context, function and program

Context, Function and Program: Understanding Ceremonial Slate PalettesAuthor(s): David O'ConnorSource: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 39 (2002), pp. 5-25Published by: American Research Center in EgyptStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40001148 .

Accessed: 13/02/2014 10:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.236.27.111 on Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:12:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40001148?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Context, Function and Program: Understanding Ceremonial Slate Palettes

David O'Connor

i

The relatively large, sometimes elaborately decorated slate palettes- considered for these reasons to be ceremonial- produced during the late prehistoric, and very early historic times in Egypt have been several times discussed at length in recent years.1 Thus, their long-recognized importance in terms of both early Egyptian culture or civilization, and the history of Egyptian art in general, has been once more highlighted.

In reviewing both recent and earlier discussions of these palettes, I have been struck by two issues which are significantly related to each other. First, the palettes each individually display a "program," a structured arrangement of pictorial elements carved in relief; and, as a whole, belong to a larger "program" in that a number of motifs and themes recur on several palettes, while other motifs and themes found on other decorated items of the time are largely, although not entirely, excluded. The latter include domesticated, as compared to wild animals, and items such as ships of different types, prominently featured for example on the Hierakonpolis wall painting, the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, and elsewhere.2 Naturally, much attention has been paid by scholars to deciphering the meaning of the programs, specific and general, associated with the palettes. Equally naturally, there is considerable disagreement about what that meaning, or meanings might be.

These disagreements or, more accurately, alternative renderings of the programs- insofar as earlier commentators are concerned- are well brought out by Cialowicz's survey of scholarly opinions vis a vis the frequent "zoomorphic" items on the palettes.3 Amongst more recent commentators, one can compare Tefnin's argument that the imagery on the palettes does not narrate (raconter) an event4 with Davis' claim that on the palettes the "images seem to be organized as narratives to be 'read' in a specific way" (1992, 21) and that, "Irrespective of the . . . functions" of the palettes "they work as pictorial narratives."5 Cialowicz, like Davis, thinks narrative is an important feature of the palettes' imagery,6 although he disagrees with some of Davis' specific narrative reconstructions- indeed, one suspects that absent texts and with considerable pictorial ambiguity, a number of alternative narratives could be read into the same scene or assemblage of images.

1 See especially K. Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration. Etudes de I'art predynastique (Kra- kow, 1991), and W. Davis, Masking the Blow: The Scene of Representation in Late Prehistoric Egyptian Art (Berkeley, 1992).

2 For the role of ships in early Egyptian art, see especially B. Williams, and T. Logan, "The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery before Nzrmer" JNES 46 (1987), 245-85.

Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, especially chapters I and IV. R.Tefnin, "Image et histoire: reflexions sur l'usage documentaire de l'image egyptienne," CdE 54, no. 108 (1979), 223; see

also 224. 5 Ibid., 22. 6 Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, 46, 79.

5



6 JARCE XXXIX (2002)

Another important aspect of the imagery of ceremonial palettes is the degree to which it is symbolic and emblematic on the one hand, and historical or at least specific as to event, on the other. There is perhaps a general agreement that, as Baines7 puts it, the "palettes can be seen as moving from a rather ambivalent celebration of the containment of disorder . . . through multiple representations of the king" embodied as a wild animal, as the Horus name, and "finally in full human depic- tions."8 Within this context however substantial disagreement exists. Cialowicz, for example, reads the hunting imagery on the Hunters' Palette9 as "une allusion aux evenements reels"10 a supposition flatly denied by Tefnin.11 More famously, the Narmer Palette continues to be read by some as a gen- uine historical record about perhaps "the last and greatest of the kings of Dynasty 0 of Hierakonpo- lis,"12 whereas others see its imagery's "composition as a ritual affirmation of conquest, not a real event." 13

Relevant to the historicity of the Narmer Palette, and some other decorated objects, are a recent discovery by Dreyer and an important suggestion by Millet. The former involves the recovery of a year label of Narmer "identified by the same event as is depicted on the king's famous palette."14 In fact, despite some similarities, the two scenes are by no means identical, and the enemy Narmer dominates is labeled with a different name or designation in each case. Millet's important suggestion was that scenes on some palettes and other objects (such as ceremonial maceheads) function as a year label, their purpose being to "simply name the year in which the gift was made and offered to the god,"15 the relevant scene on Narmer's palette then being interpreted as "Year of Smiting the North Land."16 This is an attractive suggestion, although the concept of a year name is to some degree a problematical one.17 More importantly, it is a notion not easily applicable to the earlier palettes, which display imagery of no obvious historical import.

A final observation about the general significance of the ceremonial palettes, and some related objects such as ceremonial maceheads, needs to be made. Intrinsically, they are clearly of great art- historical and cultural interest, deserve the sometimes intense analysis they have received, and merit being called "minor monuments."18 Nevertheless, we must remember- as is sometimes noted, but perhaps not sufficiently stressed- that the palettes and comparable objects very likely existed within the context of more complex, larger scale, and more monumental art which- whether in two dimen-

7 Baines has written several important commentaries on the palettes. See J. Baines, "Communication and Display: the Integration of Early Egyptian Art and Writing," Antiquity 63 (1989), 478-79; J. Baines, "Symbolic Roles of Canine Figures on Early Monuments," Archaeo-Nil 3 (1993), 57-74; and, J. Baines, "Origins of Egyptian Kingship," in D. O'Connor and D. Silver- man, eds., Ancient Egyptian Kingship, Probleme der agyptologie 9 (Leiden, 1995), 109-21.

8 Baines, "Origins of Egyptian Kingship," 114. 9 Most of the palettes are conveniently collected in several places, e.g., H. Asselberghs, Chaos en Beheersing: documenten uit

het aeneolitisch Egypte. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 8 (Leiden, 1961); R. Ridley, The Unification of Egypt as Seen Through a Study of the Major Knife-handles, Palettes and Maceheads, (Deception Bay (Australia), 1973); and J. Vandier, Manuel d'ar-

chaeologie egyptienne: Les epoques deformation I/I (Paris, 1952). u Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, 67.

11 Tefnin, "Image et histoire: reflexions sur l'usage documentaire de l'image egyptienne"; see also Davis, Masking the Blow, 38-39.

