 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
2. A Myth Of Pre-Occupation Of Sex And Domination Over Gender In Society - A Critique Of ‘Genesis Of The Pharaohs’For the benefit of the readers of this manuscript, the intention here in this section is to illustrate that, however easy it may seem to compare rock art of the Libyan (Western) Desert with so-called Pre-dynastic rock engravings in the Eastern (Egyptian) Desert, and paintings in SE Algeria there are significant differences between the three. Although Toby Wilkinson, in his book, Genesis of the Pharaohs, (2003), did not set out to compare styles between areas, the book does give the impression that nearly all engravings attributed to pre-dynastic peoples were done primarily as a result of pre-occupations with early ideologies with death and the afterlife, or with domination and control. Where order reigned over chaos, tamed over ‘wild’, and where the power of the King was pre-eminent in the control of man/maleness over women/femaleness and nature, etc., and so forth. Genesis of the Pharaohs was published in 2003, and the hope that it would be a good reference source was soon dashed by the overly heavy emphasis on an archaic interpretation. Opinions vary, and in my opinion pre-dynastic cultural groups and their leaders did not think constantly about subjugation, subordination, domination or wielding control, nor were they pre-occupied by sex and hunting above all else all the time. Personal opinion coming about through long-term observations and research suggests that the cultural groups who lived during pre-dynastic times had almost certainly been around for considerable time - time enough for developing all those things we consider necessary for a ‘civilisation’, and time enough also for developing a whole host manufacturing skills in art and craft (as can also be evidenced from the Badarian material data in Egypt and Naqqadian material data found in the Near & Middle East). To every archaic ‘Egyptologist’ [antiquarian archaeologist] out there, there will always be another interpretation of evidence for us ‘new-breed’ archaeologists, and, all things being equal, it can be inferred that what we are actually seeing are cultural constructs that are suggestive of a more subjective view of reality, an don many different levels too. A view of reality that is involved with subtlety and wider and far-reaching multi-variant awareness than the straight one-dimensional viewpoint offered to us by Egyptologists like Wilkinson, who cannot be considered today, in the 21st century, worthy of serious support. Mention Ancient Egypt” throw in references about ritual, sex, incest and death and you have the makings of a best-seller. You may ask why, because there is a market out there for this kind of crass popularist fiction. Like every ‘factual’ writer, Wilkinson plays around with the evidence so, in the end, it ‘supports’ whatever theory he has that he writes about, and then, to add insult to injury, he badges it as a ‘factual’ work. In order to get the right perspective we must first make the one comment that archaic archaeology and antiquarianism as was in the 18th and 19th century unfortunately continues to hold our attention. Having a long pedigree gives something an air of authenticity, this we know, however, it would seem that even ‘newly qualified’ Egyptologists still concern themselves with the literal interpretation ascribed to the motifs and do not delve any deeper than the surface. Wilkinson sets out to influence interpretations about the engravings he writes about in his book. To see the almost identical interpretations reminiscent of the late 18th, through 19th and early 20th century antiquarian ideologies disappoints. Yet in using sources to justify his own, very literal, interpretation, he has not gone further than using comparative archaeological material mostly from the period between 1896 and the early years of the 20th century, 1900’s to 1911, with a couple of sources from 1928 & 1933, and one thrown in from 2000. He certainly has not gone far enough by using additional anthropological and ethnographical sources that are not just taken from The Archaeology of Rock Art (Chippindale, C., & Taçon, P.S.C., eds, 1998), albeit an excellent book (and for all the right reasons). Unfortunately, he has not considered in his argument the finer dimensional elements of the minds that created the engravings he writes about. Although his book does acknowledge that there is more than enough evidence to support his (and others’) own misguided assumptions, it does leave a lot to be desired, on many levels. Wilkinson uses several reproductions and photographs of ‘boat’ motifs (engravings) to hammer home his point, but the first grievance is that there is an equally rich source available of all things ancient Egyptian available elsewhere that he could have utilised, but chose not to. The object of a ‘good’ rock art research book is to inform us about depth, about perspective, dimensionality, the creative impulse and how the mind and its creative capacity was utilised in producing these motifs, and the philosophy behind the image making process. To fall into classic stereotype with undesirable inequality and sometimes racial, undertones does not make for a successful conclusion. Where he got the rest of his other information from doesn’t bear thinking about. Take for example the frequent depictions of boats in the Eastern Desert. The symbolism is interesting and suggests that the boat motifs, since many of them are orientated to the west could be part of a much wider symbolism, according to Wilkinson, which he describes on pages 152 to 154. In describing the uses of boat motifs in a desert environment, as journeys to the Afterlife (journeys to the lands of the dead, in the west) taken by Kings on death, not of commoners, for instance. He describes the ‘boats’ as having ‘crews’ and ‘oars’, (op cit 152-154). The engravings may well suggest this, however if one were to compare other ‘boat’ motifs from elsewhere, especially those further west in Libya or Algeria one would find that oarsmen and crews are practically non-existent. The general analogy of boats are in principal the same, and may refer to journeys to the lands of the ancestors, equally they may refer to metaphor, where they mean something very different than what they, on first glimpse seem to represent. The choice of examples, although in first instance, quite good, seem to be taken as demonstrating clearly how the assumptions of Egyptologists in the 18th and 19th centuries can still be used to demonstrate a ‘true’ interpretation. However, at risk of seriously impeding the free-flow of ideas as to meanings ascribed to boat motifs, and right up until the 21st century (the effects of a long relationship with antiquarianism), is still very much at the fore of his work, not dissipated as I would have liked. Indeed, it suggests a serious lack of information and knowledge on his part, with serious misconceptions – and possible repercussions of yet more bilge being allowed free reign. Two examples reproduced from Wilkinson’s book that are found in Wadi el-Atwani (fig 1 below) and Wadi Barramiya (fig 2) are used here to illustrate the dangers of making grandiose assumptions without fully researching, or indeed, familiarising oneself with the many different approaches that could be taken to eliminate 18th century ‘antiquarianism’.
