for yourself.
Second: the no-real knowledge that you say about my preparation is exactly the mirror of your no-real knowledge; I've said that the portraits that you've showed are presents in manuals of roman history of art; I've invited you to look them; but is evident like is more easy to believe yourself more prepareted of all the world, than entry in a normal argumentation.
Third: your formula: "and the fact that you have given no hard evidence that the portraits are only Roman" is the finally demonstration of your inability to understand a simply historical fact, and to understand my simply words (also if I can understand that my english are not correct; I speak better french and spanish, apart italian obviously... and you?), and, mostly, to unanderstand an argumenation that come down a bit more in depth than your "analysis". I've well tried to explain because the particular portraits that you've showed are a product of the roman domain in Egipt, and for this you accuse me of "nationalism"!!! I mean that your stupid susceptibility are the direct daughter of your "nationalism", and, unfortunately, of the desolate german-anglo-saxon "culture" which you are, evidently, infected.
Sean McLachlan Jul 25th 2011 10:41AM
. . .and you still haven't cited any sources or provided any evidence. I gave my logical argument in my post and my first comment, where's yours? Lots of screaming but no science!
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 11:52AM
To explain better:
the origins - or "tradition" - of portrait, are in the pre-artistic representation of anthropogenic forms. Those representations of idols, gods or dead, was often with few humans elements; sometimes a trace of eyes, of mouth, of nose, or sometimes without those details and only a kind of oval for head. The rest of body was, according cultures, a simply parallelepiped, more or few lenght, or totally without it, and only with neck. For exemple; the Xoana in the celtic culture or in the apulian pre-roman culture. For celtic Xoana is, in most cases, impossible to establish a short arc of time for its realization; cause its typology are persisted for several centuries. In the early Rome, before every suspicion of nationalism (don't worry), it was the cult of ancestors, that was represented with a wax kind of portrait, very involuted in their forms, only with head (and neck), that begun to improve during the time. And this is the origin of roman portrait. So says like inside origins of roman portraits was present the developmental germ of personal portraits of followings centuries. Until become (I jump a lot of stages) to our... oh, sorry, to "your" portraits. In a lot of ancients cultures, included Egipt, the personal portraits was not a tipical expression of status; also Pharaoh was represented more with ideals tracts than realist. And also greeks don't had a tradition of personal portrait. The realism in the roman personal portrait was, instead, inborn in its original ideology. This is not "nationalism", sorry, but history. It most to study it without turbids and idiots and barbaric prejudices.
Sean McLachlan Jul 25th 2011 12:02PM
Well, at least you tried to make a coherent argument this time. Tried, but failed, and descended into more insults and name calling.
Greeks never made realistic depictions of the human face? Perhaps you should look that up. And you didn't address any of my original points. Or cite any sources. Or give any concrete examples besides one from the Celtic world.
I'm not sure where you got it into your head that non-Italians have some sort of conspiracy theory to blot out the achievements of the Roman Empire, or that the term "Greco-Roman" was some sort of racist slur, but in the colorful realm of conspiracy theories I have to say that's a new one on me.
Since it has become quite obvious that I am not going to get an intellectual conversation from you, I will bow out of this thread, thus reducing your audience from one to zero. Feel free to continue babbling without me.
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 12:01PM
Very poor replay, the your.
Ok, but, I will write my argument in my language; sorry, but your barbaric language is unfit to my explications. Then you can to let to translate by somebody.
Wait a little bit.
Ah, I forgot: the first who doesen't want to debate are you. The first scream are your...
Write later. Bye
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 12:34PM
Realistic=personal (sorry... my english)...
There are some goods dictionaries on line.
Il ritratto personale, in Grecia, si può far iniziare con Pericle (l'Erma); prima è sempre stato impersonale. Riguardo al fatto che le mie argomentazioni siano sbagliate, beh, non so davvero cosa dirti; evidentemente tu non hai studiato nulla che riguardi l'origine delle forme artistiche (o pre-artistiche) mediterranee ed europee.
