DOI article:
Aksamit, Joanna: False Egyptian predynastic antiquities – a question of methodology
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.23901#0058
Joanna Aksamit
remains. This, however, is a rather difficult
task as far as the objects coming from the 4th
millennium BC are concerned, because the
strict canons of the pharaonic style making
Egyptian art so easy to recognize had not been
established before the formation of the
Egyptian state. The identification of predynas-
tic art is even now mostly intuitive and the
characteristics of the predynastic style still
await definition in a contemporary history of
Egyptian art; all the more so because the
apparent "primitiveness" of predynastic art as
the main factor taken into consideration
proved in so many cases to be misleading.
Among those misled there were not only trav-
ellers and tourists, unfamiliar with authentic
objects, but also specialists: educated private
collectors, museum curators and even archae-
ologists themselves. It was a well-known prac-
tice even among the most renowned excava-
tors to offer their workers a reward for the
objects found (alas, not inquiring too deeply
into the circumstances in which they had been
found) and to buy antiquities from local resi-
dents. Not infrequently the objects obtained
in this way were subsequently published as
having been excavated7.
The result was that a considerable
number of wholly or partially 'predynastic'
antiquities found their way to private collec-
tions and museums all over the world. These
objects were subsequently published: in
Capart's monograph, in Petrie's fundamen-
tally important catalogue of his collection at
University College in London8, in other cata-
logues of private as well as public collections.
They continue to be published even now, but
currently, almost a hundred years after the
publication of Capart's monograph, ques-
tions arise: what is really predynastic art like?
To what extent do all those objects influence
our perception of the art of that period?
The greatest number of modern fabrica-
tions can be recognized among the categories
of objects most willingly purchased: painted
pottery and anthropomorphic figurines.
Adding a modern painted decoration to
authentic predynastic vessels is a relatively well
studied practice. The first to recognize it was
Brunton in 19349. He suggested, on stylistic
grounds, that a group of genuine predynastic
vessels had been painted in modern times in
a manner generally resembling authentic pre-
dynastic decoration, but also revealing many
unusual characteristics. All the suspicious ves-
sels were bought in Luxor in the early years of
the 20th century and allegedly had been found
at Gebelein. This information even gave rise
to the supposition that a separate style of rep-
resentation had existed in ancient times in that
area10, but another explanation for the irregu-
larities of the decoration has been proved to be
true. In the 1970s the chemical composition
of the pigment used in the painting of some
vessels with a similar decoration, among them
one of those described by Brunton, was
analysed and the pots themselves were exam-
ined by termoluminescence". The results were
that the chemical composition of the pigment
differed greatly from that used in painting
whose authenticity was beyond doubt, and
that all the examined vessels had been fired in
recent times (most obviously to fix the paint-
ing). Brunton's doubts as to the authenticity
of the decoration were fully confirmed.
Moreover, Crowfoot Payne proved that four
of the vessels described by Brunton and some
other examples showing similar traits of the
decoration had been painted by a single hand.
Consequently, if the workshop painting the
pots had really existed at Gebelein, it would
have been operating in the early years of the
20th century. About twenty pots and one boat-
model painted by a single forger would appear
7UCKO, HODGES 1963, p. 209.
8W. M. F. PETRIE, Prehistoric Egypt [BSAE&ERA vol. XXXI], London 1920.
'G. BRUNTON, Modern Paintings on Predynastic Pots, ASAE 34, 1934, p. 149-156.
°F. EL-YAHKY, Remarks on the Armless Human Figures Represented on Gerzean Boats, JSSEA 11, 1981, p. 82;
H. KANTOR, The Final Phase of Predynastic Culture, Gerzean or Semainean (?), JNES 3, 1944, p. 124.
11 J. CROWFOOT PAYNE, A. KACZMARCZYK, S. J. FLEMING, Forged Decoration on Predynastic Pots, JEA 63,
1977, p. 5-12, cf. j. BOURRIAU, Umm el-Ga'ab. Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest, Cambridge
1981, p. 40-41, no. 58.
