Dance (Review Quack) JNES 129 (2009)

8/13/2019 Dance (Review Quack) JNES 129 (2009)

1/3

Dance, Dancers and the Performance Cohort in the Old Kingdom. BAR International Series,

vol. 1809 by Lesley KinneyReview by: Joachim Friedrich QuackJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 129, No. 4 (October-December 2009), pp. 732-733Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766936.

Accessed: 14/10/2013 09:21

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.58.253.30 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:21:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aoshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25766936?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25766936?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos


2/3

732 Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 129A (2009)duties, and relationship to the king. That the title cameto be held by individuals of arguably lower rank in theRamessid period is equated with changes in Egyptianimperial policy between theEighteenth and Nineteenth

Dynasties, although the implications of this are not fullyassessed (e.g., in the context of wider evidence as inEllen Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism: MilitaryBases and theEvolution of Foreign Policy inEgypt'sNew Kingdom [Leiden: Brill, 2005]). However, in itspresentation of primary data, including appendices ofsource lists and tables, the article provides a rich basisfor further study.Thomas Schneider (pp. 201-16) offers a penetrating reassessment of evidence for the emergence offoreigners as high office holders in the royal courts oftheNew Kingdom. He argues that these officials shouldnot be considered foreign as all would have beenfully acculturated, a concept and process he discussesin detail. Such individuals only remain visible in thesources through the relatively rare occurrences of foreignpersonal names; Schneider suggests that these namesrepresent themaintenance of a private secondary culture, which was entirely acceptable in the diverse New

Kingdom elite society he envisages. Although foreignnames may not always equate with foreign origin, thisargument is plausible, and the nineteen cases of integration over multiple generations which he identifies area productive area for future work. Schneider provides acomplex and plural interpretation of cultural exchangein theNew Kingdom and a nuanced analysis of the relationship between identity, ethnicity, and status.The final two chapters, Andreas Wagner's (pp. 217?30) examination of evidence for court styles in features of discourse in selected Old Testament texts andDetlev Kreikenbom's (pp. 231-66) reassessment ofAugustine buildings on Palatine Hill, sit somewhat uncomfortably here, and the value of the comparisonsthey offer to theEgyptian material is not immediatelyclear. This is in part because volume's aim is the specialist analysis of Egyptian material rather thanwiderdiscussion of the definition and role of the court; amoresuccessful interdisciplinary approach isAntony Spawforth's edited volume, The Court and Court SocietyinAncient Monarchies (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

However, although the papers are not fully integratedand complementary in terms of theme, each representsa valuable contribution to theunderstanding of featuresof courts, particularly through the synthesis of wideranging primary evidence and, in the case of Raedlerand Schneider's papers especially, new perspectives onthis data.

Elizabeth FroodUniversity of Oxford

Dance, Dancers and thePerformance Cohort in theOldKingdom. By Lesley Kinney. BAR InternationalSeries, vol. 1809. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008.Pp. xvi + 265, illus. ?44 (paper).The book reviewed here resulted from a dissertation

atMacquarie University. It intends toprovide a comprehensive study of ancient Egyptian dance scenes, and theauthor has a personal background in dance. The dancescenes discussed are attested in tombs within presentation scenes before the tomb-owner as well as in burialscenes. The author begins with an overview of previousresearch and a statement of her own aims. This is followed by a presentation of the different types and subtypes of dance identified by the author. The performersand their titles are discussed, also with an aim to establish the social standing of the dancers bymethods suchas prosopography. Special attention is given to theEgyptian word hnr.t, which has been understood by some(mostly earlier) researchers tomean harem or concubines, while more recently therehas been a tendencytounderstand it simply as a group ofmusical performerswithout the sexual implication of a harem. Followingespecially Nord, the author adheres to the latter theory.After the detailed discussion of the scenes, some finalconclusions are drawn.

The following types of dance are distinguished: Thediamond dance is characterized by theposition of thehands meeting above the head. The salute has severalsubtypes; the common feature is the raised right arm.The swastika dance is defined by the swastika-likeformation of the arms; it can be subdivided accordingto whether the hand is holding either nothing, or aboomerang, a sistrum, or a baton. The harvest danceis a label applied by the author to certain rhythmicmovements associated with harvest scenes. The pair danceisperformed by two dancers facing each other and interacting. The pirouette can have several subtypes. Thedance of theMww a group characterized by theirparticular headdress, ismore specifically connected withfuneral processions. The boys' game is defined by thespecific actors. The layout pose is an acrobatic movement with one leg kicking high into the air. The mirrordance, finally, is unmistakable, given themirrors heldby the dancers. Each type is followed indetail by a discussion of the chronology of its attestation, itsdevelopment, and main examples.Some of the types, especially the harvest scenes andthe boys' games, are problematic in their interpretationas dances (as already admitted by the author); for thelatter,a reference toC. Sourdive, La main dans I 'Egyptepharaonique: Recherches de morphologie structuralesur les objets egyptiens comportant une main (Bern,1984), 48-52, 99-128, would have been in order.

