Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:02:20.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI.—Notes on Early Coptic Sculpture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2011

Ernst Kitzinger
Get access

Extract

Complete agreement has not yet been reached among students as to the part played by Egypt in the history of Early Christian and Early Byzantine art. There are two problems around which discussion has chiefly centred. The first concerns Alexandria. Some authorities believe that this town remained a stronghold of Hellenistic art throughout the Christian period, and that it maintained the highest classical standard at a time when most of the Mediterraneancountries were already submerged in what are commonly called the Dark Ages. This theory has, however, been contested by other writers who think that Alexandrian art sank as early as the fifth century to the level of provincialism, and that from that time onwards Constantinople was the chief centre in which the classical tradition was preserved.

Type
Research Article
Information
Archaeologia , Volume 87 , 1938 , pp. 181 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 181 note 1 Cf. especially the numerous papers published by the Princeton School, foremost among them C. R. Morey, ‘The Sources of Medieval Style’, Art Bulletin, vii, pp. 35 ff. (see especially pp. 39ff.), and ‘Notes on East Christian Miniatures’, Art Bulletin, xi, pp. 1 ff.

page 181 note 2 Cf., e.g., Weigand, E., Kritische Berichte zur kunstgeschichtlichen Literatur, vols. 3 and 4, 1930–31 and 1931–32, pp. 43 fGoogle Scholar

page 181 note 3 Cf., e.g., Strzygowski, Catalogue Général des Antiquites égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Koptische Kunst, 1904, Introduction.

page 181 note 4 This is for instance the view of U. Monneret de Villard (La scultura ad Annas, 1923, passim). Cf. also a recent paper by Drioton, F., ‘art syrien et art copte’, Bulletin de l'Association des Amis de l'Art Copte, iii, 1937, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar

page 183 note 1 Naville, E, Ahnas el Medineh, 11th Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1894, pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar, pl. xiv ff.

page 183 note 2 Loc. cit., pp. 29 ff.

page 183 note 3 Pacha, M. H. Simaika, Guide Sommaire du Musée Copte, 1937, p. 14Google Scholar, pl. xxxiii.

page 183 note 4 M. H. Simaika Pacha, loc. cit., p. 13, pl. xxxii.

page 184 note 1 G. Duthuit, La Sculpture copte, 1931, pls. xiv, xvi b, xx c, xxi (see our pi. LXVII, I, pl. LXVIII, 5, and pl. LXX, 4).

page 184 note 2 Typical specimens are: G. Duthuit, loc. cit., pl. xvii b, xxxii a, b (see our pl. LXVII, 2).

page 184 note 3 In the ‘soft’ group a gable in Cairo Museum, no. 45942 (Duthuit, loc. cit., pl. xiii b). In the ‘hard’ group the gable no. 7285 (our pl. LXVII, I). On both of these is a cross flanked by figures.

page 184 note 4 Loc. cit., p. 61. On p. 66, on the other hand, he allows himself a wider limit for this group.

page 185 note 1 Cf. below, p. 190.

page 185 note 2 Cf. below, pp. 190 f.

page 185 note 3 Loc. cit., p. 58.

page 185 note 4 Cf. below, pp. 189 f.

page 185 note 5 Cairo Museum, no. 44069, Duthuit, loc. cit., pl. XLIII a.

page 185 note 6 Cf. below, p. 212.

page 186 note 1 E. Weigand, Athenische Mitteilungen, 1914, pp. 23 ff.; and Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1914–19, pp. 193 ff.; R. Kautzsch, Kapitellstudien, 1936, passim.

page 186 note 2 Loc. cit, pp. 24 ff.

page 187 note 1 It comes from the Gethsemane Church built between 380 and 390. Cf. L. H. Vincent and F. M. Abel, Jerusalem, ii, 306 ff., 328 ff., 1007 ff., and pls. 88 and 89, 7; Kautzsch, loc. cit., p. 102, and fig 295.

page 187 note 2 They belong to the church of St. John the Baptist, cf. Vincent and Abel, loc. cit., ii, 642 ff., 663 ff. The date is a hypothetical one but supported by many good reasons. Moreover this capital belongs to a larger group for which several fixed dates are available, all between A.D. 440 and 480. Cf. Kautzsch, loc. cit., p. iii.