Ma torniamo ai "tuoi" ritratti: insieme alla tradizione (egiziana in questo caso), c'è sempre - in ogni tempo e luogo - l'innovazione. L'Egitto antico è una cosa; l'Egitto tolemaico prima e romano dopo è un'altra cosa. Il modello dominante, durante la dominazione romana dell'Egitto, è quello del nobile cittadino che fa eseguire il suo ritratto (e quello dei suoi famigliari), nelle diverse occasioni della sua esistenza; compresa la morte (da qui i ritratti tombali). Questo modello non mancò di permeare anche l'Egitto, e i ritratti che tu hai esposto nel sito ne sono un esempio. E sono perfettamente insiti nella tradizione romana del ritratto personale. Puoi cercare tutti i confronti che vuoi.
In quanto alla "cospirazione"; io non ne ho parlato; è un fatto che in Germania, come in Francia e in Inghilterra, hanno un modo quantomeno "singolare" di ricostruire la storia. Ed è profondamente "nazionalista". Ecco un esempio: (in breve), "l'Europa delle nazioni è il prodotto VOLUTO e CERCATO dei popoli nordici per "liberare" l'Europa dalla "tirannìa" romana... " questo è un argomento portato avanti da una certa storiografia tedesca. Questo è nazionalismo. Ma io non lo attribuivo a te in particolare. Solo mi è parso molto "tendenzioso" il tuo rifiuto di vedere, nei ritratti egiziani che hai riportato nel sito, l'influenza romana, la quale è evidente per chi ha un minimo di dimestichezza con la storia dell'arte antica. Non c'è nessun nazionalismo in questo; solo una mera constatazione dei fatti. Se poi non credi che la tradizione romana del ritratto sia quella che ti ho descritto, beh... hai ragione tu: anch'io ti lascio alle tue dabbenaggini e ti saluto qui.
In quanto alle fonti: Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. Buona lettura.
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 1:04PM
The roman portrait tradition have the origin that I have wrote. And is a tradition of personal portrait (also if in the earlier their "personal" tracts are very questionables). During the centuries this kind of personal representation became a model for personal representation of "upper class"; already in high republican age. In imperial age this model was mature and differentiated, and penetrates in Egipt, like in others parts of empire. The portraits that you've showed are an exemple of this penetration of this model that was "purely" roman. Also if the people represented are egiptians; but they partecipate to "new" model of dominant class. This is not unbilieveble; this is normal: in every time and every place are several foreign models that represent your proper self-vision; to communicate own class or own profession.
You speak only under protection of your sources... Do you have an original thought and opinion?
I'm an archaeologist, and I've sudied and I study every time. But I have mostly my personal opinion.
This is a synthesis which I've wrote in italian language. You know another language out of english? Now I go to babbing with another idiot like you.
taaruoort Jul 25th 2011 3:07PM
You may to search the portrait of Paquio Proculo and his wife; Pompei, 60-70 b.C. in which you can find an exemple of precursor of the portraits that you've presented here.
In all your sources and remandments, you've did'nt yet say why the roman origin of your portraits (how I've explained) it's so unacceptable.
I've read your themes, and I've not found nothing that is'nt suggestions and romantics visions. And none really analysis.
Say that: " In the cosmopolitan world of the eastern Mediterranean, with its constant interaction between cultures, it's hard to say anything is "purely" from one civilization." are suggestive but incorrect and seems an abandonment to analysis: it's hard but not impossible. Those "purities" can be inferred; sometimes it's not easy, but in "our" case is even immediate. When I've sow the images, immediately I've sow the typical (and mature) roman portrait, then I've identified the paintings presents into my "old" text of roman-provincial art. In tribute to your love for sources I report a source: "Roma, la fine dell'arte antica". Translation: "Rome, the end of ancient art"; R. Bianchi Bandinelli; ed. BUR Rizzoli CDS Milano 1988.
The intellectual conversation is not possible, sure, because your dogma cannot fall without reveal your superficiality. You speak about science, without a least of science or logic. Ok, now I may to leave you to your dogmas and to your ignorance; I mean that art and history are not bread for your teeth.
Eugenio Dec 5th 2011 11:10AM
Ciao Sean, how are you? Have you read something of serious about ancient art? Or you are even with your bullshit?
Greatings!!!