Introduction
No human being appears entirely naked when on public display. In the absence of clothing, tattoos, and make-up, ornaments and other embellishments modify bodies and physiognomies in all human cultures.1 Non-nudity might be a human universal behaviour2 (“le propre de l’homme”), but dress is specific to each culture. What drives people to adorn themselves? Protection, of course, but not exclusively: it is also a question of representation on the social stage.3 The body is thus the primary medium of cultural expression,4 imperfect bodies are modelled to meet the demands of society, demands that correspond to the times. Time is the very essence of archaeology, which relies on material culture to convey the story of past societies.
By treating ornamental objects as secondary, archaeologists have long neglected the physical appearance of the subjects of their studies (i.e. humans) and have thus missed the opportunity to obtain the information that permeates a person’s culturally constructed appearance.5 However, 35 years ago, a study of European Mesolithic ornaments demonstrated the relevance of studying ornaments on a large scale, in the same way that prehistorians could study lithic tools or ceramics.6 Since then, regional studies have been carried out for all periods, demonstrating the relevance of this approach.7
This article proposes a framework for this archaeology of physical appearances within Egyptian archaeology, weaving its initial contours towards more collaborative work. The intention is not to confine this framework to a single definition, but rather to propose a common basis for reflection on how to define appearances, what are the means of understanding them and what are the aims of such a task.
Origins of the expression “Archaeology of appearance”
Carolyn L. White8 combined, for the first time, the terms archaeology and appearance in the title of her paper: “What the Warners Wore: An Archaeological Investigation of Visual Appearance”. She proposed that artefacts, and especially small finds from dress, can tell us about the different inhabitants of the Warners’ house. This house dates from the 18th to the 19th centuries, and is a typical colonial house where the elite “master”, servants and slaves lived together. The author examines how these artefacts can be used to understand the construction and presentation of class and gender identities. She is aided by the presence of graphic representations and written descriptions since her work concerns an historical period. She uses the artefacts to visualise the inhabitants and to understand how the physical appearance of the inhabitants of Warner House serves to represent and constitute individual identities and group affiliations in everyday life. In this work, the excavations did not provide the author with all the clues needed to reconstruct the “appearance”, rather these came exclusively from what we call “small finds”. In this case, it is shoe buckles, buttons, fragments of a fan, etc, which enables White’s reconstruction. What allows her to talk about appearances and their link with social status is the possibility of using graphic representations and descriptions from this period and about this family. She thus draws on data from history and art history.
At the end of my Phd dissertation on Predynastic ornaments,9 I wondered about the validity of certain interpretations of the meanings given to ornaments. What we have here is an “isolated” element. Beads alone do not tell us everything about the appearance of individuals in the past. They must be placed in an ensemble in fineries and with dress, hairstyle, physiognomy, etc. Since we lack this assembly, are we not going too fast with our cultural interpretations based solely on these non-perishable artefacts? I had entitled this reflection “Une archeologie de l’apparences” in reference to Gil Bartholeyns’paper.10 The author rightfully regretted the division made between the different elements of appearance, which he defined as follows:
“L’ʻapparence’ comprenait l’aspect physique, les accessoires, la silhouette, et l’ensemble reflétait un mode d’être au monde.”11
The author also pointed out that since the dawn of history, scientists, religious figures and ancient scholars have divided the elements of appearance into different categories to meet the paradigms of their time. And today, historians and ethnologists (archaeologists) are doing the same, using different vocabularies, dividing to reign in the vast quantities of data generated by research and fieldwork. Underscoring this difficulty is the quantity and diversity of the data required for this variety of knowledge,12 which necessitates multi- and interdisciplinary collaborative research.13
We are interested in the available evidence of these appearances in the Pre-Pharaonic period in Egypt. Following other archaeological and ethnographic researchers, we divided the appearance evidence into three categories: the body itself, permanent modifications of the body, and impermanent modifications of the body. We have focused on the Pre- and Early Dynastic periods, from the first phase of the Naqada Period to the First Dynasties, i.e. almost the whole of the 4th millennium BC. Occasionally, the information available has forced us to look at what was happening at the boundaries of these temporal and geographical limits.
Body
Since the early 2000’s, archaeologists across the Atlantic have been proposing to consider the body not as a support for discourse as a canvas (painted) or a rock (engraved), but also to pay attention to the ways in which ornamentation and type of clothing play on the person’s experience and how the body can be shaped by these ways of appearing.14 They highlight the co-dependence of the body and artefacts. In this anthropological sense of the term, appearance consists of the body, with the more –or less– invasive elements that modify it.
It always begins with consideration of the physical aspect: that of the individual’s body. The body defines the individual’s material being and its biological and genetic characteristics (age, biological sex, skin and eye colour, hair texture and colour, etc.).
Scholars investigate how the social environment impacts the body and in turn, how the body shapes society. The help of anthropobiology is necessary, not only to know the physical characteristics of the individual (sex, age, state of health, etc.) but also to pay attention to the possible impact of representation and appearance on the body itself.
In practice, archaeology is also able to give us information through archaeothanotology studies. Archaeothanatology is based on biological parameters.15 It is therefore in the very particular situation having to develop its tools and methods even as it contributes to the interpretation of funerary sites. Interpretation of graves builds in a systematic way, looking at the taphonomy of the corpse and especially the relative chronology of articular dislocations. Although archaeothanatology was traditionally based on the study of the structure and contents of tombs, it builds its knowledge on human remains. The aim is to reconstruct the actions of the individuals who bury the dead by examining the condition of the body containers (including those that may have disappeared) and the deposit of the funerary goods. Bioanthropological analysis provides some of the physical characteristics of the deceased, such as age and sex, and pathological analysis reveals information on the state of health of individuals and populations. In this way, certain pathologies mark the body to the point of becoming a characteristic of individuals.
We can cite here the featured example of tomb 35 in Adaïma,16 where an adult male suffered from Pott’s disease (spinal tuberculosis) causing the collapse of several vertebral bodies which resulted in a noticeable protrusion of the spine. This body particularity is a part of his identity to point that he was buried with a deformed pottery bowl as a parallel of his appearance.