12 B. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, (London and New York, 1989), 42. 15 J. Baines, "Origins of Egyptian Kingship," 117. 14 T. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, (London and New York, 1999), 26, 66, 68; and G. Dreyer, "Umm el-Qa'ab Nachunter-

suchungen im fruhzeitlichen Konigsfriendhof 9./10.," MDAIK 54 (1998), 138-39 with figure. ib N. Millet, "The Narmer macehead and related obj ects, "JARCE 27 (1990), 59. 15 Ibid. 17 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 65, notes the events chosen to name a year would have to be chosen in advance and be of

a predictable nature; also see ibid., 219 18 Millet, "The Narmer macehead and related objects,"59; see also W.S. Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, revised with additions by William Kelly Simpson (New Haven, 1998), 12.



UNDERSTANDING CEREMONIAL SLATE PALETTES 7

sional or sculptural form- related closely to specific architectural structures and their ritual and ceremonial purposes.

The best indication this larger context existed is provided by the famous decorated tomb of Hiera- konpolis, dating to Nakada He19 and hence earlier than, or contemporary with the earliest ceremonial slate palettes.20 The principal painted wall scene in this tomb, along the entire face of its local west wall has often been described, and sometimes analyzed in some detail.21 However, it is not usually pointed out that this wall scene is part of a larger programmatic whole, involving the whole tomb and based upon intentionally variable treatment of wall faces, a program which also relates significantly to the form and function of the tomb.

As to monumentality, the west wall scene occupies some 5m2, as compared to one of the largest palettes (Hunters'), which is about 1/5 of a square meter. The tomb in which it is displayed is unusually large for its period (Nakada lie), but small in global terms, at 5.7 by 2.8 meters (a floor area of about 16m2). Lined with brick, the tomb was divided into halves by a partial cross wall, lower than the wooden, earth-capped ceiling that would have sealed off the tomb after the burial had been made. The burial lay (perhaps on the east side) in the locally southern chamber, while the northern chamber was occupied by funerary gifts.

The programmatic aspect of the tomb is evident in the interrelationship between wall treatment, architectural form and the different functions of the two chambers. All wall faces were well plastered, as was the brick floor. In the northern chamber the wall faces were all plain yellow, except for the western wall, occupied by the northern half of the great wall painting. Wall treatment in the southern chamber was more complex. The southern half of the wall painting occupied the west wall; the entire painting had a blue-black dado, while a strong red line defined the base of the painting proper (the topmost section of the painting did not survive). Both the southern and eastern walls had a similar dado, with a similar red line above it; but the wall space above- equivalent to the western wall painting-was painted plain white. Finally, the north wall (i.e., the partial cross wall) had a processional scene, which ran around onto the end of the cross wall.

This intentional, clearly defined patterning in the treatment of wall surfaces involves the entire tomb. First, it clearly distinguishes the (more prestigious?) burial chamber, from the (less prestigious?) northern chamber; and secondly, it subdivides the southern, burial chamber into two quad- rants. The two wall faces defining the south-western are decorated; the two defining the south-eastern quadrant are blankly white. This patterning suggests the body itself (only a few bones survived) was conceptually divided into differentiated components, one in the south-western quadrant, the other in the south-eastern.

Yet the program, and the architecture, also conveyed the unity of the whole tomb. The wall painting ran through both chambers, which were also linked by the opening between the western wall and the partial cross wall, and the gap between the ceiling and the cross wall.

19 H. Case and J. Payne, "Tomb 100: the decorated tomb at Hierakonpolis," JEA 48 (1962), 5-18; J. Payne, "Tomb 100. The decorated tomb at Hierakonpolis confirmed," JEA 59 (1973), 31-35; for the tomb and its wall paintings, see J. Quibell, and F. Greene, Hierakonpolis Part II, Egyptian Research Account Fifth Memoir, reprinted by Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd. (London, 1989), 20-22, 51, pls. LXVII, LXXV-LXXVIII.

20 H. Kantor, "The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its Foreign Correlations before the First Intermediate Period," in R. Ehrich, ed., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology 1 (Chicago, 1992), 10; Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, 9, 80-81; and Davis, Masking the Blow, 10-11.

Zl For example, Vandier, Manuel d'archaeologie egyptienne, 561-70; E. Avi-Yonah, "To see the God . . . Reflections on the Iconography of the Decorated Chamber in Ancient Hierakonpolis," in S. Groll ed., Papers for Discussion Presented to the Depart- ment of Egyptology 2 (Jerusalem, 1985) 7-82; Williams, and Logan, "The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery before Narmer," 253-55, 265-66, 271-72; B. Midant-Reynes, Prehistorie de VEgypte des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons (Paris, 1992), 194-97.




Why these complex interrelationships between wall treatment and paintings, architecture and functions were created for this tomb is an irresolvable question. But the circumstances show the Egyptians were capable of creating such entities by Nakada lie and could have done so as easily with surface structures, such as tomb chapels or a deity's temples, as with tomb chambers. Ultimately, programs may have consisted largely or entirely of pictorial representations (eventually complemented by textual material), painted on mud plaster or even carved in relief on stone (and wood?) lining the internal faces of brick walls. Very little evidence for this supposition has survived,22 but this is not surprising, given the small and often severely denuded data base currently at our disposal.

It is these larger, aestheticized entities which were the larger context for the palettes discussed here and which, I surmise, provided a repertory of themes, emblematic forms and compositional models drawn upon by those who designed and carved the palettes. Whether this was so or not however does not affect the second major point that I wish to make about the ceremonial slate palettes, namely that in the sometimes elaborate discussions about their aesthetic aspects, and the possible ideological, so- cietal and even historical significances of their imagery, little sustained attention is paid to their specific contexts and function, and the possible impact of these upon the issues just cited. This topic I will discuss in the second part of this article, but I would note now that potentially it could lead to a significantly more nuanced understanding of the imagery involved.

II

More generally, as regards function the palettes are unquestionably associated with the preparation and application of cosmetics, usually, it is assumed, for application around the eyes. This function is indicated in part by the prototypes of the ceremonial palettes, namely palettes provided to the dead since Badarian times, and sometimes displaying use patterns and even traces of green minerals indic- ative of their cosmetic function.23 In accord with this function, ceremonial slate palettes- when sufficiently preserved (some are attested only as relatively small fragments)- always have on one face an undecorated, circular area (always on the palette's vertical axis, and either on, or above its horizontal axis) for the grinding or at least containment of a cosmetic. Additionally (and this is never seen on the palettes intended for the dead), the circular area is always surrounded by a raised border, usually plain but once in the form of an encircling snake.24 This border visually emphasizes the cosmetic area, implicitly affirming the ceremonial palettes' cosmetic function. It is also practical in that, should the ceremonial palette actually have been used, the border would inhibit the spread of the cosmetic (first in dry powdery form, then in more liquid form once it was finally ready for the application) onto the decorated portions of the palette's surface. Otherwise, cosmetic extending beyond the cosmetic area would be difficult to recover for application.

