Visual indexicality in the private tomb chapels of the Theban necropolis: on flipping iconographic units as a compositional tool

Visual indexicality in the private tomb chapels of the Theban necropolis: on flipping iconographic units as acompositional tool 1 Alexis Den Doncker ABSTRACT “Copies” of visual representations are abundant in ancient Egyptian iconographic environments such as the private necropoleis. The intericonic relationship(s) that they share with their model(s) form awide web that constitutes alarge part of the so ‑called repertoire. While they almost always include variation, their creators sometimes used to flip them during the composition process so that they present as the inverted version of their respective model. From an image reception perspective it could be relevant to examine their possible citational value in terms of either quotative or inferential evidentials, taking into account the beholder’srole in the actualisation of such indexical potential. To that end, the article aims to explore the value we, as Egyptologists, confer to these images and balance it with ancient outlooks, particularly that of the audience(s) which the creators targeted (on behalf of patrons and commissioners). The context of the private tomb chapels of the New Kingdom Theban necropolis is an ideal iconographic environment to explore in this regard. Among several concepts which could be easily applied to other iconographic environ‑ ments and visual cultures, the article proposes to distinguish between usual instantiations of iconographic models, sometimes referred to as standards, and “identifying‑copies” (following DenDoncker 2017). As they carry astrong connection to the identity of the model’sowner, these identifying ‑copies were therefore most probably conceived to implement their commissioner’svisual rhetoric of self ‑fashioning. KEYWORDS iconographic replication and transmission– visual indexicality– image reception– Theban necropolis * ةيبيكرت ةادأك ةيريوصتلا تادحولا لادبإ لوح :ةبيط ةنابجب دارفلأا رباقم ريصاقمب ةيئرملا تارشؤملا ركنود ند سيسكلا صخلملا تاقلاعلا وآ ةقلاعلا لكشت .ةميدقلا رصم نم دارفلأا رباقم ىلع ةشوقنملا رظانملاب ةرثكب ةيئرملا ريواصتلا نم »خسن« رفاوتت اهنأ نم مغرلا ىلعو .عجرملا ىمسي امم ًاريبك ًاءزج لكشت ةعساو ةكبش ىف اهجذومن عم رظانملا كلت اهيف كرتشت ىتلا ةينيبلا 1 The present article arises from the conference “Continuity, Discontinuity and Change. Adaptation Strategies of Individuals and Communities in Egypt at Times of Internal and External Transfor‑ mations”, held in Charles University, Prague (24th–26th August 2021). Iam grateful to Filip Coppens for having invited me to contribute to this fruitful discussion. For further treatments of this topic, Irefer to the publication of the research programme (Coppens [ed.] 2021). Iwould also like to thank Jill Capri and Bianca Madden for the English revision. تلاوحتلا روصع للاخ رصم ىف تاعمتجملاو دارفلأل فيكتلا تايجيتارتسا .رييغتلاو ةيرارمتسلاا مدعو ةيرارمتسلاا رمتؤمب ةلاقملا تيقلا * ىتوعدل زنيبوك بيليفل ركشلاب هجوتأ ثيح .2021 ،سطسغأ 26–24 ،غارب ،زلراشت ةعماجب دقع ىذلا رمتؤملا وهو ،ةيجراخلاو ةيلخادلا دوأ امك ،(Coppens (ed.) 2021) ثحبلا كلذ رشن ىلإ ريشأ ،عوضوملا اذهل تاجلاعملا نم ديزمل .ةرمثملا ةشقانملا هذه ىف ةكراشملل .ىزيلجنلإا لاقملا نتم ةعجارمل ندام اكنايبو ىرباك ليج ركشأ نأ ًاضيأ PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022, 43–73 44 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 ةخسنك اهنومدقي ثيحب ريوصتلا ةيلمع ءانثأ اهلادبلإ ةقيرط ًانايحأ اهوئشنم مدختسا دقف ،ًانيابت نمضتت نايحلأا مظعم يف ًامئاد ةلمتحملا ةيللادتسلاا اهتميق ةسارد بسانملا نم نوكي دق ،ةروصلا لابقتسا روظنم للاخ نمو .صاخلا مهجذومن نم ةسوكعم اذه لوحو .ةيسرهفلا تاناكملإا هذه قيقحت ىف ىقلتملا رود رابتعلاا ىف ذخلأا عم ،ةيجاتنتسلاا وأ ةيسابتقلاا ةلدلأا ثيح نم لا ،ةميدقلا تارظنلا عم اهنزاوتو روصلا هذهل ،تايرصم ءاملعك اهحنمن ىتلا ةميقلا فاشكتسا ىلإ ةلاقملا كلت فدهت ،رملأا ةصاخلا ةريغصلا ريصاقملا قايس دعُي .)مهنع بوني نم وأ رباقملا بحاصأ نع ةباين( نوعدبملا هفدهتسا ىذلا روهمجلا اميس ةلوهسب اهقيبطت نكمي ىتلا ميهافملا نم ديدعلا نيب نم .رملأا اذه ىف قمعتلل ةيلاثم ةيريوصت ةئيب ةبيط ىف ةثيدحلا ةلودلا ةربقمب يتلاو ،ةيريوصتلا جذامنلل ةداتعملا ريواصتلا نيب زييمتلا ةلاقملا حرتقت ،ىرخلأا ةيئرملا تافاقثلاو ةيريوصتلا طئاسولا ىلع ،جذومنلا كلام ةيوهب ةيوق ةقلاع لمحت ىتلاو ،(Den Doncker 2017 ـل اًقفو( »خسنلا ديدحت« و ،ريياعملاب ًانايحأ اهيلإ راشي .ىصخشلا ميمصتلا نع ضوفملل ىرصبلا باطخلا ذيفنتل اهميمصت مت امبر ىلاتلابو ةلادلا تاملكلا ةبيط – رظانملا لابقتسا – ةيئرملا تارشؤملا – جماربلاو ةيريوصتلا خسنلا Egyptologists and tourists visiting ancient Egypt’sdecorated architecture are generally aware of the tendency of ancient Egyptian art production to be comprised of alarge number of similar, if not identical, iconographic units from one monument to another, across the mil‑ lennia that this visual culture spans. The ancient Egyptian iconographic repertoire can be characterised by adefinite number of recurrent themes. These themes, however, fostered typological variation in which, apart from the style of execution, ancient artists found many possibilities to express some sense of creativity and develop their own artistic individuality in certain contexts, as seen from their perspective. 2 Conversely, most likely still under the influence of the Classical heritage that must have conditioned some form of Western “visual‑ ity”,3 contemporary beholders are not necessarily used to detecting and appreciating these variations and developments of types from their viewpoint. Commenting on one of the first scientific assessments of ancient Egyptian art– that of Antoine Chrysotome Quatremère de Quincy– amodern scholar’srecent discussion (Petridou 2001: 183) on the issue of the Egyptian artists’ so ‑called “defect of imitation” (Quatremère de Quincy 1803: 237) betrays this apparent cultural difficulty to engage with ancient Egypt’svisual culture, freed from this substantial heritage: “(…) Cette étape primitive est évidente dans toutes les formes d’art de ce peuple. Elle est dictée aussi par le fait que l’artiste égyptien achoisi, pour des raisons politiques et religieuses, de ne pas améliorer son art”.4 Beyond the fact that this statement today seems clearly off base, the correlation between formal reproductivity and seeming traditionalism is worth examination. Moreover, as it has been recently well demonstrated that in terms of patterns apparently reproductive traditions 2 For arecent examination of the global issue of image transmission in ancient Egyptian funerary art production, see Pieke (2022). On iconographic themes, types, scenes, motifs, etc., see Arnst– Schulz (2021). 