page 187 note 3 Cf. Weigand, Athenische Mitteilungen, 1914, pp. 17 ff.; Kautzsch, loc. cit., pp. 44 ff.

page 188 note 1 Cf. Weigand, E., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Insiituts, 1914, pp. 59 ffGoogle Scholar

page 188 note 2 The same phenomenon occurs on certain Syrian capitals. Cf. Th. Wiegand, Palmyra, 1932, Text, p. 96, fig. 114; see also p. 160.

page 188 note 3 E. Breccia, Le Mnsée Gréco-Romain d'Alexandrie,19631–2, figs. 111,112; our pl. LXVIII, 1 and 2.

page 188 note 4 Cf. also a capital in Ephesus. Kautzsch, loc. cit., pl. 18, no. 267 c.

page 188 note 5 Kautzsch's contention (loc. cit., p. 234) that there is no capital of local Egyptian type and consequently no such thing as ‘Coptic art’ before A.D. 500 cannot be maintained. When he derived the Coptic capitals with cauliculi and knobs from Kalat Seman he cannot have been aware of the fact that they occur at Oxyrhynchus in an undoubtedly earlier style.

page 189 note 1 E. Chassinat, Fouilles à Bawit. Institut français d'archéologie orientate. Meémoires, vol. 13, 1911.

page 189 note 2 J. E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara, vol. iii, 1907–8 (publ. 1909); vol. iv, 1908–10 (publ. 1912).

page 189 note 3 Cf., e.g., J. E. Quibell, loc. cit., vol. iii, pls. 27, 4; 28, 1, 2, 3, 5; 30; 32, 1; 33, 1; vol. iv, pls. 33; 34» 3, 5; 36, 3. Also E. Chassinat, loc. cit., pls. 17–19, 34, 45–54, 92–5, 104–9.

page 190 note 1 Quibell, loc. cit., vol. iii, pls. 16–21; 22, 1–3; 25; 29; vol. iv, pl. 32, 1–4. Also Chassinat, loc. cit., pls. 98–103.

page 190 note 2 Kautzsch, loc. cit, p. 233.

page 190 note 3 Monneret de Villard, loc. cit., figs. 79, 81. The fragments are here wrongly described as coming from Saqqara. Duthuit, loc. cit., pl. 37 a, c; our pl. LXIX, 3–5.

page 191 note 1 Chassinat, loc. cit., pls. 22 ff., 70.

page 191 note 2 A number of reliefs showing a medallion flanked by flying angels have been found at Bawit (cf. Duthuit, loc. cit., pls. xiib, xiiia and c). But the stylistic tradition of Ahnas is not perpetuated in them. They are more closely connected with a group of works which will be discussed in our last section (see p. 213, n. 2).

page 191 note 3 Quibell, loc. cit., vol. iii, pl. 37, 2.

page 191 note 4 One would imagine that a fixed date for the chronology of Coptic decorative sculpture could be derived from the capitals and friezes of the White Monastery near Sohag, which is known to have been founded about the year A.D 440 (cf. Villard, Monneret de, Les Convents près de Sohag, vol. i, 1925, pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar). The scroll work on the sculptured architraves in the apse is not of exactly the same type as that in Ahnas, Bawit, and Saqqara, but it is strongly conventionalized and shows naturalistic design replaced by an abstract and closely knit pattern of lights and shadows. It therefore seems to be of a date at least as late as the most advanced sculptures at Ahnas (see also below, p. 200, note 4), and the date known for the building would seem to afford the best corroboration of our chronology. Unfortunately, however, these friezes appear not to have been originally carved for the monastery. They are made up from pieces of different design and the pattern changes abruptly at many points where two stones are joined together. Moreover, the majority of the pieces are not curved as their present position in the apse of the building would require. These friezes had, therefore, been previously used in some other building (as Monneret de Villard, loc. cit., vol. ii, 1926, p. 126, had suggested), and we are faced with the dilemma either of having to admit that ornament so degenerate in style was possible at a period considerably earlier than A.D. 440, or else that part at least of the present building dates from a later reconstruction. My wish here is merely to state a problem which cannot be solved without a renewed and thorough study of the building and an adequate photographic record of the decorative friezes and of the capitals (most of which are also re-used).