It is true that, apparently, neither traces of usage, nor of cosmetic itself, have been detected on the cosmetic areas of ceremonial palettes.25 They may indeed have had purely notional functions, as votive objects never intended to be actually used. On the other hand, the palettes may have been used not to grind minerals into the required powdery form, but simply to mix cosmetic powder and liquid, after which it could be applied; such a process would be less likely to leave traces of use. The

22 See however for the end of Dynasty II, N. Alexanian, "Die Reliefdekoration des Chasechemui aus dem sogennanten Fort in Hierakonpolis," in N. Grimal (ed.) Les Criteres de Datation Stylistiques a VAncien Empire, Bibliotheque d'Etude 120 (Cairo, 1990), 1-21.

23 Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, ch. II. 24 H. Fischer, "A Fragment of a Late Predynastic Egyptian Relief from the Eastern Delta," Artibus Asiae 21, 1958), 64-88; the

Metropolitan Museum fragment 28.9.8. lb Davis, Masking the Blow, 74-75.




term ceremonial, it should be noted, refers to the palettes' unusual size and elaborate decoration, and does not imply they were not used- indeed, suggests they were used in some "ceremonial" or ritual way. It should also be noted that the palettes vary greatly in size- the longest (the Hunters' Palette) is 76 cm long, the shortest (the Metropolitan Museum fragment 28.9.8, restored to its estimated full size) about 12 cm, but that all of them could be manipulated and used, even if the larger ones re-

quired two people, rather than one, to handle them. As to context, a variety of uses and locales can be visualized for the ceremonial slate palettes,26 but

I think our best working hypothesis must be based on the only two ever recovered archaeologically, and on the fact that no ceremonial palette has yet been directly associated with a mortuary context (a relief decorated palette in a grave at Gerzeh, while of great interest, does not correspond to the typ- ology of a ceremonial palette, as described here).27 The two archaeologically documented palettes- the Small Palette of Hierakonpolis and the Narmer Palette- were found in circumstance indicating strongly that they were originally dedicated to, and kept in an early temple at Hierakonpolis.28 This

suggests that all other ceremonial palettes, whether earlier and more zoomorphic in imagery29 or later and featuring humans more prominently, were intended for similar contexts, i.e. other early temples. The relatively large number of these palettes and the variety they display in imagery, size, and the technical ability of the craftsmen involved suggest in fact that there may have been a considerable number of temples distributed throughout Egypt at the time the palettes were being made.

Given this context, it is reasonable to assume that, notionally or actually, these palettes were involved in presumably frequent ritual adornments of the divine image such temples housed. That the Egyptians were capable at this time of producing such images is shown by the well-known colossal figures of the god Min30 from Coptos; their number and size indicates they themselves were not cult images, which one assumes were relatively small, but appropriately miniaturized versions of them, and of other deities, could have been made and used for cultic purposes.31 One might also reasonably assume that ceremonial palettes, whether purely votive or actually functional, would have been kept in the same chamber or room as the cult image, or at least stored close by.

To envisage this situation in any greater detail is difficult, because no temple or shrine of the period has been located and excavated, although an impressive stone threshold block (a door pivot carved to represent a bound prisoner) survived in situ at the Hierakonpolis temple.32 Slightly later, temple-like structures might indicate what the plans of such early temples might have been. A small, chapel-like temple at Elephantine has a circuitous plan leading back to a presumed shrine at the rear,33 while a chapel attached to a late Dynasty I elite tomb at Saqqara (tomb 3505 34) was impres- sively large- 565.5 m2- with a markedly circuitous plan leading, in part, to a shrine deep within the chapel and actually containing the bases of two wooden statues (one at least presumably of the tomb owner) and analogous to a statue shrine in a temple. Finally, but much later than the period of the

26 Ibid., 17-22. 27 W. M. E Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, BSAE 66A (London, 1953), pl. B, fig. 5. 28 Quibell, and Greene, Hierakonpolis Part II, 13-14; for an introduction to the temple site see Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy

of a Civilization, 74-77; T. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 309-11; but see also D. O'Connor, "The status of Early Egyptian Temples: an Alternate Theory," in R. Friedman and B. Adams, eds., The Followers ofHorus. Studies Dedicated to Michael Alan Hoff- man, Oxbow Monograph 20 (Oxford, 1992), 83-98.

29 Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration. 50 Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 290-91, 313. 31 Ibid., 262-64, 267-69, with reference mainly to a period immediately after that of the palettes. iZ

Quibell, and Greene, Hierakonpolis Part II, 34, 36. 33 G. Dreyer, Elephantine VIII. Der Tempel of Satet: Die Funde der Friihzeit und des Alten Reiches. AVDAIK 39 (Mainz am Rhein,

1986). 34 W Emery, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1958), 10, 13.




ceremonial palettes, we have two royal, presumably mortuary chapels or temples at Abydos for kings Peribsen and Khasekhemwy at the end of Dynasty II.35 The former, relatively small at 111.6 m2, had a simple plan which was nevertheless circuitous in organization. The latter, 278.5 m2, had a more elaborate plan, strongly circuitous in layout and leading into an (incompletely preserved) rear complex which likely included a statue shrine.

These circumstances then might be taken to indicate that ceremonial slate palettes were located in or near statue shrines, towards the rear of relatively small temples with complex and circuitous plans. This, as well as their relationship to an intimate and sacred rite- the adornment of a deity's image, itself set up within the temple- indicates the palettes were relatively inaccessible objects without a public dimension, as several scholars have noted.36 Such temples were, as I have suggested above, themselves likely decorated- in part or whole- with painted or even relief wall scenes, arranged in terms of a program to which the imagery on the palettes might have related in some way.

Having thus reconstructed, insofar as the very incomplete data allow, the function and context of the ceremonial slate palettes, I should now like to demonstrate how both function and context might have impacted, in specific and substantial ways, upon the imagery displayed on the palette. For the purposes of discussion, I shall be discussing mainly intact or largely intact palettes, although more fragmentary examples will be referred to with regard to particular points.