3 Defined by Whitney Davis as the “culturality of vision”, that is, the cultural part of vision and the visual part of culture (Davis 2011: 8). 4 “(…) This primitive stage is obvious in any form of art of this civilisation. It is also determined by the fact that the Egyptian artist chose, for political and religious reasons, not to improve his art.” 45ALEXIS DEN DONCKER did involve productivity in several respects (Gillen [ed.] 2017), one may wonder how to ap‑ proach the evidence– that is, what glasses should we wear to perceive changes in iconographic traditions and appreciate their productive aspects? Not only for our pleasure, dealing with this methodological problem can help account for dynamics that, as will be discussed here, were stimulated and justified ideologically, thus challenging the very definition of traditionalism as conservatism, two concepts often associated with ancient Egypt. Such areception process always depends on the perspective we adopt, not only as ascholar conscious of what can be at stake epistemologically, but also simply and precisely as amere beholder when it comes to discussing art and visual representations. What do we know of an image aside its form and iconicity? What agency and meaning do we then possibly confer to it? In terms of forms, as types are to some extent exceptionally recurrent, what value should we assign to images that appear to emulate others, which are therefore considered as models? Can we somehow absolutely assess that an image is the actual copy of some model? Tackling this issue theoretically, under the prism of some sort of formalistic approach, we might indeed not exclude that, in sole respect of types, the statue of the Osiris ‑Antinous from Hadrian’svilla in Tivoli could be acopy of the serdab statue of Djoser from Saqqara. Or we could conclude that the designer of the representation of PtolemyXII smiting the enemies on the first pylon of the temple of Horus in Edfu modelled it on an ivory jar label of Den. For all intents and purposes, as concerns the ancient Egyptian repertoire, the very notion of copy quickly flies in the face of formality and representation codes, and, most importantly, the system of artistic creation and composition.5 INVERTED ICONOGRAPHIC UNITS: CREATORS AND BEHOLDERS The emic value of the concept of iconographic types, as components of the ancient Egyptian repertoire, is particularly significant if we think of the artists not only as creators or design‑ ers, but also as upstream beholders facing models, namely mental images but also actual rep‑ resentations (on monumental supports) with indexical potential.6 Taken out of context, that is, 5 See Old to New Kingdom case studies in Pieke (2022). 6 On the notion of index as sign value– briefly, a“sign whose presence implies the occurrence of some other event or objet (…), thus bringing indications that were not meant to signify at first, but finally do” (Angenot 2015: 106)– Irefer to Charles S. Peirce’ssemiotic theory (Hartshorne– Weiss– Burks [eds.] 1965). On the use of semiotics as amethod in art history, the reader could refer, among others, to Bal– Bryson (1991); Groupe μ (1994); Pfisterer (ed.) (2011: 408–414). For the application of Peirce’stheory to ancient Egyptian images, see Gillen (forthcoming). For abroader methodological application of semiotics to ancient Egyptian art, see notably Tefnin (1991); Angenot (2015; including an overview of semiotically oriented studies in Egyptology). Depending upon the beholder who may or not activate it through recognition, the indexical potential of an image could be defined as the capacity of this representation to refer inter alia to its original model, thereby pointing to the latter’spossible social significance to the extent that it is embedded in an individual’svisual commemorative setting. Of course, references to other external objects, regarding for example the material/technical aspect of the representation, can be intentionally conveyed, then possi‑ bly recognised. In any case, the index remains potentiality until acertain beholder considers it 46 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 the iconographic repertoire as substantiated in sacred architecture’sdecorative programmes, the words of the Eleventh Dynasty scribe and sculptor Irtysen on this matter obviously validate the aforementioned notion of imitation (see Laboury 2017: 252–253).7 Nevertheless, this imita‑ tion is not presented as adefect, but as ahighly valuable competence amaster has to possess: “(…) Iam an artist skilled in his art, amaster in his knowledge. Iknow the walking of aman’sstat‑ ue, the gait of awoman’sstatue, the postures of eleven birds, the inclination of the one who strikes asingle captive, the gaze of aman (turned) towards his fellow, the expression of fear of the (defeated) leaders, the carriage of the arms of one who harpoons the hippopotamus, the gait of one who runs (…)” (translation adapted from Mathieu 2016: 10–11). In many rich iconographic environments, such as the Theban and Memphite private necropo‑ leis, it is not surprising to come across iconographic units that present as nearly exact inverted replications of others (figs.1–2). It could well be argued that these inversions– which assumedly link acopy to amodel– are just purely instantiations of iconographic types stemming from the aforesaid repertoire that the painters accessed through memory and experience, as implied in Irtysen’sstatement. However, it seems that in several cases the formal connections are suf‑ ficiently numerous, the type relatively uncommon, and, above all, the intericonic context, or web, suitably limited to render the presumed connection between acopy and amodel highly plausible (Laboury 2017: 236–239), if not intentional or deliberately conspicuous in the eyes of meaningful (and efficient in terms of visual performance). Furthermore, it can be wondered whether the commissioner and/or creator of the representation consciously elaborated such apotential. Or does it only belong to the beholder’sown reception? 