Apart from the White Monastery there are two other sites on which larger quantities of architectural sculpture of a distinctly local style have so far been found. These are the Red Monastery and the church of Denderah. Both these buildings have a decoration homogeneous in style and apparently carved especially for them. But unfortunately no date is available for either of the two structures, and since neither is adequately published they cannot at present be taken into account.

page 192 note 1 Loc. cit., p. 32 (see p. 183, note 1).

page 192 note 2 The Season's Work at Ahnas and Bent Hasan, 1891, p. 8 (Egypt Exploration Fund, Special Extra Report, 1890–1).

page 192 note 3 Cf. for this point J. Maspero's remarks in Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes, N.S., vol. v, 1915, pp. 97 ff.

page 193 note 1 Cf. Lauzière, J. in Bulletin de l'Association des Amis de l'Art copte, ii, 1936, p. 38Google Scholar, where the scene of Leda and the Swan is interpreted as St. Anna's immaculate conception of Mary. The writer admits, however, that the carvings concerned may not originally have been made for churches. But he thinks that they were re-used there (p. 41). In this case we should still have to assume that pagan reliefs were made at a comparatively late date. Unfortunately the problem of date is not discussed in M. Lauzière's paper.

page 193 note 2 Cf. Cambridge Medieval History, vol. i, 1911, pp. 112 ff.Google Scholar; Monneret de Villard, La Scultura ad Ahnas, p. 52, note.

page 193 note 3 Cf., e.g., uvres, ed. Amélineau, vol. i, 1907, pp. 382 ff.

page 193 note 4 Procopius, Anekdota, 9, 20–22, Opera, ed. Teubner, vol. iii, 1, 1906, pp. 59 f.

page 194 note 1 Cf. E. Weigand, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 1914, p. 64.

page 194 note 2 Lanckoronsky, Count C., Les Villes de la Pamphylie et de la Pisidie, 1890, vol. i, pls. xxiv ff.Google Scholar

page 195 note 1 Monneret de Villard (loc. cit., p. 66) tries to arrange the gable types at Ahnas in an evolutionary series starting with the classical conch and ending with the broken gables. But the examples from Oxyrhynchus show that the broken gable also occurs in Egypt in its classical shape and is therefore not necessarily of a later date than the niches of conch type. What is late is not the broken gable itself, but the hybrid mixture of triangular gable and semicircular conch such as we find in many Ahnas examples, and most outspokenly in the gables of the ‘hard’ group.

page 196 note 1 Strzygowski, loc. cit., p. 45; Wulff, O., Beschreibung der Bildwerke der christlichen Epochen, vol. iii, pt. 1; Altchristliche Bildwerke, 1909, p. 65.Google Scholar

page 196 note 2 Africa Italiana, vol. iv, 1931, p. 70Google Scholar, fig. 41.

page 196 note 3 Hebrard, E. and Zeiller, J., Spalato. Le Palais de Dioclétien, 1912, p. 81Google Scholar

page 196 note 4 Cf. Tomb of the Judges (Watzinger, C., Denkmäler Palästinas, ii, 1935, pp. 59 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 63); Tomb in the Hinnom Valley (Gazette Archéologique, 1880, pl. 31).

page 196 note 5 Cf. Zahn, R., in Schulz, W. and Zahn, R., Das Fürstengrab von Hassleben, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, vol. vii, 1933, pp. 71f.Google Scholar; C. Watzinger, loc. cit, p. 70.

page 196 note 6 H. C. Butler, Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909, Division II, Architecture; Section A, Southern Syria, 1919, p. 396, fig. 342.

page 196 note 7 Watzinger, C. and Wultzinger, C., Damaskus. Die antike Stadt. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des Deutsch-Türkischen Denkmalschutzkommandos, vol. iv, 1921, p. 8Google Scholar, fig. 9; cf. especially the first volute on the left.

page 197 note 1 Kohl, H. and Watzinger, C., Antike Synagogen in Galiläa, 1916, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 54 ff.

page 197 note 2 Cf. Zahn, loc. cit., pp. 67 ff.

page 197 note 3 Cf. Zahn, loc. cit., p. 76.

page 197 note 4 Cf. H. Kohl and C. Watzinger, loc. cit., pp. 153 f.

page 197 note 5 Cf. R. Zahn, loc. cit., pp. 70 ff.

page 198 note 1 Chassinat, loc. cit., pl. 85; Quibell, loc. cit., vol. iii, p. 34; vol. iv, pl. 40.