As far as the body and symbolism are concerned, funerary archaeology is one of the main sources of information for the archaeology of appearances, and along with other disciplines, it provides us with complementary evidence of the physical materiality of person.
Body Modifications
We don’t choose our body, but it can be modified and we can add to it or detract from it. As early as 1926, in his manual of ethnography, Marcel Mauss included body decorations among the arts; in fact he proposes that they were the first arts used in societies. He defined two types of body decoration. The first is a form of sculpture, involving modifications to the body: “cosmetic”. The second is decoration by adding objects to the body, an artefactual addition that he calls “ornamentic”. He differentiates between what changes the body directly and what is added, i.e. material culture. Current anthropologists are more inclined to talk about bodily modifications and differentiate between those that are permanent and those that are temporary. However, the permanent nature of certain modifications is being called into question. On the one hand, progress in the field of medicine, among other things, means that tattoos can be removed or mutilated organs reconstructed. On the other hand, there are now permanent make-up or cosmetic products. The technical progress inherent in our current society blurs the boundary between these two categories. From the point of view of the historical sciences and the original intention of these modifications, this distinction between permanent and impermanent still the most revealing and requires cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Permanent body modification
Starting with the body (see above), we continue with the most invasive and permanent modifications which will change the human physiognomy.
Amputation
Amputation is the partial or complete ablation of a protuberant organ or limb. It is probably the most intrusive body modification. It is implemented in the treatment of certain pathologies. However, it seems that it can also be performed without any proven medical objective. We know, for example, that certain genital mutilations go as far as amputating the protuberant parts of a woman’s reproductive organ. There is also some evidence of Palaeolithic hand amputation,17 but in these cases it is very difficult to say whether the action was therapeutic or not.
For Predynastic Egypt, we can cite the case of tomb S166 at Adaïma where a teenager was placed in his grave in three pieces. His right arm had been cut into two parts at the middle of the arm and close to the wrist. This action took place while the body still retained some flesh, and it is therefore impossible at this stage to say whether the amputation took place ante or post mortem. The main part of the body, the right arm and the right hand were placed in an approximately anatomical position in an earthen coffin.18
Bone shaping
Body modification can involve deliberately altering the shape of the bones in the human body, particularly the skull. Altering the shape of the skull takes place during infancy, when the bones are still malleable. The process can be carried out by applying constant pressure to the skull using cloth, boards or other devices. The inauguration of cranial modification by Neanderthals around 45,000 BP19 is now questioned.20 The oldest evidence comes from Australia21 and the Near East22 and ends at the latest (?) in 19th century in France in the Toulouse region.23 Despite debates surrounding the Amarna period, it seems that this type of modification was never implemented in Egypt from the Neolithic to the Ptolemaic periods.24
Dental Modification
Dental modifications are deliberate alteration or ablation of teeth for a non-medical reason. In parts of Africa, teeth were deliberately chiselled into sharp points or other shapes. The oldest traces of this practice date from the Iberomaurisian period (Late Stone Age) in the Maghreb. It involves the voluntary removal of an incisor.25
No traces of this practice are recorded in Egypt because there is no evidence of voluntary modification without medical necessity. Furthermore, dentists, who were members of the medical profession, seemed to play an important role around the rulers. The tombs of “palace dentists”, who were members of the court as early as the 3rd Dynasty at Saqqara,26 can be found close to those of pharaohs. Removal of teeth and other gaps in the dentition tended to be compensated by prostheses. Some interventions are ante-mortem, while others may be post-mortem which indicates the importance of the integrity of the body of the deceased.27
Genital modification
Genital modification refers to the deliberate alteration of human sexual organs. As far as the soft tissues of the body are concerned, the direct archaeological evidence is rare. In an archaeological context, the oldest mention, probably from Naqada I, is at Naga ed-Der.28 There the natural mummification allows this observation. Later, there is an evidence during Old Kingdom with a mummified phallus dating from the 4th Dynasty.29
Then we need to turn to graphic representations for more indication, taking all the necessary precautions for their interpretation. Genital male modifications are better documented in art, for the obvious reason that the phallus is external and over-represented in relation to the vulva. The lack of documentation on the origins of female genital modification can also be explained by the fact that the history of women is less well documented than that of men. Male circumcision seems to have its origins in Egyptian civilisation.30 The circumcision scene in the Mastaba of Ankhmahor, vizier of king Teti of the 6th Dynasty, has long been considered to be the oldest evidence of this practice in the world. However, the representation of an incised penis on a fragment of a palette from Hierakonpolis is older,31 this image comes from the Battlefield Palette,32 which likely dates to early Naqada III (3300-3100 BC). Two fragments are preserved in the Ashmolean Museum (AN1892.1171) and the British Museum (EA20791). The position of the naked figures, with their arms tied behind their backs, allows to identify them as enemies of Egypt. This leads us to believe that these 4th millennium BC people were the earliest known people to practise genital modifications, in this case, dorsal slip33 or an incision. The sign in front of one of the individuals is incomplete and leads to confusion about the regional origins of these individuals on this slate palette.34 It could also be a metaphorical representation of ‘foreigners’, personifying all people who do not live in the Nile Valley.35 Whatever the case may be, this element of their physiognomy does not seem to be anecdotal in terms of their identification by the Egyptians who depict them. This type of circumcision is a characteristic of non-Egyptians.
The Egyptians had therefore been practising circumcision (according to Naga ed-Der evidences) since the Naqada I period, using a method known as “true circumcision”, which differed from the dorsal slip used by non-Egyptians. On the other hand, it is impossible to assert that this practice was systematic; perhaps the Egyptians reserved it for a particular class of individuals. In any case, in the Predynastic period, this was not a characteristic feature of Egyptian male depictions, even less a claim of identity.