54
remains. This, however, is a rather difficult
task as far as the objects coming from the 4th
millennium BC are concerned, because the
strict canons of the pharaonic style making
Egyptian art so easy to recognize had not been
established before the formation of the
Egyptian state. The identification of predynas-
tic art is even now mostly intuitive and the
characteristics of the predynastic style still
await definition in a contemporary history of
Egyptian art; all the more so because the
apparent "primitiveness" of predynastic art as
the main factor taken into consideration
proved in so many cases to be misleading.
Among those misled there were not only trav-
ellers and tourists, unfamiliar with authentic
objects, but also specialists: educated private
collectors, museum curators and even archae-
ologists themselves. It was a well-known prac-
tice even among the most renowned excava-
tors to offer their workers a reward for the
objects found (alas, not inquiring too deeply
into the circumstances in which they had been
found) and to buy antiquities from local resi-
dents. Not infrequently the objects obtained
in this way were subsequently published as
having been excavated7.
The result was that a considerable
number of wholly or partially 'predynastic'
antiquities found their way to private collec-
tions and museums all over the world. These
objects were subsequently published: in
Capart's monograph, in Petrie's fundamen-
tally important catalogue of his collection at
University College in London8, in other cata-
logues of private as well as public collections.
They continue to be published even now, but
currently, almost a hundred years after the
publication of Capart's monograph, ques-
tions arise: what is really predynastic art like?
To what extent do all those objects influence
our perception of the art of that period?
The greatest number of modern fabrica-
tions can be recognized among the categories
of objects most willingly purchased: painted
pottery and anthropomorphic figurines.
Adding a modern painted decoration to
authentic predynastic vessels is a relatively well
studied practice. The first to recognize it was
Brunton in 19349. He suggested, on stylistic
grounds, that a group of genuine predynastic
vessels had been painted in modern times in
a manner generally resembling authentic pre-
dynastic decoration, but also revealing many
unusual characteristics. All the suspicious ves-
sels were bought in Luxor in the early years of
the 20th century and allegedly had been found
at Gebelein. This information even gave rise
to the supposition that a separate style of rep-
resentation had existed in ancient times in that
area10, but another explanation for the irregu-
larities of the decoration has been proved to be
true. In the 1970s the chemical composition
of the pigment used in the painting of some
vessels with a similar decoration, among them
one of those described by Brunton, was
analysed and the pots themselves were exam-
ined by termoluminescence". The results were
that the chemical composition of the pigment
differed greatly from that used in painting
whose authenticity was beyond doubt, and
that all the examined vessels had been fired in
recent times (most obviously to fix the paint-
ing). Brunton's doubts as to the authenticity
of the decoration were fully confirmed.
Moreover, Crowfoot Payne proved that four
of the vessels described by Brunton and some
other examples showing similar traits of the
decoration had been painted by a single hand.
Consequently, if the workshop painting the
pots had really existed at Gebelein, it would
have been operating in the early years of the
20th century. About twenty pots and one boat-
model painted by a single forger would appear
7UCKO, HODGES 1963, p. 209.
8W. M. F. PETRIE, Prehistoric Egypt [BSAE&ERA vol. XXXI], London 1920.
'G. BRUNTON, Modern Paintings on Predynastic Pots, ASAE 34, 1934, p. 149-156.
°F. EL-YAHKY, Remarks on the Armless Human Figures Represented on Gerzean Boats, JSSEA 11, 1981, p. 82;
H. KANTOR, The Final Phase of Predynastic Culture, Gerzean or Semainean (?), JNES 3, 1944, p. 124.
11 J. CROWFOOT PAYNE, A. KACZMARCZYK, S. J. FLEMING, Forged Decoration on Predynastic Pots, JEA 63,
1977, p. 5-12, cf. j. BOURRIAU, Umm el-Ga'ab. Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest, Cambridge
1981, p. 40-41, no. 58.
54