7 Stela Louvre C 14. Fig. 1 Tomb of Puyemre (TT39); Hatshepsut– ThutmoseIII. Fowling scene: giving the signal for pulling the net (after Davies1922: pl.XV) 47ALEXIS DEN DONCKER certain initiated visitors to the funerary chapels.8 Although it is possible to prove through art historical analysis that such intericonic connection does exist, and might have therefore been intentionally suggested by the artist (involving or not the commissioner), it is in effect only the actual beholder who eventually acknowledges, and thereby determines in terms of meaning, acertain indexical value to the copy– and the Egyptologist is no different in this respect. Hence, we should take care to avoid any methodological confusion between 1) the crea‑ tor’sintentions and the consequent intentionality of the work (especially as pointing implicitly to some model that– it is to be expected– acertain knowledgeable audience would be able to recognise), 2) apassive theoretical beholder who, allegedly, the image is meant to orient somehow autonomously towards the meaning it conveys through perception (Verbovsek 2015: 141–149 based on Funch 1997),9 and 3) the manifold audience that would be actually facing the representation in question and engage with it in avariety of ways, according, inevitably, to 8 On the concept of intericonicity and its use in art history, see also Busch (1977); Zuschlag (2005); Pfisterer (ed.) (2011: 208–211); Isekenmeier (2013); Arrivé (2015); Arnst (2021). 9 On such immanent and almost de ‑individualised beholder, and the idea that the work of art (thus the artist) is somehow able to determine any aesthetical reception, see also Verbovsek (2005 and 2011); Fitzenreiter (2011: 7); Müller (2006: 47). On the methodology of the aesthetic of reception in art history, see Kemp (1998). For aclearer distinction between, on the one hand, the owner/user (= commission‑ er) working with the conceptor/creator of the image (=artist), and, on the other hand, its various recipients as the interpreters, see Schulz (2014); Angenot (2015: 116–117). Fig. 2 Tomb of Nebenkemet (TT256); AmenhotepII. Fowling scene: giving the signal for pulling the net (photo A. Den Doncker, H. Tavier, © University of Liège) 48 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 alarge number of parameters tied to individuality and unpredictable contingencies.10 We may thus gauge the intentionality of such assumedly inverted replications in terms of reception and attempt to approach the artist’s(hereinafter referred to as the “painter”), or the com‑ missioner’s, possible underlying intentions in consideration of acertain targeted audience capable of noticing and giving meaning to them. EVOLVING ICONOGRAPHIC TRADITIONS: INTERICONIC WEBS AND THE DETERMINATION OF THEIR COMPONENTS IN TERMS OF EVIDENTIALS Coming back to the notion of limited intericonic contexts, within which Dimitri Laboury (2017) was able to define intericonic connections between aso ‑far relatively small number of iconographic units sharing clear formal similarities, the example of the scene of pulling flax as aminor theme of the broad category of agricultural scenes, well illustrates the issue of intentionality with respect to replications, or rather copies.11 In this regard, whereas the following paragraphs might seem abit stodgy, the Theban tradition of the scene is worth examining in some detail. While Laboury is right to plead for intericonicity as regards the ancient Egyptian mode of iconographic composition par excellence, it is indeed still tempting to look, as he suggests, for citational relationships in such contexts (Laboury 2017: 251–254). As concerns apparently simple stemmata12 like that of the scene of pulling flax, the concepts of quotative and inferential evidentials, borrowed from linguistic terminology for methodological purpose, can help sort out the intericonic relationships and assume moreover some artistic intentionality and indexical value to apparent copies.13 10 The diversity of these visitors, from highly literate scribes and priests to illiterate workers, is well attested in the corpus of the Appeals to the living, for example in that of Nefersekheru (Zawyet Sultan), dated to the reign of Ramesses II: “(…) repeat the writings so that the illiterates and the workers know what is written on the walls of his tomb (…)” (Osing 1992: 43–52). In addition, those visitors included the professional milieu involved in tomb commissioning (future tomb owners and subordinates) and production (executants and patrons). 11 It is not easy to find the appropriate term in this respect. To some extent, exact replications are very rarely attested among the ancient Egyptian iconographic repertoire (Vernus 2010: 108; quoted by Laboury 2017: 238, footnote22). The question will be raised again here below, as in some cases the primary intention of the draughtsman involved in the technical procedure of copying was the exact replication of the model. 12 Understand stemma imaginum as the “genealogical” classification of iconographic units within acertain repertoire defining an iconographic tradition. For the relevance of this terminology to the study of the transmission of iconographic units, see Laboury (2017: 247). 13 For an introduction to evidentiality in linguistics, Irefer to Aikhenvald (2004), whose typology is of course largely adapted to our simpler subject. Evidentiality is agrammatical category “whose primary meaning is information source”: in many languages, any form of statement has to “spe‑ cify the type of source on which it is based– for example, whether the speaker saw it, or heard it, or inferred it from indirect evidence, or learnt it from someone else” (Aikhenvald 2004: 1). An indirect evidential can be described as “quotative” as soon as the reported information com‑ prises an explicit mention of the source. It remains “inferential” when the conclusion is only based 49ALEXIS DEN DONCKER Basically, the question is: did the painter intend to quote the model he used and, thereby, its original author, or owner (= commissioner) according to the eponymous nature of the ancient Egyptian image (Assmann 1991: 139)? If he did, then what audience did he expect to detect the definite model and appreciate the quotation as avaluable asset of the decorative programme (=the index)? Who was the targeted beholder? Incidentally, it is clear that the professional milieu engaged actively in image production (above all draughtsmen and painters), especially in the same iconographic environment, that is, the Theban necropolis, was capable of spot‑ ting artistic individualities among the tomb chapel decorations (via calculated or accidental idiosyncratic stylistic features such as technical signatures, compositional habits, use of colours, distinctive iconographic details, etc.)14 much more than any other person browsing their decorated walls. Obviously, Egyptologists working in such iconographic environments should be aware of their own experience and knowledge, inevitably increasing their tendency to recognise, as we will see, quotative instead of inferential evidentials. In