Piercing
Piercing is the practice of perforating a part of the body or an organ to insert a piece of jewellery. Piercing can take place on various parts of the body, but the most common and oldest-known traces of this practice concern the face and, more specifically, ear and lip piercings. The first evidence dates from the end of the Pleistocene to the beginning of the Holocene. A study of the traces left on teeth of one hominid points out that he was wearing a labret. This indirect clue suggests that ornamental practices among hominids date back to the end of the Pleistocene.36 Closer to modernity, the presence of ‘nails’ in the tombs of the Boncuklu Tarla South site in eastern Turkey dates from 10.000-8.000 BC. In this Pre-Pottery Neolithic B culture, buried individuals were found with nails of different shapes, probably corresponding to different functions. Their location in the graves indicate that the longest are reserved for the ear, while the shortest appear to be labrets on the lips.37
Within the pre-Pharaonic culture in Egypt such evidence is rare, although a few “nails” have been found in the graves of Gebel Ramlah and a specimen in a settlement site from the 5th millennium BC (Kharga C).38 To my knowledge, there is no trace of these objects in later Predynastic periods.
Likewise, ear piercing does not seem to have been common practice in Egypt until the end of the 18th Dynasty. Earring jewellery, evidenced on mummies and representations (statutes and paintings), indicates a sudden onset of this practice during the reign of Amenophis III, first appearing on men and then women.39
We may conclude that piercing is not a characteristic of early Egyptian societies. It remains to be determined if this practice is imported, and how.
Tattoo and scarification
As with genital modifications, these practices affect the soft parts of the body, and more specifically, the surface of the skin. Scarification consists of a superficial incision or burning of the skin that is sufficiently intense to leave scars. Tattooing involves injecting a pigment under the epidermis of the skin to create shapes and figures. Evidence that can be read directly on archaeological bodies is limited to cases where the skin is preserved. Thus, the oldest known evidence of tattooing was observed directly on natural mummified bodies in both Austria and Egypt. The two discoveries dispute primacy, as 14C dating does not provide an exact date, but a range. It is therefore difficult to say with certainty which of the Ötzi or Gebelein mummies bear the oldest tattoos.
The natural mummy of Ötzi, discovered in the Alps, has been radiocarbon dated to 3350-3110 BC.40 It belongs to the European Chalcolithic culture. Using the exploration of the multispectral imaging technique known as “7-band Hypercolorimetric Multispectral Imaging” (HMI7), around fifteen tattooed areas were identified. All are made up of several short lines forming different patterns.
Recently in the British Museum, two mummies have revealed their tattoos using infrared camera photos. These two natural mummies, a man and a woman, come from the Predynastic site of Gebelein. Radiocarbon dated to 3350-3071 cal. BC,41 the mummies are contemporary with the “Iceman”. The practice of tattooing seems to have lasted throughout Egyptian Antiquity, although for the moment direct evidence is limited. It cannot be ruled out that this practice only concerned a small proportion of the population, depending on the status or role of the individuals concerned. To confirm this impression, the methods used to detect tattoos on mummies need to be systematised.
Indirect evidence of Egyptian tattooing have also been discussed around the ceramic female figurines.42 These figurines show body decoration, representations of natural figures, and other patterns around the fertility theme. But how can we decide if these representations are scarification, tattoos, or body paintings? And, are they a display of the reality or only symbolic depictions?
Impermanent body modification
The non-permanent body modifications are both modifications on the skin and hair and accessories added to the body. For example, in relation to the last paragraph on permanent modifications, body painting can be placed alongside tattoos, but unlike a tattoo, it can be erased.
Body painting and make-up
Body painting and make-up are closely related practices that consist of applying paint or temporary pigment to the surface of the skin, or “tegumentary paint” as Nathalie Baduel43 called it. The term “make-up” is commonly used for the face, while body painting can be done on any part of the body. Here again, the direct historical evidence of these practices is exceptional, as the skin is rarely preserved. These ornamental practices are sometimes described on the basis of figure representations, whatever their form (drawing, engraving and/or figurines). As we have already pointed out, it is almost impossible to differentiate between scarification, tattoos and body painting in those cases.
The first evidence of tegumentary paint comes from the palette, a typical artefact from the predynastic period, but not a common one.44 Palettes are found in both the funerary and domestic spheres. They are often fragmentary in settlements and more often whole in burials. The second clues are pigments, which are found in both contexts.45 They come in the form of coloured matter observed directly from the surface of the palettes or in the form of ore fragments or powder. These pigments were sometimes contained in cloth bags or mollusc shells in the Adaïma and Helwan cemetery.46 The most common are copper oxides (malachite) and ochres (hematite). Evidences of the black colour are rare since the presence of galena has so far only been reported at Minshat Abou Omar and Hierakonpolis, once from each site.47
Finally, the latest evidence of this practice is the rare traces found directly on the bodies. The best-known example is probably that of Adaïma: some skeletons bore remnants of green pigment in their eye sockets.48 This brings to mind the symbolic importance of this colour and its use in later times. Old Kingdom mummies, for example, have green eyes drawn on the strips covering their faces.49 This reminds us of the ritual of opening the eyes and mouth, well documented in later texts.
Hairstyle
The hairstyle is the way in which the hair is cut or arranged, which is difficult to observe in archaeology for obvious reasons of perishability. Therefore, information comes from art history and the depiction of the human figure. The oldest in the world is probably the so-called Palaeolithic “venus” figurines, for which it is interesting to notice that the feature of their femininity is not the head and hair, but rather their primary sexual characteristics, which is also true for predynastic female figurines.
In the beginning of predynastic period, anthropomorphic figures were particularly stylised.50 The female figurines and depiction, that we have already mentioned, although they had a well-defined body, had a head reduced to a bird shape with no representation of hair (from the Badarian period to almost the end of Naqada II). More rarely, some have better-defined heads with oversized eyes, such as the bone statuettes from the British Museum (EA321142; EA32141) or Le Louvre (E 11887). They wear the 3-part haircut relatively similar to the Early dynastic statuettes,51 but they are dated from Nagada I, and they differ from the later by the size and shape of their eyes. On the male side, bearded men, as their name suggests, have beards and are bald. Examples can be seen at the Musée d’Art et Histoire in Brussels (E.2331a and E2331b), and at the Musée des Confluences in Lyon (90000-171 et 172). Without knowing their identity (simple person, ruler or god), it is hard to rely on these images from the beginning of the period to get an idea of what humans looked like at this time. The rare representations of children, limited almost entirely to the figurines from Tell el-Farkha,52 show them without hair.