First, I would suggest that the two faces or sides of any specific ceremonial palette were not considered equivalent in value or significance, but that instead one face was what I will call the "primary" face, and the other the "secondary" face. The primary face is always that containing the cosmetic area or circle, with its defining raised border. This conclusion is an inference, based on the assumption that the cosmetic area face is directly involved in ritual (whether notionally or actually is, I think, irrelevant) and hence closely related to the deity in a way which is not true for the other, and hence secondary face. This inference receives some support from the fact that the secondary face of at least two palettes was left- presumably intentionally- undecorated, whereas the primary face was decorated, in one instance most elaborately so (the Hunters' Palette; the other palette is the Metropolitan Museum Fragment 28.9.8). This I think indicates the secondary face was considered less valuable than the primary, or at least was differentiated from the latter in some significant way.

Ritual usage, notional or actual, also engenders a primary and secondary face. For the palette to be used, it must be held or laid flat, with the face with the cosmetic area or primary face uppermost. Thus, the latter automatically becomes "above," or superordinate, the secondary "below," or subordinate. Moreover, the secondary face will come into full contact with the supporting hand or hands of the cult practitioner or an assistant, while contact between the primary face and human hands will be much less, and even absent if implements are used to manipulate the cosmetic materials. Alterna- tively, the palette might be laid flat onto a surface, e.g., of an offering table or other support, but this again brings the secondary face into a full or partial contact with another material, an experience the upper or primary face escapes altogether. These differentiations are, I think, enough in themselves to indicate the contrast presumed to exist between the two faces, but it is possible that the secondary was also seen as one that came into contact with potentially or actually impure surfaces (e.g., of human hands, or other material) and hence was more susceptible to ritual pollution.

In a way, the contrast between the two faces of any palette during ritual use is also one of "inside" (primary face) to "outside" (secondary face). Although the obvious distinction, as noted above, is between above and below, it is also true that the primary face necessarily "faces" the divine image,

35 E. Aryton, et al. Abydos Part III, Egypt Exploration Fund (London, 1904), 1-5. 36 For example, Baines, "Origins of Egyptian Kingship," 121.




however obliquely, and hence has an "inside" relationship to the latter; by the same token, the secondary face is completely concealed from the face or "view" of the deity, and hence can be considered "outside."

The potential for the two faces of a palette to have an inside/primary face and outside/secondary face relationship might have been further emphasized by the mode in which the palette was kept when not in ritual use, or indeed permanently if it was a purely votive object. Whether in the sanctu-

ary, or in another chamber, the palette could have been kept flat, in which case the circumstances of

upper/inside, and lower/outside, described above, continues to hold. However, if the palette, perhaps supported by a bench, was stood against a wall, or even mounted on some kind of free standing support, it seems likely one face would face inwards, and be the inside face, and the other outwards

(e.g., against, or facing towards a wall) and be the outside face. Again, I would suggest that because of its inherently greater value or significance the cosmetic area or primary face would tend to be the one facing inside, while the other face was the outside one. If kept in the sanctuary, the primary /inside face would thus be oriented towards the divine image, and the secondary/outside face oriented away from it, but even in a separate chapel or store chamber, this distinction could also be maintained.

Again, the outside/inside issue implies the primary face is superordinate, the secondary subordinate. The former faces the deity or, at least, is in view and faces away from potentially polluting surfaces, such as those of a bench or wall, while the reverse is true for the secondary face. Even in the case of a free standing support, the primary face was likely oriented towards the divine image, and the secondary away from it; or, in a chapel or storeroom context, could have faced towards the door- way, leading inside the temple, while the secondary face was oriented towards one of the chamber's wall faces, emblematic of the outside of the chamber, or perhaps the temple as a whole.

Ill

If we turn from the function and context of the palettes to the imagery upon them, I believe we can again detect a clear differentiation being maintained between the primary and secondary faces in terms of compositional structure- at least, insofar as largely intact palettes with both faces decorated are concerned. In every case, I would suggest that on the primary face the overall composition of the imagery is structured according to a mode of circularity while on the secondary face it is structured according to a mode of vertical linearity. The compositional differentiation between the two faces is sometimes obvious, in other cases it is more subtly but I think definitively evoked.

Let us take the more obvious cases first. The Louvre Palette El 1052 is a relatively small one, and the imagery correspondingly not very complex, since the space available is limited. On the primary face, the extended bodies of two animals (each moving purposively in opposite directions) flank the cosmetic area above and below, and create an impression of circularity which extends out to include the four wild dogs which frame both the sides and ends of the palette. On the secondary face however, a tall tree flanked on each side by a long-necked and stationary giraffe forms a more static composition structured strongly in terms of vertical linearity. This in turn transforms the four framing wild dogs also into vertically linear elements, a feature subtly stressed by the wide space between the dogs' heads at the base of the palette on the secondary face, as compared to the serpopard head between them at the base of the primary face, by which the three heads are transformed into an almost continuous circular or oval line. For another palette with its two faces organized according to the same compositional principles, see the "Berlin fragment of Spiegelberg."37

37 Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, 52-53.




Fig. 1. Louvre Palette E 11052; drawing by Simon Sullivan. Scale: cms.

The Battlefield or Lion Palette had a similarly vertically structured group (two stationary giraffes flanking a tree) on its secondary face (with some other feature, no longer preserved, above them). The primary face imagery highlighted humans as much as animals, and arranged them in an implicitly almost register fashion. Below the cosmetic area was a field filled with slain humans (one mauled




Fig. 2. Battlefield Palette; drawing by Simon Sullivan. Scale: cms.

by a lion, others attacked by carrion birds), and above there seems to have been a similar scene, although little has survived. On either side of the cosmetic area are bound prisoners being forced to approach it, on the left by personified standards, on the right by another, robed, human (all the slain and prisoners are naked). Overall however, the register effect is irregularly maintained and since there are no actual groundlines the scenes can be understood as arranged around the circular cosmetic area, and thus conforming to a mode of circularity. This impression is strengthened by the horizontally extended bodies of the slain above and below (the tops and bottoms of a circular structure) and the vertical prisoners beside the cosmetic area (the two sides of a circular structure).

The palettes end with the Narmer Palette which, despite important differences between it and earlier palettes, clearly is integrally incorporated into the trajectory of stylistic development these palettes represent. Indeed, the Narmer Palette shows the same strong contrast as the earlier ones between a primary face organized in a circulatory mode, and a secondary one in a mode of vertical linearity.