Furthermore, the reviewer asks himself whether thetypes defined here always correspond todifferentdancesor might rather constitute different sequences of one

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


3/3

Brief Reviews 733single dance. Especially the salute could be a finalfigure ofmany other dances, and a pirouette could be aspecific highlight indifferent overall presentations. Thefact thatmany of the wall scenes show dancers side byside infigures classified as different types could also bean indication that individual figures more than dancesas such are what can be differentiated by this sort ofscholarly typology.In general, the book could have profited from amore careful final redaction. An especially low point isp. 120 nn. 44-46, where a drawing erroneously insertedhides part of the text.A section already begun on p. 85is begun in duplicate again on p. 87. Also a referencesuch as ACE tea towel (p. 126 n. 8) is likely to leavemany readers perplexed. On p. 37 the indication of aspecific page within Ritner's book would have beenadvisable (and even more so, taking into account themost fundamental discussion of the supposedly shamanic trance of theSem-priest byH.-W. Fischer-Elfert,Die Vision von der Statue inStein [Heidelberg, 1998]).The quality of the (scanned) images is in generalunsatisfactory, doing no justice to the aesthetic qualityofmany of the scenes. Also, each of thedancing scenesis presented at least twice in the book, once in the finalcatalogue and again in the discussion of the specifictypes, thus greatly contributing towards unnecessarybulk (and cost) of the book. A good system of crossreferences would have resulted in a tighter appearance.The strengthof the book certainly lies in thepracticalbackground of its author, which results in good formaldescriptions of thedifferentposes. Itsprincipal weaknessis thephilological area where the reviewer nowhere seesany progress in the interpretation of the (sometimes quitedifficult) captions accompanying some of the dancingscenes, and at the same time too great reliance is placedon other scholars' (sometimes problematic) interpretations, especially those of A. M. Roth. For example, theinterpretation of the sign U 31 endorsed on p. 22 isbased on an idea disproved inThe Carlsberg Papyri 7:Hieratic Texts from the Collection, ed. K. Ryholt(Copenhagen, 2006), 148. The difficult question of thenature of thegroup designated by theEgyptians as hnr.twill certainly have to be taken up anew, especiallytaking into account thepresence of this word in the Instruction ofDjedefhor (ed. Helck VII, 1) and its reception in the teaching of pBrooklyn 47.218.135, 4, 8f.(see J. F. Quack, WdO 24 [1994]: 14). The latter instance certainly calls into question the theories of Nordendorsed by the author. It is perhaps symptomatic thatat the same time Kinney takes up Nord's idea (veryunlikely from the orthography) that in R Westcar theword hnr.t is meant (p. 22), as well as consideringcounting it (more plausibly) among the occurrences ofhny.t (p. 39). Insufficient philological work often leadsthe author to problematic ideas and conclusions aboutthe religious nature of certain dances, as forexample thesuggested combination of burial and rebirth (p. 145).

Finally, conclusions about the funerary nature ofscenes are sometimes drawn too hastily on the basis ofmention of thepr-d.t (which is far from being universally acknowledged as denoting a funerary establish

ment) or on that of the formula for your Ka (whichactually has no intrinsic funerary background at all).In spite of its shortcomings, however, the book iscertainly welcome as a handy and up-to-date collectionand discussion of all dance scenes of theOld Kingdom.

Joachim Friedrich QuackUniversitat Heidelberg

Le Tombeau de Petosiris a Touna el-Gebel: Releve photographique. By N. Cherpion, J.-R Corteggiani,and J-Fr. Gout. BiGen, vol. 27. Cairo: Institutfrancais d'archeologie orientale, 2007. Pp.193, plans (paper).

The tomb of Petosiris, a high priest of Thoth atHermopolis (modern el-Ashmunein, c. 300 kilometerssouth of Cairo), is one of themost important Egyptianmonuments of the early Ptolemaic period. This tombis located at Tuna el-Gebel, a site seven kilometers tothe west of Hermopolis which was the city's majornecropolis during the Greco-Roman period. Petosiris'tomb, which served as a collective burial place forseveral members of his family as well, is the bestknown of the cluster ofmajor tombs in the south of thesite, and is one of themost artistically and architecturally interesting monuments of early Ptolemaic Egypt.Despite its importance, the only available photographshave been fromM. Gustave Lefebvre's original threevolume publication, Le Tombeau de Petosiris (Cairo:IFAO, 1923-24). Lefebvre's primary concern was withthe texts; the photographs and drawings included withhis work are largely inadequate for a detailed study ofthe reliefs. This volume, a complement to a reprint ofLefebvre's work, aims to correct this situation by presenting a complete photographic review of the tomband its reliefs. The authors have succeeded admirablyinproducing an excellent photographic record.The brief introduction presents most of themajorissues surrounding the tomb. There has been somedebate about its date, but there is now a consensus thatit dates to the fourth century b.c.e. The authors of thisvolume settle for the last quarter of the fourth century,just around 300 b.c.e., based on the amphora formsrepresented in the reliefs (p. 2, n. 7). Petosiris' tombis remarkable from both an artistic and an architecturalstandpoint. The form of the tomb is a temple inminiature: itconsists of a pronaos (forecourt) and naos (innersanctuary), beneath which Petosiris and his familywereburied. There seem to be very few antecedents for the

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

Dance (Review Quack) JNES 129 (2009)

Documents

Transcript of Dance (Review Quack) JNES 129 (2009)