With the Early Dynastic period, the evidence for hairstyles grew as figurative representations from palettes, slab stele or statuettes, etc. are more numerous. Men and women could have long hair (below the shoulder); some men are represented as having medium-length hair (above the shoulder), short round, sidelocks hairstyle or bald. The women have mostly longer hair, with either a duplex bouffant hair style, a tripartite style or sometimes a short round style hair.53 These differences in hairstyle often go hand in hand with differences in dress and are probably linked to the individual’s status.
Indications are therefore still mainly indirect. However, hair preserves well in an arid environment. This enabled G. J. Tassie54 to identify hair colours that were predominantly medium to dark brown, straight or curly, based on the indications given mainly by Guy Brunton and F. Petrie. As the biological sex of the individuals could not be convincingly determined for these early excavations, we will not report on the disparities between men and women here. We can also note the material evidence of henna dyeing and a toupee discovered in Hierakonpolis in the necropolis HK43 for Naqada IIB-IIC period.55 The way in which the hair was styled is therefore of some importance, and it is quite possible that combs and other ornaments also adorned these haircuts.
Artefactual addition
The last category of non-permanent body modification belongs to material culture as studied by archaeology. However, and once again, artefacts alone are not enough; we need to cross-reference sources to get an idea of what people wore, particularly for clothing.
Garment
Clothes are made of perishable materials and do not stand up well to time or burial; here again, the clues are rare. Fragments of fabrics have been found in burials, and it has sometimes been possible to confirm their use for clothing, wrappings, or other purposes. Since the Neolithic and throughout the Pre-pharaonic period, linen has been used to weave fabrics. The production of quality fabrics for the elite appears to have been controlled from the beginning of Nagada III onwards.56 In the settlement, needles, spinning tools, spinning bowls, distaffs and loom weights have been regularly found. The spinning bowl found in predynastic settlements indicates that linen continue to be spun in household context during Naqada IIIA-B period.57
This gives an idea of the material but not what it looks like in terms of shape and colour. The “Tarkhan dress” preserved in the Petrie Museum is probably one of the oldest-known garments. The radiocarbon testing, conducted in 2015 by the University of Oxford’s radiocarbon unit, has established that the dress was made between 3482-3102 cal. BC (95.4% (2) probability). This is a rare and valuable piece of information. This date confirms that from this period linen was used to make complex shirt pieces. The shirt is made up of two parts. The top is made from a linen pleated on the chest and sleeves with a V-neck opening. The body of the shirt is made from a smooth linen fabric. Its current colour is cream, but there is no guarantee that it was not another colour, as the dyes may have faded.
The depictions of people through different media show that garments are codified according to status and gender. At the beginning of the predynastic period, men were depicted wearing coats and beard on the so-called bearded figurines from the Badarian period to Naqada I. During the same period and later (Naqada II), women are represented naked; examples include the lapis-lazuli figurine from Hierakonpolis preserved in the Ashmolean museum (E. 1057). Women are also shown bare-breasted with long white loincloths such as the one preserved in the Brooklyn Museum of Art coming from Ma’marya (07.447.505). During Naqada II, the painting in Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis shows different scenes, and people are dressed differently depending on their activities. The same is true on the contemporary Gebel el-Arak knife handle, for example. Some wear a simple penis sheath, in which case they are often in the position of warriors or hunters. Others are wearing long loincloths. For example, at the top of the representation of tomb 100, two individuals are standing with their arms outstretched. The ivory figurines from Tell El-Farkha provide us with some rare representations of children, who are shown naked.58
The Early Dynastic period offers more representations. The individuals depicted are often linked to high-ranking figures. The king can be recognised by his particular attributes and his name. When he is depicted acting, he wears a loincloth, as do most of his followers (e.g. Narmer’s palette and the mace head of Scorpion). The characters in the lower registers, and those who are socially inferior or even enemies, are dressed in a penis sheath. Moreover, when the king is depicted seated and not in action, he seems to be wearing a long cloak (Narmer’s mace head), and he is always wearing his trappings (crown, beard and sceptre) which may remind us of the depictions of bearded men from the beginning of the Naqadian period. For women, evidence is less common, but a few statuettes such as the “petite dame du Louvre”59 and some slab stele from Umm el-Qaab60 and Helwan reliefs61 allow to resituate coats or long covering dresses for the Early Dynastic period.
Ornament
Ornaments are commonly defined as small objects that are often perforated and can be hung or sewn (beads or pendants) or put on a limb (bracelet). Usually made of mixed material with a part of non-perishable materials, ornaments are the most common artefacts of appearance discovered in pre-pharaonic Egypt. Beads made on hard materials stand the test of time. For the period in question, they were made of stone and minerals, and hard animal materials such as bone and shell. There were also metallic elements (copper) and other artificial materials such as Egyptian faience.
Their presence in the lives of Egyptians is attested by the regular presence of beads found in both dwelling and funerary contexts. These two contexts do not offer the same quality of information for interpretation. In a dwelling context, beads are lost or abandoned. The bead is often the only part of a composite object; it is found when sifting through sediments and is therefore difficult to determine a precise context and ownership. These beads are studied for their components, such as their raw materials and the way they are manufactured. This data can be used to define raw material supply zones and therefore the geographical limits of trade. Thus, in Tell el Iswid, and other Delta sites, the presence of lapis lazuli beads demonstrates the existence of a network reaching as far as Afghanistan as early as Buto IIb. With these isolated beads, typology and raw material can also be compared from site to site. This gives a general idea of the categories of beads used in a geographical area. Nevertheless, it is impossible to affirm the type of ornaments these beads might have belonged to –necklace, anklet, wristband, headband– which limits our ability to render appearances.
Next we examine the funerary context, which is a more accurate source of information for this question of appearances. When the burials are well preserved and the excavation method has been adapted, it is possible to reconstruct the location of the ornaments and interpret them as necklaces, bracelets or other finery. In addition, the bodies are all or partially preserved, and their study gives us information about the holder (age, sex, state of health). The site of Adaïma provides an excellent example of what information can be retrieved with systematic excavation and analysis of funerary contexts. There, we were able to show62 that children and adults were not adorned in the same way and that styles of adornment changed over time. The cemetery with the best information is the children’s cemetery. Here, adornment was most common during Naqada IIIA, and this was a time of great diversification in terms of ornamental styles, types of ornaments, and categories of beads. A dozen or so types of adornment are specific to this phase, including some exceptional necklaces, copper rings bracelets, etc., giving the image of more marked individualisation in this period. Moreover, although bangles and bracelets appeared as early as Naqada I and lasted until the Naqada IIID – 3rd Dynasty phase, they were clearly used during Naqada IIIA where they were also a marker of the 1-4 age group.