The latter is particularly obvious. On the secondary face, the centrally located, tall and vertical figure of Narmer (and his serekh above) is the visual equivalent of the tall tree seen on earlier palettes. The vertically structured flanking devices are less obvious than the heraldically arranged giraffes seen earlier, but are nevertheless present. On the left, we have- stacked one above the other- the king's sandal bearer, the king's upraised mace, and the Hathor or Bat head at the top. This element of vertical linearity is balanced by similarly vertically stacked elements on the right; a dominated enemy, an emblematic group (Horus holding a captive, in balance with the upraised mace opposite Horus) and




Fig. 3. Narmer Palette; drawing by Simon Sullivan. Scale: cms.

again the Hathor or Bat head. The importance of the vertical structure is subtly emphasized by a seemingly separate scene below, underneath Narmer. Here the two enemy bodies displayed essentially flank the vertical axis of the palette, although a small part of one crosses the axis, as if to modu- late yet maintain this arrangement.

On the primary face, the use of registers to some degree masks the circulatory mode of composition, but the latter remains fundamental to the layout of the imagery. The circular mode is particularly evident at the center, via the curves of the serpopards' necks, and the curving forms of the two attendants, as well as of the lassos they hold. Otherwise, the circular mode is evident in the continuity of the upper and lower scenes, i.e. in the way they run across the field without emphasizing the vertical axis of the palette. Thus, the strongest vertical element in the upper scene- Narmer himself- is

placed well to the side, while a set of verticals- the standards- crosses and extends asymmetrically beyond the vertical axis. The lower scene comprises a single, if complex emblematic group, running the entire width with again little reference to the vertical axis. This is to be compared with the evident impact of the vertical axis upon the counterpart scene at the bottom of the secondary face.




Fig. 4. The Small Palette from Hierakonpolis; drawing by Simon Sullivan. Scale: cms.

At first glance, the remaining major palette- the Small Palette from Hierakonpolis- does not seem to conform to the pattern of primary face/circulatory compositional mode and secondary face/verti-

cally linear compositional mode. The primary face does, I think, obviously display the circulatory composition, particularly in that the serpopards' necks and animal forms swirl around all sides of the cosmetic area. The vertical axis is largely ignored, in that the animals above and below the cosmetic area are not posed with reference to it, but rather cross the vertical axis and are virtually bisected by




it. The lower scene (two irregular registers of animals) is not balanced by another above the cosmetic area, because the latter is set quite high, but reflects the circulatory mode in two ways. First, the two registers run continuously across the width, ignoring the vertical axis, which runs through two of the animals. Second, the two registers tend to be higher at their upper corners than at their central, lower base, so each seems to curve gently downwards, echoing the lower part of the circular cosmetic area.

However it does not seem that the composition on the secondary face is organized according to the vertically linear mode observable on other palettes. In fact, I believe it is, but in a more subtle way than elsewhere, by referring to the existence of the palette's vertical axis without actually delineating it in formal terms. For example, in the upper part two lions (grasping and eating herbivores) are heraldically arranged, as if on either side of a vertical element (see, for example, the lions on either side of a vertical human figure on the Hierakonpolis wall painting, and on the Gebel el-Arak knife handle)38; in fact, there is no figure, so the emphasis is upon the vertical axis of the palette itself.

At the other, lower end of the palette a visually strong vertical element, close to the palette's central axis, is introduced in the form of a giraffe. Since, on palettes, giraffes do not occur outside of the heraldically arranged pairs noted above, this usage is unusual and presumably intentional, rather than random. In fact, the giraffe's front feet are on the vertical axis, and its neck close to it as if to emphasize the axis' presence.

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the entire composition is in fact structured by the vertical axis. Whereas on the primary face the vertical axis is ignored, in that animals cross it in a substantial way and are virtually bisected in most cases, on the secondary face animals only marginally intersect with the vertical axis, and the composition is therefore divided into two distinct vertical halves. In each half, the components are literally stacked up from bottom to top, in a way reminiscent of the vertical stacking seen on the secondary face of the Narmer palette. Thus, the secondary face of the small Hierakonpolis palette is compositionally structured much as the secondary faces of the palettes described above, i.e., a central, vertical element (in this case implied, not formally defined) flanked by more or less symmetrically arranged and sometimes stacked elements.

Thus far, I have not discussed the two palettes decorated only on their primary faces, namely the Metropolitan Museum fragment 28.9.8 and the Hunters' Palette. As reconstructed by Fischer,39 the Metropolitan Museum fragment could be said to combine the circulatory and the vertically linear modes in its composition. At first glance, its imagery seems largely to follow a circulatory mode, swirl- ing around the centrally placed, circular cosmetic area. However, a more detailed examination leads to a more nuanced interpretation. From the top of the cosmetic area downwards, the circulatory mode is dominant; the vertical axis plays no important role- see especially the way in which animals' bodies fully cross the vertical axis, rather than recognizing its existence. But, above the cosmetic area, the vertical axis plays an important part in structuring the composition. The bodies of the dogs suckling from the wild dogs on either side are vertically stacked in a way seen on other palette faces where the vertically linear mode was dominant, and their bodies do not cross the vertical axis (except very marginally, in one case). Given this careful symmetrical arrangement, we can I think conclude that the only element- the royal serekh- which does cross the vertical axis is not ignoring the axis, but instead emphasizing it.

38 Compare Case and Payne, "Tomb 100: the decorated tomb at Hierakonpolis," 13, fig. 4.1 with W. Emery, Archaic Egypt (Middlesex, 1961), 39, fig. 1.

59 Fischer, "A Fragment of a Late Predynastic Egyptian Relief," 64-88.




Fig. 5. Metropolitan Museum Fragment 28.9.8; drawing by Simon Sullivan. Scale: cms.




Fig. 6. Hunters' Palette; drawing by Simon Sullivan. Scale: cms.

As for the Hunters' Palette, I would suggest it combines the two compositional modes- circulatory and vertically linear- in an even more complex way. The imagery on all other palettes is arranged in terms of the longer axis of the palette: the field of imagery thus appears as one taller than it is wide, and often narrower at the base than the top. Representations of humans, animals and other items have their heads towards the top, or broader width, and their feet or bases towards the bottom, or narrower width (framing figures, on the lower part of palettes, are an exception). The Hunters' Palette is unique in that nearly all the many figures making up its imagery are placed in terms of the shorter dimension, not the longer dimension of the palette. Thus, their heads and feet point towards what would normally be considered the sides, rather than the top and bottom of the palette. One small set of representations at the top however is oriented in the more usual way. Another peculiarity is that the two rows of "hunters," one on each side, are oriented so both rows have their heads point- ing to the sides, rather than just one: thus, again uniquely, one row of "hunters" is always upside down vis a vis the other row.