page 198 note 2 Breccia, Le Musée Gréco-Romain d'Alexandrie, 1931–2, fig. 94, should be compared with H. C. Butler, loc. cit., p 377.

page 198 note 3 See above, pp. 187 f.

page 199 note 1 Cf. E. Weigand, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 1914, p. 4, and Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 1924, pp. 80 f.

page 199 note 2 Cf. E. Weigand in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 23, 1914–19, pp. 192 ft.; Kautzsch, loc. cit., p. 33. There are also a few examples of this motif in Asia Minor, cf. Kautzsch, loc. cit., pp. 86, 101.

page 199 note 3 Cf. Weigand, E., Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 1924, pp. 89 fGoogle Scholar

page 199 note 4 Cf. E. Drioton, loc. cit. (see p. 181, note 4).

page 199 note 5 Drioton, although he does not use the Oxyrhynchus sculptures as evidence, also admits that the primary source of Coptic decoration was the Hellenistic tradition of Egypt itself.

page 200 note 1 Apart from Breccia's finds from Oxyrhynchus which are now in the Museum of Alexandria and are published by him in Le Musée Gréco-Romain, 1925–31, pp. 60 ff., pls. 39–51, and ibid., 1931–2, pp. 36 ff., pls. 28–47, there are also sculptures from that place in the British Museum, excavated by Sir Flinders Petrie and partly published by him in Tombs of the Courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos, 1925, pls. 45 ff. In addition to these there is a number of carvings from Oxyrhynchus in the museums of Cairo. In the Egyptian Museum: resting Hercules (no. 12–1–30–26; cf. Duthuit, loc. cit., pl. 24d). In the Coptic Museum: niche with figure of Nereid (no. 4475, M. Simaika Pasha, loc. cit., pl. xxii and p. ii; cf. our pl. LXXV, fig. 1); fragment of niche (no. 4418); frieze with vine-scroll (no.3464); capital (no. 3741); also another fragment of a niche (no. 4301), of uncertain origin, but stylistically similar to the preceding ones.

page 200 note 2 Le Musée Gréco-Romain, 1931–2, p. 44.

page 200 note 3 Cf. Weigand, , Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschqft, 1924, p. 169Google Scholar

page 200 note 4 This result helps to confirm what was said above with regard to the decorative friezes of the White Monastery (cf. p. 194, note 4). To judge from the sculptures from Oxyrhynchus, fourthcentury style in Egypt is so much more classical than that of the ornaments in the Sohag Monastery that these must be of a date well advanced in the fifth century. One particular type of ornament found at the Monastery, a vine pattern consisting of alternating leaves and bunches of grapes under intersecting arches, actually occurs at Oxyrhynchus in a more classical and less conventionalized form (see pl. LXXII, 6 and 7).

page 201 note 1 Cf. Kohl-Watzinger, loc. cit., p. 154.

page 202 note 1 Cf. Val. Müller, , Zweisyrische Bildnisse römischer Zeit. 86. Winckelmannsprogramm der Archäolog. Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 1927, pp. 29 ffGoogle Scholar

page 202 note 2 This is probably what Müller means when he says that in the Orient we often find a mixture of the Roman and the oriental principle (loc. cit., p. 30).

page 202 note 3 Edgar, C. C., Catalogue Général des Antiquites Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Graeco-Egyptian Coffins, Masks, and Portraits, 1905, pp. iiGoogle Scholar ff.

page 202 note 4 A. Westholm, The Temples of Soli, 1936, pp. 203 f.; cf. also Acta Archaeologica, vol. v, 1934, pp. 237 f.Google Scholar

page 203 note 1 E. Breccia, Terrecotte Figurate Greche e Greco-Egizie del Museo di Alessandria. Monuments de l'Égypte Gréco-Romaine, vol. ii, 1930–4; cf. introduction to first and second part. For further literature see ibid., part I, p. 25, note 2.

page 203 note 2 ‘Stylistic Features of Coptic Figure Sculpture’, Acta Archaeologica, vol. v, 1934, pp. 215 ff.; cf. especially pp. 221 ff.

page 204 note 1 R. Engelbach, Riqqeh and Memphis VI. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, 19th year, 1913, publ. 1915, pl. I.XII, 60.

page 204 note 2 Cf. Westholm, loc. cit., p. 221, note 12.