Profiles, paint an archetype?
Appearance is a current subject in our image-based society driven by the development of social media and artificial-intelligence-created images. It is probably surprising that this paper on appearances is devoid of any representations and illustrations. In fact, this is a deliberate choice since the images remain fixed in our minds more than the meaning. The aim is to get out of the traditional representation of Predynastic domain and to use these descriptive elements to imagine what could be the portrait (or rather the portraits) of a child, a woman or a man for each step of the chronology we have travelled through without the barrier of pre-Pharaonic paradigmatic representations and of our current period.
In pre-Pharaonic Egypt, the bodies of individuals were an integral part of their personhood, as we have seen from the man with Pott’s Disease, represented and defined by his distorted spine. Apart from very rare examples, individuals undergo few permanent modifications to the body. Depictions show genital modifications in certain men, and it seems that these are foreigners and not inhabitants of the Two Lands. Piercing is a characteristic of the inhabitants of the desert and Nubian regions during the Neolithic period and does not seem to be a habit of the inhabitants of the Nile valley during the 4th millennium BC. Tattoos are found on both sexes. Then, depictions show drawings on women’s bodies. Perhaps those women had special status. Furthermore, it is difficult to affirm the difference between tattoos, scarification and body painting in the case of artistic depictions.
Non-permanent modifications are carried out differently depending on the status of the individual, with the most obvious differences being age and gender.
Children
Children are the individuals for whom we have the least variety of data. Although their grave goods, and in particular the use of ornaments in the burial process, are well-known thanks to studies carried out in Adaïma cemeteries, there is very little other data on their physical appearances.
In Adaïma, the categories and styles evolved with the age of the children. Certain ornaments, such as bangles and bracelets, were designed for children aged 1 to 4 during the Naqada IID-IIIA1 and for children aged 1 to 9 during Naqada IIIA2. Ornament styles, predominantly colours and bead shapes, also seem to follow period-specific trends such as the long, predominantly blue necklaces typical of the Naqada IIIA2 phase or the double white bead anklets for a group of children buried between Naqada IID and Naqada IIIAB.
In Tell el-Farkha, two ivory figurines give us another element of archetypical depiction of children. They are naked, bald, and in the position with their fingers in their mouths that becomes standardized in the later periods.
Woman
Badarian to Naqada period
Sketching a portrait of a woman during the early 4th millennium BC (Badarian to Naqada IIB period) is based on depictions that show them naked or bare-breasted wearing a long loincloth or white skirt, some with tattoos or body paint. In these depictions, the hair is almost absent or cut short, and more rarely long. Nevertheless, in funerary contexts, hair has been found in women’s graves and can be dyed or fake (Hierakonpolis). Women wore, in the burials, short necklaces close to the throat made up of few beads in different colours and raw materials as well as composite bracelets (Adaïma, Minshat Abou Oamr, Kom el-Khigan).
Early Dynastic Period
The women of the early dynasties are represented dressed in long coats or dresses covering them from shoulders to ankles. They have long hair (below the shoulders) in three-part or duplex bouffant hair styles. They may also have make up, but no evidence of tattooing is known. According to some information on funeral goods, women can own composite necklaces and bracelets made up of beads of different shapes, sizes and colours. Often cited as exceptional are the four composite bracelets discovered by Flinders Petrie in the funerary complex of Djer in Umm el-Qaab. These bracelets are made of semi-precious stones and gold. Petrie, and then Gaston Maspero after him, claim that they belonged to a woman, “a Queen”. However, the context of the discovery, described by Petrie, reads as follows:
“It lay in a broken hole in the north wall of the tomb – the hole seen in the top of the cell next to the stairway in views pl. LVI 3,4.”,63
and does not support this assertion. These jewels could have been those of anybody. Unfortunately, much of the data is still uncertain as it comes from old excavations or indirect sources.
Man
Badarian to Naqada period
Sketching a portrait of a man from the beginning of this period is again essentially based on depictions where there is uncertainty as to who is being depicted. There are different representations of men depending on their activities and the media used to depict them. Some men are represented as bearded, bald or capped, wearing a coat or long loincloth on the bearded figurines, while others are engraved or painted representations as “master of animals”. Other individuals, often warriors or hunters, are almost naked or with a penis sheath, with a hair lock on the side of the head. Others were wearing animal skins, or a loincloth (either short or long), and are often depicted bald or with a short round haircut. Recent discoveries at the British Museum prove that some men can be tattooed, and traces of green pigment on the eye sockets of Adaïma skeletons are as common on males as on females. Some male individuals are also buried with composite ornaments.
Early Dynastic Period
In more recent images, the status of the individuals is clearer. The king is clearly identifiable by his attributes (false beard, animal tail, red, white or double crown, etc.). Kings wear different clothes depending on the situation: when he is in action, he is dressed in a courtly loincloth; when he is seated, he is clothed in a wrap-around cloak. The people close to him (standard bearers, sandal bearers, etc.) are usually dressed in short loincloths and bare-chested or with animal skin. They have short or medium-length hair, or are bald, and may or may not be bearded. This diversity of representations seems to indicate the various statuses and functions of the elite. We still need to identify the systematisms that will enable us to better identify these roles. As in the previous period, individuals may be buried with finery or make-up.
Enemies/foreigners are generally depicted naked, and haircuts and beards vary from region to region, and their depiction follows stereotypical ideals.
Conclusion
This initial overview of the data available seems promising and the elements we have brought together enable us to profile the appearances of the individuals who lived in Egypt during the 4th millennium BC. And what seems essential to remember is the diversity of appearances. This initial overview seems to demonstrate that, in the political discourse of the time (representation) and in “real life” (archaeology), individuals appeared differently depending on their social status. Indeed, the body is a cultural object and not just a medium for discourse. Hence the need to collaborate with archaeo-anthropobiologists and their methods of fine analysis of human remains. The work of the archaeology of appearance seems to be facilitated in funerary contexts, where it acts as a bridge between social anthropology and biological anthropology, with the aim of analysing these permanent and impermanent bodily modifications and drawing the social identity consequences. We draw the knowledge from different fields, such as representations (art history), material culture (archaeology) and their interpretation (anthropology), in a fundamentally multi- and pluri-disciplinary approach.