If we look at the palette (an unusually elongated one) according to the orientation of most of the figures- as described immediately above- the palette's imagery appears to be composed according to a circulatory mode. That is, the figures are arranged in "registers" (without ground lines) of relatively small height, which run above, on either side, and below the cosmetic area, in a way that I would define as circulatory in the same way as the primary face of the Narmer Palette and of the Battlefield or Lion's Palette.

However, we may also look at the palette with its longest dimension upright, as a field taller than it is wide, and with a clearly defined top, as indicated by the few figures whose heads point toward this

top. We are permitted to do this implicitly by the conventions governing all other known palettes and

explicitly by the handful of figures which are oriented according to this convention. Seen in this perspective, the circulatory mode is strongly subordinated to one of vertical linearity.

The circular cosmetic area is associated with a circulatory design, although an incomplete one. The swirl of figures above it (hare, dog, herbivore and slain hunter, arranged in a circulatory mode echo-




ing the cosmetic area), the extended, curving "hunter" with lasso on its right, the extended lasso itself, and the two herbivores immediately below the cosmetic area- all, combined together, could be considered as a circulatory design extending around three quarters of the cosmetic area. However, the larger composition, covering the whole palette and including the circulatorily arranged figures just mentioned, is very definitely in the vertically linear mode.

The overall composition is structured as three elongated, vertically organized stacks. On either side, we have stacks of "hunters" with, on the top at the right, two lions, a building and the combined foreparts of two bulls as well. Up the center, we have a stack of animals (and one bird), a stack which also includes the circulatory group (animals and a "hunter") above the cosmetic area. This is essentially the design structure we have seen on the secondary faces of other palettes, i.e., Narmer flanked by symmetrically arranged figures, or a tree flanked by heraldically arranged giraffes. One might even say the two stacks of "hunters" recall the figures (humans, or personified entities) on either side of Narmer, and the central stack of animals- narrow like a trunk below, and expanding outwards immediately below and above the cosmetic area- echoes the tree form which is a central feature on the secondary faces of some palettes.

I shall return to the significance of this compositional differentiation between primary and secondary faces and of the combination of circulatory and vertically linear compositions on palettes with only the primary face decorated. For the moment however we need to briefly address the content of imagery; does it too vary according as to whether it is on a primary or secondary face?

Here, the Narmer Palette is a good starting point, for the differentiation is clear. The secondary face is visually dominated by a centrally placed figure of the king in aggressive mode, which forms part of a larger emblematic group. The king appears on the primary face also, but on a smaller scale, in a less aggressive pose and in a peripheral location. Moreover, he is set in a scene which is less strongly emblematic, although the scene at the base is an emblematic one in which a bull may embody the king. In any event, the king visually dominates the secondary face, but the primary face is dominated by material relevant to the deity, the cosmetic area and the elaborate composition of two restrained serpopards surrounding it.

There is also a strong contrast in the subject matter of the primary and secondary faces of the Battlefield or Lion Palette, and the Louvre Palette respectively. On the secondary faces of both are variants of the tree flanked by giraffes motif already discussed. The repetition of this motif on these and other palettes40 indicates it had a definite meaning, which cannot be reconstructed with any certainty. Cialowicz notes with approval Williams' suggestion that the rosette seen on some late prehistoric and early historic objects "est un palmier transformed et la symbole du pharaon"41 and quotes Williams' notion "that palm may even have been used as a substitute for (the king's) figure in Nakada Ilia, like a serekh."42 These interesting ideas however are even more speculative than ones we normally have to resort to in interpreting early Egyptian art.

In any case, on the Battlefield or Lion Palette the secondary face depicts humans (mostly slain or captured enemies), and even a robed figure (partially preserved) which could be interpreted as a tri- umphant ruler. However, the latter is on the same scale as his prisoner, and in any case the entire composition is not only completely different in content from the secondary face, but also visually dominated by the feature pertaining directly to deity, namely the cosmetic area. In fact, the prisoners are being driven, on either side, towards that blank and seemingly neutral area, as if it stood for the deity itself, receiving the captured enemy.

40 Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, 52-55. 41 Ibid., 75. 42 Ibid., 73.




The contrast between secondary and primary faces of the Louvre Palette is less marked, but clear enough. Above the cosmetic area are a bird and a lion and below is a serpopard, none of which occur on the secondary face. In terms of its size, and compositional centrality, the cosmetic area- associated with the deity- visually dominates.

As for the small Hierakonpolis palette, at first glance the two faces seem to have much imagery in common. Both depict only animals (and once a bird) except for an upright figure playing a flute (?) variously interpreted as an animal playing a human role, or a human masked as an animal.43 Other shared themes include the hunting of some animals (all herbivores) by others (domesticated dogs and wild felines), and the apparent consumption of herbivores by felines (serpopards, lions). Yet this said, there are also significant differences. The primary face is dominated visually by the cosmetic area and the serpopards encircling it (occupying about 2/3 of the palette), whereas the secondary face has no immediately obvious visual focus at all. The two heraldically arranged lions might be considered one, but they are much less emphasized in terms of the surrounding imagery. Moreover, domesticated dogs are found only on the primary face; and while two felines (serpopards) occur on the primary face, no less than five, in great variety, are depicted on the secondary one (two lions, a serpopard, a cheetah (?) and a fabulous winged feline with a bird's head). This last is unique in so far as palettes are concerned, as is the flute-playing being, and other figures on the secondary face are relatively rare on palettes (e.g., the giraffe, and a wild bull as prey, rather than as an aggressor). The figures on the primary face, on the other hand, are all ones occurring relatively commonly on other palettes- serpo- pards, dogs (wild and domestic), and herbivores. Thus, in fact, the two faces of the small Hierakon- polis palette are differentiated in many ways, which- given the elaborate nature of the palette- we can reasonably infer to have been intentional.

As to the two palettes decorated on the primary face only (Hunters', and Metropolitan Museum fragment 28.9.8), both are naturally visually dominated by the cosmetic area. However, they do combine-as shown above- both circulatory and vertically linear compositional modes, and on the Metro- politan palette at least these two modes are associated with different subject matter. Above (vertically linear mode) the focus is a royal serekh and young dogs suckling from the framing dogs; below (circulatory mode) the dogs are mature and one, perhaps two serpopards are present. On the Hunter's Palette the interaction of the circulatory and the vertically linear modes is, however, too complex and too greatly overlapped to distinguish subject matter associated with one, rather than the other mode.

IV

Thus far, I have attempted to demonstrate that in terms of both function and context the more elaborate ceremonial palettes each have a primary and secondary face. Moreover, I have also suggested that when both faces are decorated a marked, if sometimes subtle distinction is maintained between the two faces in terms of compositional structure and, to some degree, content. I should now like to make some general conclusions, and then some inferences about this situation. The latter will include some observations about the meanings of the imagery upon which such evident care- in both thought and execution- was lavished.