some cases, it has indeed to be assumed that the painter wanted to refer explicitly to adetermined model, yet somehow addressing only the members of his own restricted community, or perhaps some of his colleagues, through their very specific socio ‑professional visuality.15 If not, did the painter use some indefinite model, either stemming from his own icono‑ graphic memory or mental repertoire like Irtysen, or, taken from an actual monumental sup‑ port which he did not want to refer to explicitly? In this case of instantiation of iconographic standards (still allowing variation), although such amodel might have been identifiable by some of the aforementioned knowledgeable professionals, we could rather speak of inferential evidentials when discussing the intericonic relation between some iconographic unit (rather than acopy as seen from the painter’sstandpoint) and its model: just as the painter did not provide the source of the iconographic statement he produced, their relationship is not stated explicitly. Even though the latter existed somewhere, not as amental construction, but as an actual model on aconcrete monumental support, it was simply not conveyed. STUDY CASE 1. THE SCENE OF PULLING FLAX IN THE TOMB OF NAKHT (TT52): CONCEPTION AND RECEPTION As for the scene of pulling flax, showing “aharvesting worker jumping on arod in order to close the lid of abag brimful of grains” (Laboury 2017: 236), the difficulty lies precisely in 1) the distinction of either quotative or inferential evidentials, and 2) the definition of models and copies within the stemma, namely, the direction of their apparently direct filiation, as it seems clear in any event that the painters at issue indeed made use of actual models in this on visual or tangible evidence, which fits our subject (Aikhenvald 2004: 63–64). Of course, in our case, knowledge and reasoning also play alarge part in the qualification of the evidence, that is, the recognition of the index. To that extent, another type of evidential, namely the “assumptive” evidential, could be combined with inference into asingle type. 14 See for example the study case of the painter of the vizier Amenemopet (TT29) by Laboury– Tavier (2016); Laboury (2012). For analogous analyses of painterly practices on Old Kingdom material, see Pieke (2021). 15 See footnote 3. For other expressions of socio ‑professional visualities, see DenDoncker (forthcoming). 50 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 case since formal similarities between tiny specific details are significantly striking. As Lise Manniche aptly addressed in her discussion on the very close similarity between the agri‑ cultural scene of the tomb of Wensu (TTA4) (some fragments thereof are preserved in the Louvre; see also Laboury 2017: 241–247) and the tomb of Pahery at Elkab (TElkab3), it remains problematic to identify between two similar representations which is the model and which is the copy, in addition to being confronted with the issue of the missing data: “(…) though what caused their tombs, about 82 km apart, to be similar is puzzling. It is even difficult to establish if one of them was the prototype of the other (…). Apart from the fact that one tomb is painted, the other is in relief, agreat number of individual figures are absolutely identical. Either one was copied from the other, or they both copied the same original” (Manniche 1988: 85–86). Copy or model? About such attribution and resulting interpretations As the second issue, the definition of models and copies within their respective stemma should be first discussed in order to introduce properly the principle of iconographic inver‑ sion leading seemingly to flipped representations– again as seen from aparticular category of beholder: an Egyptologist who has spent hours in these tomb chapels and whose visual memory and knowledge doubtless rely on alarge photographic database. In the case of Wensu and Pahery, the actual distance between the two monuments is indeed instantly shortened as their decorations come into sight jointly on acomputer screen. Laboury’sdemonstration of the intericonic relationships between the different versions of the scene of pulling flax in the context of the Theban necropolis is based on the identification of distinctive transformations (including inversion) of formal elements, adding to contextual data (Laboury 2017: 236–239, fig. 4). It begins with the now famous version of the tomb of Nakht (TT52), dated to the time of ThutmoseIV on stylistic grounds (fig. 3) (Porter– Moss 1960 I/1: 99 (2) II).16 According to the author, who follows Christine Beinlich ‑Seeber and Abdel Ghaffar 16 Some scenes of TT52 are stylistically closer to tomb chapel decorations dated to the reign of Amen‑ hotepIII, for example TT78 (long hall), TT139 or TT161, see Hartwig (2004: 201). For adescriptive analysis of the scene in question, see Shedid– Seidel (1996: 23–25). Fig. 3 Tomb of Nakht (TT52); ThutmoseIV– AmenhotepIII. Scene of pulling flax (after Shedid– Seidel 1996: 35) 51ALEXIS DEN DONCKER Shedid’sart ‑historical analysis of the scene in question (Beinlich ‑Seeber– Shedid 1987: 48), Nakht’sversion, which includes the distinctive motif of the jumping worker, can be tracked down to the earlier tomb of Userhat (TT56), dated to the reign of AmenhotepII (Porter– Moss 1960 I/1: 111 (3) V). While the formal reinterpretation of the same theme in TT52 presents some artistic qualities (or “improvements” considering TT 56 as the direct model), which can be “objectively” defined from ascientific perspective, Laboury argues that this particularly sophisticated formula “was deemed aesthetically effective as it elicited emulation among colleagues” (Laboury 2017: 237). Although such assessment seems to be influenced not only by the admitted artistic quality of the motif but also by the modern celebrity and singularity of TT52, owing to the excellent state of preservation of its paintings, the fact that Nakht’sversion would have already been exceptionally valued for its aesthetical qualities in the Eighteenth Dynasty can in fact only be assumed in regard to the stemma it seemingly generated as aconsequence (see here below) in more or less nearby tomb chapels of the necropolis. This is to say that epistemologically, it is worth taking into account the very gap that is at stake between the etic and the emic outlooks on the representation, respectively the scientific art ‑historical analyses of the artistic quality of TT52 version as compared to that of TT56 and the ancient reception of it as, presumably, only substantiated