Reconstitution is an integral part of our discipline often associated with public presentation in the form of drawings or 3D images. In order to “reconstruct the operating of past societies”, archaeology produces images.64 It involves both scientifically acquired data and the imagination; the sensibilities of the archaeologist and the illustrator are constrained by aesthetic expectations and the codes of representation of their time. These images help to illustrate current knowledge and make it accessible to the general public. For us scientists, they are also tools for interpretation such as conceiving buildings or paleoenvironments as a common way of situating societies in their landscapes and environments. Using archaeobotanics as a basis, we recreate a landscape to understand how it functions, what it looks like and how people interacted with their environment. We imagine the volume of a house, a temple or a palace, taking into account the different functions of the different spaces, to see how the architecture functioned in practical and social terms. Rendering the appearance of individuals from ancient societies is a major challenge, since to arrive at an image, we have to work with many gaps. It is difficult to render stature with any certainty, let alone skin colour or hair type. All perishable materials are often missing; we do not know the exact hairstyles, fabric colours, thread embroidery or potential feathering that would have been present, so all the components that play a part in the general physiognomy of the subjects are frequently absent. We have, however, examined the information that can and has been found so as to begin to put things into perspective. As we have seen, representations in all media –painting, sculpture– are often selections made with the aim of conveying a message. Therefore, if art history is to be of help to us, it must be observed with these historicopolitical filters in mind.65 Otherwise, we are producing imperfect images based on incomplete data. Our aim is not so much to create a realistic image of appearances as to describe the main physical elements of social representations.
In archaeology, only the materiality and physicality is accessible through our data, and by reconstructing it, we try to interpret the inwardness associated with the social display.66 These reconstructions enable us to construct our socio-historical discourse. As everybody is actor on a social stage, appearances serve the social relationships and say something tangible about individual even before he intend to share it with those around him – that appearances provide maximum reciprocity.67 The one who sends the message is in representation, and the one who receives it is in perception, and both receiver and sender are simultaneously in two roles. Moreover, perception and representation are always socially constituted. B. Carnevali defines appearance as the social incorporation of identities and habitus (in Bourdieu’s sense) through the body. Appearance is then the first social dialectic, giving us partial access to identities. Identity is a popular theme in social sciences; the subject is vast and requires an ambitious but promising approach. In archaeology, the fluctuating definition of this concept has led to a widespread misunderstanding of how to apply it in our fields. The philosopher V. Descombes68 speaks aptly of the embarrassments of identity. Through a meticulous analysis of philosophical, sociological, and psychological perspectives, Descombes examines the complexities of identity as both a personal sense of self and a social construct. He also addresses the tensions between individual identity and collective belonging. Two identities can be expressed in the following ways. The collective one is expressed by common elements of language, colour, type of clothing, type of hairstyle or ornament while individual identity is expressed by the singular within this stylistic group, in a different way to design the self with this common language. These identities are therefore constructed together, and the common components of appearance are the characteristics of the cultural group and the way they are assembled while the variations are what we can call individual identity. The study of appearances might be a powerful tool for understanding identities and should give us access to data that is rare in archaeology, that of collective (cultural) and potentially individual (personhood) identities in a past and unwritten society.
Note de l’auteur:
J’ai souhaité dédier cet article méthodologique à Nathalie, dont la démarche repose toujours sur une vision d’ensemble. Elle appréhende chaque site ou culture archéologique dans sa globalité, en tenant compte aussi bien des découvertes les plus modestes que de l’organisation architecturale, tout en intégrant systématiquement les analyses techniques, taphonomiques et chronologiques. Curieuse et rigoureuse, elle n’hésite jamais à explorer de nouvelles méthodes lorsque celles-ci enrichissent sa réflexion.
Bibliography
Alarashi, H. (2014): La parure Epipaléolithique et néolithique de la Syrie (12e au 7e millénaire avant J.-C.) : Techniques et usages, échanges et identités, phd thesis, Université Lyon 2 Lumière.
Alarashi, H. and Dessi, R. M., ed. (2020): L’art du paraître. Apparence de l’humain, de la Préhistoire à nos jours, Actes des 40e Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire de Nice, 22-24 octobre 2019, Nice.
Baduel, N. (2005): “La collection des palettes prédynastiques égyptiennes du Muséum (Lyon). Étude des objets (traces de fabrication et d’utilisation) et présentation des palettes et du fard prédynastiques dans leur contexte historique, archéologique, social et funéraire”, Publications du musée des Confluences, 9-1, 5‑63 [https://doi.org/10.3406/mhnly.2005.1341].
Baduel, N. (2008): “Tergumentary Paint and Cosmetic Palette in Predynastic Egypt. Impact of those artefacts on the Birth or the Monarchy”, in: Midant-Reynes, B. et Tristant, Y., ed.: Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France) 5th-8th September 2005, Leuven-Paris-Bristol, 1057-1090.
Bailey, E. (1996): “Circumcision in ancient Egypt”, Bulletin of Austrian Center for Egyptologie, 7, 15‑28.
Barge, H. (1982): Les parures du néolithique ancien au début de l’âge des métaux en Languedoc, Marseille.
Bartholeyns, G. (2011): “Introduction, Faire de l’anthropologie esthétique”, in: Civilisations. Revue internationale d’anthropologie et de sciences humaines, 9‑40 [https://journals.openedition.org/civilisations/2567].
Bonnardin, S. (2009): La parure funéraire au néolithique ancien dans les bassins parisien et rhénan: Rubané, Hinkelstein et Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, Nanterre.
Borel, F. (1992): Le vêtement incarné : Les métamorphoses du corps, Paris.
Brovarski, E. (2016): “Reflection on the Battlefield and Libyan Booty Palettes”, in: Van Djik, J., ed.: Another Mouthful of Dust. Egyptological studies in Honour of Geoffrey Thorndike Martin, Leuven-Paris, 81‑90.