First, as to conclusions: As we have seen, the imagery on the palettes was structured by two different modes of composition, which I have called the circulatory and the vertically linear. To some degree, both modes related to physical characteristics of the palettes themselves. The invariably circular

43 Ibid., 45-46.




cosmetic area would naturally have encouraged or stimulated a circulatory composition of imagery around it. However, the typically elongated form of the palettes is conducive to the vertically linear mode, in which a central feature extends for most or much of the palette's vertical axis, and is flanked either by tall single figures, or vertically stacked figures.

Nevertheless, the Hunters' Palette and the Metropolitan Museum fragment 28.9.8 show that the face with the circular cosmetic area can be successfully treated in the vertically linear mode, covering much or all of the surface. Conversely, the other face would easily have had its imagery structured in a circulatory mode, despite the absence on this face of a circular cosmetic area.

Thus, we find that- with the more elaborate palettes- when both faces are decorated, the primary face (with cosmetic area) always has its imagery structured circulatorily, and the other or secondary face always in terms of vertical linearity, and we can reasonably conclude this was intentional.

This suggests that each of the two compositional modes had a specific value or meaning, and was not simply a product of an effort to maintain a purely visual, value-neutral differentiation between the two faces. This notion is reinforced by the circumstances, already discussed, that when only one face was decorated, both the circulatory and the vertically linear compositional modes were employed. This would seem to mean that each mode had a value or meaning directly relevant to the palettes themselves, and hence both had to be present on every palette.

However, for preference both faces of a palette were decorated according to the consistent patterning discussed above, so far as compositional modes were concerned. This indicates that the specific value or meaning of each mode related directly to the value or meaning of the face- primary or secondary- with which it was associated.

These then are what I consider reasonable conclusions that can be made. I now turn to inferences, which are of their nature more speculative and not based so closely- as I believe the conclusions were- on the physical characteristics, and the basic functions and likely contexts of the palettes.

The primary face is, for reasons already suggested, the one intimately and directly associated with the deity to whom it is dedicated. That deity, insofar as one can see, is never directly depicted on the palette.44 However, the significance of the association is clear; palette and divine images are linked via the cosmetic which, prepared or presented on the palette, was then applied to the image in a process that- if we can invoke later analogies- led to the revitalization or rebirth of the deity.

This then suggests that the circulatory mode of composition was linked to these particular associations, and that the subject matter chosen for the primary face was also. How that imagery is to be read is another issue, much discussed in the scholarly literature but perhaps ultimately unsolvable.

What then of the secondary face? Recall that earlier I suggested that this may well have been seen as the "lower" or "outside" face of the palette; or, to put it in another way, it is the face of the palette that interfaces with that which is potentially impure, polluting, chaotic and destructive (again, I invoke analogies) while the primary face interfaces with that which is divine, productive, pure and order generating. I have pointed out how, in ritual use, the primary face would be literally superordinate i.e. above the secondary, below and hence subordinate. But the distinction between the interfaces would make this a conceptual notion of super- and sub-ordination as well.

However, the secondary face is nevertheless extraordinarily important, for it is the one that shields and protects the primary face from that potential pollution and chaotic, negative force. I therefore

44 For a contrary opinion, see E. J. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt II (London, 1960), 94; Westendorf's ideas about deities represented on palettes- summarized in Cialowicz, Les palettes egyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans decoration, 16, 74- do not relate to the deity who "owns" the palette.




suggest that the vertically linear mode and the subject matter typical of the secondary face express, relate to, or enhance the apotropaic power and function of the secondary face.

This notion finds its best support in the Narmer Palette, where the imagery on the secondary face not only has an inherent protective quality (the king and the dynastic god subdue, dominate and re- duce to helplessness foreign or rebellious enemies, emblematic of disorder), but also is the progeni- tor of a well-known historic image represented endlessly on temple exteriors to protect the purity and order within, from the pollution and chaotic forces without.45 However, the secondary faces of earlier palettes do not have such a direct connection with later imagery and its functions, and here specifically apotropaic aspects of the imagery are much harder to identify.

One possibility is that on earlier palettes the ruler continued to be the motive power of the apotropaic force that was provided to, or was inherent within the secondary face, but that the ways in which the ruler or 'ruling force' were represented is less clear to us. Thus, we have seen an association has been suggested between the emblematic group of tree and giraffes on the one hand, and the ruler on the other, although the highly speculative nature of this notion should be stressed. On the other hand, the formality of this design could have been emblematic of "order" in itself, and hence defen- sive against "disorder." On the small Hierakonpolis palette, references to a ruler or ruling force

might also be detectable on the secondary face. For example, the aggressive felines several times depicted there might embody the notion of rulership,46 and its capacity to overcome chaotic force, here symbolized by the wild herbivores. However, the imagery might incorporate other images of order, based on ideas unknown to us, such as the two heraldically arranged lions, or the giraffe which elsewhere is incorporated into compositions of great symmetry, formality and "order."

In any event, I would suggest that associating the imagery of secondary faces with notions of protection, and of order repelling or subduing disorder, provides a useful basis for further research into that imagery.

The suggestions I have just made would at first glance be contradicted and even disproved by the Hunters' Palette and the Metropolitan Museum fragment 28.9.8, for in both cases no necessity was felt to decorate the secondary, supposedly apotropaic face. This circumstance however still leaves open the possibility that the secondary face was considered to be the interface between the palette on the one hand, and pollution and disorder on the other, and that this apotropaic quality or attribute was inherent in the secondary face, whether it was decorated or not. Why in fact the secondary face was not decorated in these particular instances is something we cannot now determine.

What is noteworthy about these two palettes, as I have shown above, is that on their primary faces there is an otherwise unique combination of both the circulatory and vertically linear modes of composition. This suggests that given the decision not to decorate the secondary face, it was still felt necessary to provide the palette with the two distinct sets of associations or attributes embodied in, respectively, the circulatory and vertically linear modes. Insofar as the latter reinforced or made man- ifest the apotropaic protection required by, or inherent in the palette, its presence on the primary face was a variant on the apotropaic role more usually identified, via decoration, on the secondary face.