Fig 1 Wadi el-Atwani (source: 2003 Genesis of the Pharaohs, Wilkinson, Toby, p154, fig 55 Figures 55 (154), Wadi el-Atwani, and 53 (152), Wadi Barramiya, are particularly pertinent. The boat motif at Wadi al-Atwani is situated at the foot of a cave, and the other, in Wadi Barramiya, carved inside a rock shelter.
Fig 2 Wadi Barramiya (source: 2003 Genesis of the Pharaohs, Wilkinson, Toby, p152, fig 53 It is, at this stage very difficult to say with any certainty what these boat motifs symbolise. However, what needs to be said is that these two examples may suggest very different connotation than a literal interpretation, especially when looking at Wilkinson’s so-called “bull-standard at the stern” p154. Looking closely at the Wadi el-Atwani reproduction on page 154, and using a combination of lateral spatial thinking and 3D abstraction, it is not unlike the curling around into the far distance. Artistic perspective suggests the ‘boat’ is actually attached to the ‘bull’, which also just happens to be facing in the opposite direction [which is anyway, more Ibex-like with those horns than bull-like], not the other way around. Likewise the so-called “crew of 17” that are manning the “oars” that Wilkinson assumes are propelling the craft, are unrelated in form to the figure at Wadi Barramiya, even though Wilkinson says that figure 55 is the counterpart of figure 53. Looking closely at the upright strokes in the Wadi Barramiya reproduction, in comparison to the upright strokes on the Wadi el-Atwani reproduction, ones sees a very different motif; the Wadi Barramiya upright strokes and the ‘twin-fronds’ at the prow are very different; for one, the ‘two-fronds’ are non-existent on the Wadi el-Atwani motif. The boat motifs, as in the Eastern Desert carry a cargo. In the Western Desert of Algeria, cargo consists of bundles of things, or possessions, circular in shape, that are very reminiscent of anthropomorphic circular heads that are found in some of the Tassili-n-Ajjer rock paintings, which may or may not be an element of a spiritual tradition. It could equally represent corpses or spirits. Some of Libyan paintings that are very serpentine in form carry cargo also. Many boat depictions in the Western Desert [Libya, Algeria] have a stern in the form of an animal head with prominent ears or small horns facing back, i.e., looking towards its ‘tail’; its prow is often tail-like, serpentine.
Fig 3 T-in-Tazarift, Tassili (source: 1993, LeQuellec, Symbolisme et Art Rupestre au Sahara, p140, fig 31:2 To further illustrate the ineffability of Wilkinson’s mindset, three examples are taken from the Algerian Tassili, from the book by LeQuellec (1993), in Ti-n-Tazarift (140, fig 31:2) Fig 3; Tamrit (254, fig 67:1) Fig 4; Jabbaren (146, fig 34:8) and one from the book by Lhote (1959), in Aouanrhet ([120 facing] fig 40) Fig 5.
Fig 4 Jabbaren, Tassili (Source: 1993, LeQuellec, Symbolisme et Art Rupestre au Sahara, p146, fig 34:8 From Figures 3-5 it is clear that, whilst each of them exhibit differences, all three may well encompass serpent-boat/aquatic journey metaphors, whether this is initiatory at the transition of childhood to adulthood or is an event that in the psyche of the creators of these paintings occurs at the end of earthly existence will not be analysed, suffice to say that there are many ways of envisioning a journey through life.
Fig 5 Tamrit, Tassili (source: 1993, LeQuellec, Symbolisme et Art Rupestre au Sahara, p254, fig 67:1 There are then, many variations of the theme of ‘life Journey’. It is not known how exactly the creators of these images envisioned their journey through life, nor whether the images are an entrenchment of an established spirituality or belief system. As a researcher in this field I cannot agree with the preoccupation he indicates as to the control of everything that occurred in their lives, and that this was of paramount importance to them. Not least the methods of subjugation and subordination that might have been employed to control the population as a whole. I further disagree that these engravings were the forerunners of later dynastic tomb paintings, and they were done simply to regain control over a chaotic world, where birth, life and death were simply part of everyday life. To indicate that their ‘obvious’ response was to paint or engrave in such a way to regain control of every realm that they believed influenced them, and ‘create’ deities to ‘guide’ the dead kings to the afterlife where he was assured everlasting success and fecundity is quite frankly unacceptable, because it widelyunderestimates the influence, the intelligence, the ability, the spirituality, the creative impulse of the boat people, and the sense of community that the these people belonged to. Concluding CommentsBecause of the complexities that we find in prehistoric rock art in the Sahara, it is not possible to judge Wilkinson’s book as being anything out of the extraordinary, indeed it appears to simply be a rehash of outdated theories about the boat people in the Eastern Libyan (Egyptian) Desert, and from his works the conclusion is that he cannot be trusted not to make damaging assumptions about those who created the engravings in further publications, further contributing to the dangerous glut of useless publications that are generally available to the wider audience. -X-
|