Brown, P. (2010): “Nacurrie 1: Mark of ancient Java, or a caring mother’s hands, in terminal Pleistocene Australia?”, Journal of Human Evolution, 59/2, 168‑187 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.05.007].
Carnevali, B. (2020): Social Appearances: A Philosophy of Display and Prestige, New York.
Chech, M., Groves, C. P., Thorne, A. and Trinkaus, E. (1999): “A New Reconstruction of the Shanidar 5 Cranium”, Paléorient, 25/2, 143‑146 [https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1999.4692].
Ciałowicz, K., Chłodnicki, M., Mączyńska, A. and Jucha, M. A.: Tell el-Farkha I: Excavations 1998-2011. I, Poznan-Krakow [https://www.meretsegerbooks.com/pages/books/M6841/cialowicz-krzysztof-m-chlodnicki-marek-maczynska-a-jucha-mariusz-a/tell-el-farkha-i-excavations-1998-2011].
Dachy, T., Briois, F., Marchand, S., Minotti, M., Lesur, J. and Wuttmann, M. (2018): “Living in an Egyptian Oasis: Reconstruction of the Holocene Archaeological Sequence in Kharga”, African Archaeological Review, 35, 531-566.
De Groote, I. and Humphrey, L. T. (2017): “The chronology and significance of ablation in the later Stone Age Maghreb”, in: Burnett, S. E. and Irish, J., D., ed.: A world view of bioculturally modified teeth, Gainesville, 19‑32.
Demoule, J.-P. (2011): “Images de l’archéologie et archéologie des images”, Le Genre humain, 50/1, 31‑54 [https://doi.org/10.3917/lgh.050.0031].
Descola, P. (2005): Par-delà nature et culture, Paris
Duchesne, S., Petit, C., Baduel, N., Midant-Reynes, B. and Crubézy, É. (2003): “Le rôle des parures dans les cérémonies funéraires au prédynastique : l’exemple des sépultures d’enfants à Adaïma”, BIFAO, 103, 133‑166.
Duday, H. (2012): “L’archéothanatologie : une manière nouvelle de penser l’archéologie de la Mort”, in: Beaune, S. A. de and Francfort, H.-P., ed.: L’archéologie à découvert : Hommes, objets, espaces et temporalités, Paris, 62‑71.
Friedman, R. (2003): “A basket of delights/ the 2003 excavation at HK43”, Nekhen News, 15, 18‑19.
Friedman, R. (2017): “New Tattoos from Ancient Egypt”, in: Krutal, L. and Deter-Wolf, A., ed.: Ancient Ink: the Archaeology of Tattooing, Seattle, 11‑36.
Friedman, R., Antoine, D., Talamo, S., Reimer, P. J., Taylor, J. H., Wills, B. and Mannino, M. A. (2018): “Natural mummies from Predynastic Egypt reveal the world’s earliest figural tattoos”, Journal of Archaeological Science, 92, 116‑125.
Gruenbaum, E. (2024): Female and male modification. University of California Television, CARTA: Body Modification: Anatomy, Alteration, and Art in Anthropogeny, mis en ligne le 03 mars 2024 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq5Bb6hSu2k].
Hood, A. (2022): “Towards interdisciplinarity in Egyptology”, Interdisciplinary Egyptology, 1-1 [https://doi.org/10.25365/integ.2022.x1.2].
Jones, J. (2008): “Pre- and early dynastic textiles: Egypt at its Origins (2nd : 2005)”, in: Midant-Reynes, B., Tristant, Y., Rowland, J. and Hendrickx, S., ed.: Egypt at its origins 2, Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th-8th September 2005, Leuven-Paris, 99‑132.
Joyce, R. A. (2005): “Archaeology of the body”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 139‑158.
Kodaş, E., Baysal, E. L. and Özkan, K. (2024): “Bodily boundaries transgressed: corporal alteration through ornamentation in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic at Boncuklu Tarla, Türkiye”, Antiquity, 98-398, 323‑342.
Köhler, E. C. (2002): “History or ideology? New Reflections on the Narmer Palette and the Nature of Foreign Relations in Pre- and early Egypt”, in: Van den Brick, E. C.M. and Levy, T. E., ed.: Egypt and the Levant, International symposium on Egyptian – Canaanite interaction: from the 4th through early 3rd millennium, B.C.E., London-New York, 499‑513.
Köhler, E. C. (2021): Helwan V: Excavations in Operation 4, Tombs 101-150, Rahden-Westf.
Köhler, E. C. and Jones, J. (2009): Helwan II: The Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Funerary Relief Slabs, Rahden-Westf.
Limitari, C. (2020): La médecine bucco-dentaire dans l’Egypte antique, Aix-Marseille.
Loren, D. D. and Fisher, G. (2003): “Embodying identity in archaeology: introduction”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 13/02, 225‑230.
Mączyńska, A. (2012): “Were Spinning Bowls Used in the Predynastic Period? Findings from Tell el-Farkha”, in: Chłodnicki, M. and Kobusiewicz, M., ed.: Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, New Ideas and Discoveries, Poznań, 65‑75.
Martin, G. T. (2011): Umm el-Qaab VII: Private Stelae of the Early Dynastic Period from the Royal Cemetery at Abydos, Cairo.
Mauss, M. [1929] (2021): Manuel d’ethnographie, Paris.
McCauley, B. and Collard, M. (in press): “Finger amputation as a cultural practice: Where, when, who, how, and why”, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Body Modification, Oxford.
Meiklejohn, C., Agelarakis, A., Akkermans, P. A., Smith, P. E. L. and Solecki, R. (1992): “Artificial cranial deformation in the Proto-neolithic and Neolithic Near East and its possible origin: Evidence from four sites”, Paléorient, 18/2, 83‑97.
Minotti, M. (2015): La parure prédynastique en contexte funéraire : technique et usage. Le cas d’Adaïma, phd thesis, École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS).
Minotti, M. (2021): Adaïma IV : La parure en contexte funéraire : technique, esthétique et fonction, Cairo.
Minotti, M. (2024): “Le petit mobilier”, in: Midant-Reynes, B. and Buchez, N., ed.: Tell el-Iswid 2010-2018, Les occupations naqadiennes du secteur 4, Cairo, 114‑126.