Some support for this notion is provided by the Metropolitan Museum fragment. Here, a royal serekh is assigned a central, if low-lying position within the vertically linear composition occupying

45 E. Swan Hall, The Pharaoh Smites his Enemies: a Comparative Study. MAS 44 (Berlin, 1986). 46 Baines, "Origins of Egyptian Kingship," 109-21.




the upper part of the palette's primary face. This, in visual terms, strongly associates this mode with the ruler, as is more spectacularly the case with the secondary face of the Narmer Palette.

The preceding discussion has, I hope, shown that the main factor influencing the composition and selection of the imagery upon ceremonial palettes was the very different associations of their primary and secondary faces. This does not mean that the palettes were consequently not significant works of art. On the contrary, analyses such as those of Davis, Cialowicz, and myself (whatever may be thought of our respective conclusions and suggestions) demonstrate that compositionally the palettes are quite complex, and highly structured; and that their variegated, yet ultimately highly selective subject matter is intriguing to us, and likely quite meaningful to the early Egyptians. Thus, to call them "minor monuments"47 or "small monuments"48 is quite justified, since their aesthetic qualities are high.

Nevertheless, the adjectives "minor" and "small" are significant, and lead me to a final and more general observation about the art-historical significance of the ceremonial palettes. I have already suggested above that they, like other relatively small decorated objects of the period, are minor man- ifestations of a larger system of art which likely included programmatically organized wall scenes in temples, and royal and elite mortuary chapels. The relationship of the palettes to the larger system is I think not very much illuminated by the various theories about the meanings of the imagery on the palettes which are currently popular, although these theories may indeed be revealing about specific aspects of the art on the palettes themselves. I would suggest that a more specific relationship between this art and the larger contemporary system of art is, however, indicated by the theory I ar- gue for above, namely that the imagery on the palettes relates specifically to the palettes' dualistic roles. These roles are primarily to service an important ritual need of the deity to whom each palette is dedicated and secondarily- but essentially- to protect that ritual service from potential pollution or disruption.

These I suggest were the issues that motivated the selection of imagery and motifs for the decoration of the palettes, selections made from the repertory of images and motifs of the larger system, and especially wall scenes. These scenes would have encompassed a wider range of imagery than that actually used on the palettes. This is indicated by, for example, the extreme rarity of ships on the palettes (one tiny example on the primary face of the Narmer Palette), whereas ships are a relatively frequent motif on small objects of contemporary dates.49 Thus, only imagery particularly relevant to the palettes' functions and meanings were selected by the responsible patrons, designers and artisans.

Within the context of the larger system of art, this imagery may have displayed its various meanings (whatever they might have been) in ways significantly different from the ways in which these meanings were incorporated into the decoration of the palettes. Here the Hierakonpolis wall painting, discussed above, is a good case in point. It includes imagery and motifs (especially insofar as in- terrelated groups of carnivores, herbivores and humans are concerned) found on the palettes, but in the wall painting these images and motifs are visually subordinate to a "fleet" of large ships, whereas on the palettes they are visually dominant and sometimes exclusive images and motifs.

Naturally, the palettes reflect major developments in the larger system, especially a change of emphasis from predominantly animal to predominantly human imagery and the introduction of regularizing

47 Millet, "The Narmer macehead and related objects," 59. 48 Smith, Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 12. 9 See Ridley, Unification of Egypt, passim; Vandier, Manuel d'archaeologie egyptienne; Williams and Logan, "The Metropolitan

Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery before Narmer."




features such as ground lines and horizontal registers. Nevertheless, we might reasonably suspect that imagery was always chosen because its content and meaning related particularly well to the primary functions of the palettes (as defined above) and not necessarily to convey or emphasize the primary points of the larger scale and more complex compositions that were the source of the imagery. Thus, these compositions might have highlighted myths, rituals, historical events, and ceremonial re-enact- ments of such events; and also have been a source drawn upon for other minor arts, such as representations of year names on year labels, which in turn could also have influenced the imagery used upon ceremonial palettes.

However, the designers of the imagery upon the palettes were not necessarily trying to highlight these myths, rituals, events or year names as such, although surely the meanings they had were part of the associations that attracted these designers. Rather, on the palettes these aspects of the original sources were likely subordinated to the primary functions of the palettes- ritual service and its apotropaic protection- and to this degree the selection of the imagery employed was relatively arbitrary.

Institute of Fine Arts, New York University

Addendum

Since this article was accepted for publication the discovery of a new ceremonial slate palette- only the third to be recovered via excavation-has been reported (Zahi Hawass, Hidden Treasures of the Egyptian Museum (Cairo, 2002), xii-xiv, and plate on p. 5). The palette was found in a "large cemetery . . . with tombs dating to the First Dynasty" at Manshiat Ezza, near the town of Simbilla- ween in the Egyptian Delta (ibid., xii). Stylistically, the palette would seem to antedate the 1st Dynasty, and belong more to Dynasty 0. If specifically from a tomb, it would be the first ceremonial palette from a mortuary context. In this case, it might either have serviced the cult of the tomb owner's statue (akin to that of a deity) or been part of the ritual equipment the tomb owner had used, while alive, to service the cult of a deity's statue.

The palette is relatively small (height 23 cm, maximum width 21.5 cm) and decorated on one face

only. As with other palettes decorated on only one face, it combines the modes of circularity and vertical linearity, but in a comparatively subtle and complex way. The cosmetic area is defined by the necks of two confronted serpopards and hence evokes circularity; but the necks do not overlap across the vertical axis of the palette (compare the Narmer Palette) and the heads and upper necks of the serpopards are arranged in a markedly formal pattern, all these circumstances evoking vertical linearity. A large hare represented at the bottom of the palette straddles its vertical axis, while an herbivore and above it a dog curve around the left-hand side of the cosmetic area; these circumstances represent circularity. Much of the right-hand side of the palette is occupied by an emphatically vertical tree, of a type used on other palettes to structure vertically linear patterns, as here. Finally, the dog is attacking the rear of a large creature which is almost certainly a giraffe, as Ann Roth pointed out to me; unfortunately, its head is the only part of the palette missing. The body of the giraffe fills the upper left quadrant of the palette and completes the (semi-)circular pattern around the left side of the cosmetic area created by the herbivore and dog. However, the neck of the giraffe (and its now miss-

ing head) was not only treated as a free-standing sculpture, but is located virtually on, or alongside, the vertical axis of the palette, and hence, along with the tree described above, becomes part of the

vertically linear dimension of the palette's decoration. Thus, as on other palettes decorated on one side only, the desire to combine the two forms of decoration is evident.




Fig. 7. Palette from Manshiat Ezza, near Simbillaween; drawing by David O'Connor. Scale: cms.



context, function and program

Documents