implicitly in the later versions of the same scene which form the whole stemma. Considering the apparent “success” of asupposed iconographic prototype, it could still be asked who, in ancient times, was able, or expected, to notice it. Supporting his idea that the tomb of Nakht (TT52) (or its unknown painter) was famous in ancient times, Laboury mentions the relief of the royal cup ‑bearer Tjawy preserved in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts,17 on which anyone now acquainted with Theban tomb chapel decorations would indeed recognise the three “well ‑known” female musicians of TT52 (Por‑ ter– Moss 1960 I/1: 100 (3) IV; illustrated in e.g. Davies 1917: 57–59, pl. XV; Shedid– Seidel 1996: 17, 21, 28–29, 52; Hartwig 2004: 103). This parallel, however, does not establish any citational intention from the sculptor or commissioner of the relief and neither does it indicate the consequently alleged celebrity of TT52. Such assumption rather takes it for granted, also bypassing the problem of the missing data. On the one hand, the alleged celebrity of the tomb chapel is used to subsume the indexical value of the motif on Tjawy’srelief. On the other, the iconographic parallel is considered to point out this celebrity. Besides, what if these three musicians did simply not originate from TT52? In the same line of reasoning, Valérie Angenot (2012) has discussed the iconographic and stylistic similarity of the three musicians to apossible inverted model in the nearby tomb of Djeserkareseneb (TT38) (Porter – Moss 1960 I/1: 70 (6) II; Davies 1963: 6–7, pl. VI), also dated to the time of ThutmoseIV, so that no chronological indication can be used to support the as‑ sessment. She presumes that: “In this specific context, however, the styles of both tombs are so similar that it is impossible to determine exactly which of these contemporaneous works inspired the other. However, the accomplished and perfected character of the painting of Nakht 17 MFA 1972.651, dated to late Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Dynasty, perhaps coming from Abydos (Simpson 1972: 69). Equally, the same group of female musicians can be observed, although in another order, on ablock from the tomb of Ptahmay at Giza, dated to the reign of Akhenaten (see Zivie 1975: 291–292, pl. 51). 58 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 For instance, Andrea Andreani’sversion30 of Mantegna’sCorselet Bearers from the well ‑known Triumphs of Caesar,31 possibly modelled on the original, is just one of the numerous copies of the famous series painted for the Ducal Palace of Mantua (Lambert 1999). The multiple advantages of the carta lucida were not only the transfer and transport but also the diffusion and accessibility of prestigious models, either for further replication of designs on final supports or for artistic training (Galassi 2013: 131–136). Cennino Cennini even recommended its use by novice artists (Brooke 2018: 217). As aresult of the very technical procedure, the copies often present as the exact inverted replication of their model (Currie– Allart 2012: 947–949), which is clearly exemplified by Georg Christoph Killian’scounterpart copy32 of an etching of the Bacchant, Satyr, and Fauness, from the Scherzi executed by Tiepolo around 1740.33 It seems that in other cases, when practical and economic factors met the workshop’sspec‑ ifications, artists made use of the same models in different compositions, with the clear purpose of saving time and facilitating execution. Slight modifications added to another monumental display, often geographically distant, tend to exclude any possible conspicu‑ ousness of the intericonic relationship between the model and the copy. APerugino repli‑ cation of the figure of the Madonna from his Madonna with Child Enthroned between Saints John the Baptist and Sebastian, originally commissioned for the chapel of San Domenico in Fiesole (1493),34 onto his Madonna and Child with Saint John the Baptist and Saint Augustine in the church of Sant’Agostino in Cremona (1494) is one example.35 Although the parallels are obvious if we analyse the pictures next to each other, the beholder is not expected to spot such connections, so that self ‑citation is then not properly at stake; it is simply atechnical issue. In other cases, the inversion was preserved, even more flagrantly betraying the tech‑ nical copying procedure.36 Visual indexicality operated when, for example, it was considered prestigious to have apre‑ sumably rare reproduction of what should be considered amasterpiece by the finest con‑ noisseurs of afew privileged milieus. This was most probably the case of the replication 30 Andrea Andreani, Triumphs of Caesar VI: Corselet Bearers, ca. 1598–1599; chiaroscuro woodcut with gouache; Washington, Library of Congress. 31 Andrea Mantegna, Triumphs of Caesar VI: Corselet Bearers, ca. 1484–1492; glue and tempera on linen canvas, 268 × 278 cm; London, Hampton Court Palace Royal Collection. 32 Georg Christoph Killian, Bacchant, Satyr, and Fauness, from the Scherzi, 1767; etching, 12.4 × 17.9 cm; Geneva, Musée d’art et d’histoire. 33 Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, Bacchant, Satyr, and Fauness, from the Scherzi, ca. 1740; etching, 13.3 × 19.8 cm; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. 34 Pietro Perugino, Madonna with Child Enthroned between Saints John the Baptist and Sebastian, 1493; oil on panel, 178 × 164 cm; Florence, Uffizi Gallery. 35 Pietro Perugino, Madonna and Child with Saint John the Baptist and Saint Augustine, 1494; tempera on canvas; Cremona, Sant’Agostino church. 36 Compare for example the two versions of the Nativity painted by Michele di Rodolfo del Ghirlandaio (both dated to the first half of the sixteenth century), one for the Badia di Passignano, the other exhibited at the Musei Civici in Udine. 