Monier, A. and Monier, T. (2024): L’Art dentaire dans l’ Égypte pharaonique – SFHAD [https://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/sfhad/actes/lart-dentaire-dans-l-egypte-pharaonique/].
Newell, R. R., Kielman, D., Constandse-Westermann, T. S., Sanden, W. A. B. van der and Gijn, A. van (2023): An Inquiry Into the Ethnic Resolution of Mesolithic Regional Groups: The Study of Their Decorative Ornaments in Time and Space, Cambridge.
Ordynat, R. (2018): Egyptian Predynastic Anthropomorphic Objects: A study of their function and significance in Predynastic burial customs, Oxford.
Petrie, W. M. F. and Griffith, F. L. (1901): The royal tombs of the first dynasty, Part II, London.
Rigaud, S. (2011): La parure : traceur de la géographie culturelle et des dynamiques de peuplement au passage Mésolithique-Néolithique en Europe , phd thesis, Université Sciences et Technologies – Bordeaux I.
Rosso, A. (2024): Dentistry in Ancient Egypt, Buenos Aires.
Samadelli, M., Melis, M., Miccoli, M., Egarter-Vigl, E. and Zink, A. (2015): “Complete mapping of the tattoos of the 5300-year-old Tyrolean Iceman”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16, 753‑758.
Taborin, Y. (1993): La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique, Gallia préhistoire Suppl. 29, Paris.
Tassie, G. J. (2009): The social and ritual contextualisation of Ancient Egyptian hair and hairstyles from the Protodynastic to the end of the Old Kingdom, Doctoral Dissertation, University College London.
Tassie, G. J. (2011): “Tassie, G. J. 2011. What your hair says about you: changes in hairstyles as an indicator of state formation processes”, in: Friedman, R. F. and Fiske, P. N., ed.: Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic to Early Dynastic Egypt”, London (UK), 27th July-1st August 2008, Leuven-Paris-Dudley, 605-645.
Teeter, E. (2011): Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization, Chicago.
Tomb, R. (2022): Histoire de la Circoncision, Paris.
Trinkaus, E. (1982): “Artificial cranial deformation of the Shanidar 1 and 5 Neandertals”, Current anthropology, 23, 198‑199.
Tristant, Y. (2021): “La petite Dame du Louvre. À propos d’une figurine protodynastique de femme en ivoire vêtue d’un manteau (Louvre E11888)”, in: Tristant, Y. and Buchez, N., ed.: Égypte antérieure. Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Béatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis, Leuven-Paris-Bristol.
Turner, M. D. (2023): “Two God-Kings, Two Skulls: Artificial Cranial Deformation in Akhenaten of Egypt and Khingila of the Huns”, Cureus, 15-3 [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.36751].
Vernier, E. (1911): “Note sur les boucles d’oreilles égyptiennes”, BIFAO, 8/1, 15‑41.
White, C. (2012): “What the Warners Wore: An Archaeological Investigation of Visual Appearance”, Northeast Historical Archaeology, 33/1, 39‑66.
Willman, J. C., Hernando, R., Matu, M. and Crevecoeur, I. (2020): “Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania) biological affinity and intentional body modification”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 172/4, 664‑681.
Notes
- Borel 1992.
- On the debate about universals in human behaviour, see adding artifice to the body is not one of these authors’ arguments, but there seems to be no counter-example.
- Carnevali 2020.
- Mauss 2021.
- White 2004.
- Newell et al. 1990.
- For the prehistoric periods, see for example Barge 1982, Taborin 1993, Bonnardin 2009, Rigaud 2011, Alarashi 2014.
- White 2004.
- Minotti 2015.
- Bartholeyns 2011.
- Ibid., p. 9.
- See Alarashi & Dessi, éd. 2020.
- We differentiate multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. The multidisciplinary is combining several academic disciplines in approach to a topic or problem (archaeology and philosophy for example). the inter is relating to more than one branch of knowledge (scholars working on jewellery and working on textile in archaeology), more details in Hood 2022.
- Joyce 2005; Loren & Fishe 2003.
- Including skeletal anatomy and processes of decomposition, see Duday 2005.
- Crubézy et al. 2002.
- McCauley & Collard forthcoming.
- Crubézy et al. 2002.
- Trinkaus 1982.
- Chech et al. 1999.
- Brown 2010.
- Meiklejohn et al. 1992.
- Khonsari 2022.
- Turner 2023.
- De Groote & Humphrey 2017.
- Rosso 2024.
- Rosso 2024; Limitari 1992; Monier & Monier 2024.
- Podzorski 1990.
- See Bailey 1996 for more details.
- Tomb 2022.
- Gruenbaum 2024 (Video 0 :04 :41).
- Teeter, ed. 2011, fig. 80.
- Bailey 1996.
- Brovarski 2016.
- Köhler 2002.
- Willman et al. 2020.
- Kodaş et al. 2024.
- See Dachy et al. 2018.
- Vernier 1911.
- Samadelli et al. 2015.
- Friedmann et al. 2018.
- Baduel 2008; Friedmann 2017.
- Baduel 2008.
- Ibid.
- e.g. Baduel 2005; Minotti 2024, fig. 70.
- Crubezy et al. 2002; Köhler 2021.
- Baduel 2005, 2008.
- Crubezy et al. 2002.
- Baduel 2005.
- Ordynat 2018.
- e.g. Ashmolean museum, AN1896-1908.E.322; AN1896-1908.E.340 from Hierakonpolis, are dated from Early Dynastic period.
- Ciałowicz et al. 2012.
- Tassie 2011.
- Tassie 2009, 2011.
- Friedman 2003.
- Jones 2008.
- Mączyńska 2012; Minotti 2024.
- Ciałowicz et al. 2012.
- Tristant 2021.
- Martin 2011.
- Köhler & Jones 2009.
- Duchesne et al. 2003; Minotti 2015, 2021.
- Petrie & Griffith 1901, 16.
- Demoule 2011, 35.
- See Villaeys Le-Galic this volume.
- Carnevali 2020; Bartholeyns 2011; Descola 2005.
- Carnevali 2020.
- Descombes 2013.