59ALEXIS DEN DONCKER Fig. 7 Michelangelo Buonarroti, Archers Shooting at aHerm, 1530–1533; red chalk on paper, 21.9 × 32.3 cm; NewYork, Metropolitan Museum of Art (lent from the Windsor Castle Royal Collection) (©Royal Collec‑ tion Trust) Fig. 8 Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta, Archers, 1544–1545; detached fresco, 104 × 208 cm; Rome, Borghese Gallery. Reproduction on sheet of paper (15.9 × 34.3 cm) published by Ruland (1876: 288) (©Royal Collection Trust) 60 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 of Michelangelo’sfamed presentation drawing Archers Shooting at aHerm 37 on afresco in Raphael’svilla in Rome, generally attributed to one of the latter’spupils, Girolamo Siciolante (Jones– Penny 1983: 179–180) (figs. 7–8).38 In his treatise on the practice of painting,39 the way Giovanni Battista Armenini emphasised the importance of maniera in default of invenzione reveals how the excessive use of carta lucida led to heated debates among the painters and in the workshops of the time (Galassi 2013: 132). In spite of the basic technical concerns about the practice of copying, this induces the expected existence of various artistic approaches to reproductivity. Individual agency in respect of this cultural practice could provide food for thought on what could be equally at issue among the ancient Egyptian painters, regardless of the cultural and chronological distances– notably the fact that the latter’snames have by and large been lost over time, which partly explains their apparent anonymity. While copy grids can be seen as the technical equivalent of the carta lucida in ancient Egypt, apart from training purposes, it seems that exact conformity to the model in terms of line draw‑ ing was not usually deemed necessary. Obviously, we are dealing with two distinctive artistic approaches to depiction and composition. Outside usual variation, through almost unlimited techniques of image transformation such as those mentioned above, asingle iconographic formula could yet be easily preserved and repeated,40 and still contribute to some extent to the uniqueness of the tomb chapel decorative programme in addition to its own overall layout.41 From this perspective, we can assume the idea of the patron, and/or the commissioner, was to dissimulate overly conspicuous links with the model, whereas jumping smartly from inferential to refined quotative evidential. Thereby, they could address aknowledgeable audience capable of discerning and appreciating the citation value of the copy, as astylish feature and atasteful index. “IDENTIFYING ‑COPIES” USED AS POWERFUL INDEXES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF VISUAL IDENTITIES Taking into account the determinative performance of the copy as pointing implicitly to the model’soriginal owner, Ihave proposed referring to these powerful tools of self ‑fashioning visual rhetoric as “identifying ‑copies” (Den Doncker 2017: 352–353). One might think of some visual equivalent of the practice of namedropping as away to gain social credit among targeted people. This must have been the case of the copy of the dance scene of the Twelfth Dynasty tomb of the vizier Antefiqer and his mother/wife Senet (TT60) (Porter– Moss 1960 I/1: 121 (2) II; Davies 1920: 10, 22, pl.XV) (fig.9), that the steward of the vizier Useramun, Amenemhat, ordered to be placed in the innermost shrine of his tomb chapel (TT82) (Porter– Moss 1960 I/1: 166 (16) III; Davies– Gardiner 1915: 94–96, pl.XX) (fig.10). Here, the inversions were applied not only to the position of the figures, but also to their clothing (DenDoncker 2012: 30–31). 37 Michelangelo Buonarroti, Archers Shooting at aHerm, 1530–1533; red chalk on paper, 21.9 × 32.3 cm; NewYork, Metropolitan Museum of Art (lent from the Windsor Castle Royal Collection). 38 Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta, Archers, 1544–1545; detached fresco, 104 × 208 cm; Rome, Borghese Gallery. 39 De’ veri precetti della pittura (Armenini 1587). 40 See the significant remarks of Merzeban (2014: 343), based on Old Kingdom material. 41 See examples in Pieke (2022). 61ALEXIS DEN DONCKER Fig. 9 TT60 (Antefiqer and Senet); SenusretI. Dance scene (photo A. DenDoncker, © University of Liège; drawing Davies 1920: pl.XV) Fig. 10 TT82 (Amenemhat); Hatshepsut– ThutmoseIII. Dance scene (photo A. DenDoncker, H. Tavier, © University of Liège, drawing Davies– Gardiner 1915: pl.XX) 62 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 However, the rarity of the scene, its clear association with Antefiqer, the close topographic proximity of TT82 and TT60 (cut on the same upper terrace of Sheikh Abd el ‑Qurna hill), and the latter tomb chapel’shigh significance among the community of scribes involved inter alia in the production of royal monumental decoration and the search of ancient models in the time of Hatshepsut– ThutmoseIII (as revealed by TT60 corpus of visitor inscriptions and figural graffiti) all suggest that Amenemhat had astrong interest in precisely showing how, as the steward of the vizier, he belonged to this socio ‑professional milieu, that is, his targeted audience. In terms of concrete evidence, this interpretation is clearly supported by agraffito left by the same Amenemhat near the model of the dance scene in TT60 (graffito G.60.33), bearing witness to his visit and aesthetical appreciation of the tomb chapel, which was indeed “beautiful/pleasant in his heart […] efficient for eternity” (Davies 1920: 29; Ragazzoli 2013: 69–70; DenDoncker 2017: 335–336). Depending on their socio ‑professional position, tomb owners had aclear interest in hiring particularly skilled painters, even from afar, who would conceive on their behalf the appropriate visual rhetoric with respect to definite audiences (see Hartwig 2016: 60). This was probably the case of Amenemhat, who found the opportunity to benefit from the same group of painters as the vizier Useramun, for whom he had overseen the works of both tombs (TT61 and TT131), as revealed by apainted stela placed near the dance scene in TT82 (Davies– Gardiner 1915: 70–72, pls. XXV–XXVI; DenDoncker 2017: 343–345, 362, fig. 8). In addition to the numerous iconographic analogies between TT131 and TT82, the stylistic connections between TT61 and TT82 are highly significant in this respect. What’smore, Amenemhat was proud enough to claim that he had hired that group of artists– namely, by way of indexicality, those who decorated his superior’stombs as well as those of the highest dignitaries of his time– as he had them depicted in the transverse hall of his tomb chapel benefiting from offerings and seshed ‑headbands, which he himself addressed (Davies– Gardiner 1915: 36–37, pl. VIII). Apart from graffiti, high topographic proximity to some extent makes the intericonic relationship between acopy and amodel even more noticeable, especially if their respective owners lived around the same period and belonged to the same socio ‑professional commu‑ nity so that their audience should be approximately the same. This was surely the case of the copy of the entire decorative programme of the tomb chapel of Amenemheb ‑Mahu (TT85) by his subordinate Pehsukher ‑Tjenenu (TT88), studied by Sigrid Eisermann (Eisermann 1995; DenDoncker 2017: 337–339). While in comparison, Amenemhat’sself ‑fashioning manoeuvre was far more nuanced, other painters (or tomb decoration designers, i.e. chief draughtsmen working as patron on behalf of the tomb owner as the commissioner) imagined even more complex formulae of inversion applied to the very structure of the decorative programme. The tomb chapel of the vizier Rekhmire (TT100) is agood illustration. Its decorative programme appears to be ato‑ tally re ‑sequenced version of the tomb chapel decorative layout of his uncle and predecessor Useramun (TT131). While the complete thematic content is almost exactly identical, enabling anon ‑ambiguous identification to the vizieral iconographic and textual apparatus, especially that of Useramun, none of the scenes kept its original location. Moreover, the painters chose the exact opposite locations systematically, thereby inversing the whole decorative structure used as amodel, so much so that TT100 visually mirrored TT131 (and to some extent TT61), with the result that it was different just as it remained fundamentally identical (see the complete 63ALEXIS DEN DONCKER analysis in DenDoncker 2017: 346–349). In view of the tomb chapel’sreception and in terms of indexicality, it is clear that the gist of the command lay somewhere between showing and dissimulating the mode, in neat correspondence with the ideological tenets of the aforemen‑ tioned Teaching for Merykare: “conform to this, having added to what Ihave done”. STUDY CASE 2. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE VIZIER’SOFFICE IN TT100 AND TT29: INVERSION AS THE PERFECT COMPOSITIONAL FORMULA TO MAKE THE SAME, BUT DIFFERENT Finally, another identifying ‑copy is worth mentioning as it clearly establishes the intended indexicality of this type of inverted representations. Again it occurs in avery limited top‑ ographic context, in this case the southern hill of Sheikh Abd el ‑Qurna. Just like his prede‑ cessor Rekhmire, Amenemopet, the owner of TT29, had awell elaborated visual rhetoric of self ‑fashioning, which he largely borrowed from TT100, thereby likely complying with the need to affirm and give legitimacy to his non ‑inherited position (on this question see Shirley 2005: 246–259), that is, standing in the vizierial sphere through its visual apparatus. While he placed his tomb chapel afew meters uphill, he replicated several eye ‑catching iconographic Fig. 11 TT100 (Rekhmire); ThutmoseIII– AmenhotepII. Vizier’soffice (photo D.Laboury, ©University of Liège) 64 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 units from the neighbouring TT100, granting particular attention to the scenes distinctively illustrating his position as vizier. One of these scenes is the well ‑known representation of the vizier’soffice, or Judgement Hall (fig.11) (TT100: Porter– Moss 1960 I/1: 206 (2); TT 29: Porter – Moss 1960 I/1: 46 (4)), which seemingly operates as the visual counterpart of the text of the Duties of the vizier inscribed next to it in both tomb chapels, as well as in that of Useramun (TT131). In fact, Amenemopet’sversion presents as the exact inverted copy of the model in TT100 (fig.12), while it was placed oppositely on the northern east wall of the transverse hall instead of the southern east wall (see complete analysis in DenDoncker 2017: 349–351). We thus find here the same system of structural inversion as that elaborated during the conception of TT100’s decorative programme. Furthermore, the ostracon that the painter42 utilised to accurately reproduce the key motif of the man dragging the appellant by his neck to his sentence was found during the recent excavation of TT29 (DenDoncker 2017: 370, fig.18). As it seems to have constituted an iconographic challenge in terms of drawing, the sketch was almost certainly executed in front of the model in TT100. Interestingly, it was already inverted in prevision 42 On Amenemopet’ssingle painter, see footnote 14. Fig. 12 TT29 (Amenemopet); AmenhotepII. Vizier’soffice (photo P. Hallot, © University of Liège) 65ALEXIS DEN DONCKER of the opposite location of the scene in TT29, while randomly associated with other motifs that do not appear on it. Moreover, except for adding afew little captions, Amenemopet’spainter did clearly not bring any visible modifications to the scene. There was obviously no desire to dissimulate the intericonic relationship with the model, quite the contrary. Most probably, the essence of the patron’scommand was that the largest audience would be able to detect and unambiguously understand that he was the new vizier and the equivalent of Rekhmire, who had occupied this position for almost 30 years before him. In terms of visual rhetoric, the indexical value of the copy was absolutely essential in this regard. However, on amore subtle level of artistic expression, literate visitors and high dignitaries acquainted with tomb chapel iconographic and textual contents were also probably expected to appreciate, on the one hand, the glob‑ ally innovative style of architectural display joined to the contrasting chromatic atmosphere of the painting (with an unusual dominance of blue and red pigments), and on the other, certain highly original iconographic assets such as the funerary rites scene, most probably borrowed from the tomb of Mentuherkhepeshef (TT20) in Dra Abu el ‑Naga (Davies1913: 30–31, footnote69; Bavay 2007: 12; Hofmann 2012: 58–63). In terms of the reception of these indexical codes, there was therefore aclear balance at stake between the various targeted audiences that Amenemopet needed to address in the process of appropriately defining his own self ‑fashioning. CONCLUSION Whereas flipping iconographic units seems to have been afrequently utilised efficient tool for the painters during the process of composing further versions of aprototype and elaborating on large iconographic themes, it is interesting to note that it had apparently not asingle strictly predefined function or meaning as regards visual indexicality. One of the first issues explored in our discussion was indeed the value of these copied versions as indexes: what did/do they indicate to the beholder, particularly in respect of their model and the latter’spossible sig‑ nificance? Should they always operate as quotative evidentials insomuch as such assessment seems to be influenced by acertain historical distance in approaching tomb decorations as anotional iconographic repertoire or “catalogue” totally disconnected from its archaeological context, monumental support, material reality and sociological background? Beyond the fact that the visuality of the beholder remains the determining factor in the recognition of any of the iconic, symbolic or indexical values of arepresentation, it appears that inverted copies were generally conceived, and thought to be perceived, as inferential evidentials. Although commissioned patrons and painters were themselves probably, as specialised beholders, the exception as being professionally involved in image production and tomb decoration, they would therefore not count on them as effective indexes addressed to large audiences. In par‑ allel, the inversion of iconographic units may also have been the logical consequence of the easy steerability of the ancient Egyptian image and thus, to some extent, natural when not necessarily intentional. Of course, in any iconographic environment or stemma– and this might apply to other visual cultures outside ancient Egypt, the evaluation of an inverted copy in terms of quotative or inferential evidential relies mainly on the contextual data surrounding the intericonic 66 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXIX/2022 relationship with its model. In alimited topographic area such as the Theban necropolis, provided visitors entered the two concerned tomb chapels in certain circumstances and for specific reasons, to be defined, such arelationship would be visually more conspicuous. This must have been the intention of identifying ‑copies, the value as determinatives thereof directly points to the individual related to their model, even more efficiently in arestricted sociological sphere. This means that skilled patrons and painters had the capacity to aptly address selected communities taking into account their respective visuality as atargeted audience. The case of the inverted copy of the dance scene from TT60 to TT82 is the perfect illustration of such areception pattern. By virtue of emic ideological principles associated conceptually with continuity and discon‑ tinuity, tomb owners were expected to clearly distinguish themselves, in particular through style and eloquence as regards the visual rhetoric of self ‑fashioning. Although painters had the technical means to execute exact copies using grids, they almost always aimed at variation, thereby dealing subtly and accordingly with the degree of indexicality of the identifying ‑copies, from flagrantly showing the visual connection to the model to disguising overly conspicuous links with various levels of inversion, within or outside the representation itself. In this respect, inversion may have been intended to be demonstrative, evocative as well as innovative, conform‑ ing and, at the same time, adding to the model. Flipping acopied representation seems indeed to have been the simplest way to do the same, while remaining different; asmart compositional tool operating in the frame of plentiful works of scene composition and visual self ‑fashioning. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004 Evidentiality, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Angenot, Valérie 2012 “Copy and Reinterpretation in the Tomb of Nakht: Ancient Egyptian Hermeneutics”, in: Muhlestein, Kerry– Gee, John (eds.). Evolving Egypt. Innovation, Appropriation, and Reinterpretation in Ancient Egypt, Oxford: BAR Publishing [British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2397], pp. 53–60. 2015 “Semiotics and Hermeneutics”, in: Hartwig, Melinda K. (ed.). ACompanion to Ancient Egyptian Art, Oxford: Wiley & Blackwell [Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World], pp.98–119. Armenini, Giovanni Battista 1587 De’ veri precetti della pittura, Ravenna: Tebaldini. Arnold, Dorothea 2008 “Egyptian Art—aPerforming Art?”, in: D’Auria, Sue H. (ed.). Servant of Mut. Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini, Leiden – Boston: Brill [Probleme der Ägyptologie 28], pp.5–48. Arnst, Caris ‑Beatrice 2021 “Motivbegriff und Motivforschung in der Kunstwissenschaft. Erläutert an Beispielen altägyptischer Kunst”, in: Arnst, Caris ‑Beatrice– Schulz, Regine (eds.). Typen, Motive, Stilmittel, Heidelberg: Pro‑ pylaeum [Beiträge zur Altägyptischen Kunst 1], pp.29–49. 67ALEXIS DEN DONCKER Arnst, Caris ‑Beatrice– Schulz, Regine (eds.) 2021 Typen, Motive, Stilmittel, Heidelberg: Propylaeum [Beiträge zur Altägyptischen Kunst1]. Arrivé, Mathilde 2015 “L’intelligence des images– l’intericonicité, enjeux et méthodes”, E ‑rea 13.1 (https://erea.revues. org/4620. Accessed on 17th August 2022]. Assmann, Jan 1990 “Die Macht der Bilder. Rahmenbedingungen ikonischen Handelns im alten Ägypten”, in: Kippen‑ berg, Hans G.etal. (eds.). Genres in Visual Representations. Proceedings of aConference Held in 1986 by Invitation of the Werner ‑Reimers ‑Stiftung in Bad Homburg, Leiden: Brill [Visible Religion Annual for Religious Iconography 8], pp.1–20. 1991 Stein und Zeit. Mensch und Gesellschaft im alten Ägypten, München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Bács, Tamás A. 2011 “The Last New Kingdom Tomb at Thebes: the End of aGreat Tradition?”, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 16, pp. 1–46. Bal, Mieke– Bryson, Norman 1991 “Semiotics and Art History”, Art Bulletin 73, pp.74–208. Bambach, Carmen 1999 Drawing and Painting in the Italian Renaissance Workshop. Theory and Practice, 1300–1600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bavay, Laurent 2007 “La tombe thébaine d’Aménémopé, vizir d’AmenhotepII”, Égypte, Afrique & Orient45, pp.7–20. Beinlich ‑Seeber, Christine– Shedid, Abdel Ghafar 1987 Das Grab des Userhat. Theben Nr. 56, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern [Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 50]. Bellavitis, Maddalena (ed.) 2018 Making Copies in European Art 1400–1600. Shifting Tastes, Modes of Transmission, and Changing Contexts, Leiden– Boston: Brill [Brill’sStudies on Art, Art History, and Intellectual History 30]. Borchardt, Ludwig 1913 Das Grabdenkmal des Königs CaAHu ‑rea. Bd. II. Die Wandbilder, Leipzig: Hinrich [Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient ‑Gesellschaft26]. Brinkmann, Vinzenz (ed.) 2010 Sahure. Tod und Leben eines grossen Pharao. Eine Ausstellung der Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung, Frankfurt am Main 24. Juni bis 28. November 2010, München: Hirmer. Brooke, Irene 2018 “Tratta da Zorzi: Giulio Campagnola’sCopies after other Artists and his Use of Models”, in: Bellavitis, Maddalena (ed.). Making Copies in European Art 1400–1600. Shifting Tastes, Modes of Transmission, and Changing Contexts, Leiden– Boston: Brill [Brill’sStudies on Art, Art History, and Intellectual History 30], pp. 212–260.