page 204 note 3 Cf., e.g., Edgar, loc. cit, pl. 24, no. 33. 168. Some of the figure-heads on Coptic reliefs, for instance the woman's head on our pl. LXXIII, 7, closely resemble this kind of mask.

page 204 note 4 E. Breccia, Monuments de l'Égypte Gréco-Romaine, vol. i, 1926, pl. 29, 7.

page 204 note 5 Samallut: Duthuit, loc. cit., pl. 11 c. Oxyrhynchus: E. Breccia, Le Musée Gréco-Romain, 1925–31, p. 39, fig. 139.

page 205 note 1 The head-dress of the female figure on pl. LXX, 4, may be compared to Breccia, Terrecotte Figurate…, vol. ii, pl. 46, nos. 227,230, and the head of Daphne (Duthuit, loc. cit., pl. 22 a) to W. Weber, Die ägyptisch-griechischen Terrakotten, 1914, pl. 35, no. 383 a.

page 205 note 2 Ingholt, H., Studier over Palmyrensk Skulptur, 1928, p. 155Google Scholar

page 205 note 3 The similarity of the folds of the cushion on 6 and those of the drapery covering the left leg of the putto on 7 should also be noticed.

page 205 note 4 Stylistic Features, pp. 225 f., and p. 232.

page 206 note 1 Westholm, The Temples of Soli, pp. 204 ff.

page 206 note 2 American Journal of Archaeology, 1937, pp. 366 ff.; Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, nos. 64, 65, 67, 69.

page 206 note 3 Stylizing of the curls of hair and beard is, however, a feature not entirely confined to Nabataean and Coptic sculpture: it is characteristic of various groups of Eastern ‘sub-antique’ art. Cf. Westholm, Stylistic Features, pp. 231 ff., and Temples of Soli, pl. 32, nos. 4, 5; Val. Müller, loc. cit., fig. 12c; W. Andrae, Hatra, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, no. 9, 1908, pl. 4.

page 207 note 1 Sir Flinders Petrie, Ehnasya 1904, 1905, pp. 28 f.

page 207 note 2 Cf. Edgar, loc. cit., pp. x f.

page 207 note 3 Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 67, pp. 14, 16.

page 208 note 1 R. Delbrueck, Antike Porphyrwerke. Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte, vol. 6, 1932, pp. 84 ff., pls. 31–7; H. P. L'Orange, Studien zur Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts, pp. 16 ff.

page 208 note 2 Cf. Delbrueck, loc. cit, p. 25; H. P. L'Orange, toe. cit, p. 26.

page 208 note 3 Westholm, Stylistic Features, pp. 222 ff.

page 211 note 1 See above, pp. 187

page 211 note 2 See above, p. 186.

page 211 note 3 Cf. Kautzsch, loc. cit., passim.

page 211 note 4 E. Breccia, Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, 1922, pp. 290 ff., where further literature is quoted. See also Monuments de l'Égypte gréco-romaine, vol. i, pl. 44; K. McK. Elderkin, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 30, 1926, pp. 150 ff.; R. Dussaud, Les Monuments palestiniens et judaïques au Musée du Louvre, 1912, no. 120.

page 211 note 5 Cf., e.g., E. Capps, Jr., in Art Bulletin, X, 1927, pp. 61 ff., especially pp. 70 ff.

page 212 note 1 A. Patricolo and U. Monneret de Villard, The Church of Sitt Burbâra in Old Cairo, 1922.

page 212 note 2 Ibid., p. 50.

page 212 note 3 Cf. G. Duthuit, F. W. Volbach, G. Salles, Art Byzantin, 1933, p. 42, where the more recent literature is given.

page 212 note 4 C. Cecchelli, La Cattedra di Massimiano ed altri avorii romano-orientali, 1937.

page 212 note 5 Such a date has been previously suggested by K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, vol. i, 1932, p. 388, n. 9.

page 212 note 6 Musée National du Louvre. Departement des Antiquités Égyptiennes, Guide-Catalogue Sommaire, by C. Boreux, 1932, vol. i, p. 278; Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, 1932, pp. 62 f.

page 213 note 1 Cf. E. Weigand, Kritische Berichte zur kunstgeschichtlichen Literatur, vols. iii-iv, 1930–1 and 1931–2, p. 56. It should, however, be mentioned that some students regard this ivory as a work of c. A.D. 400; cf. R. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen, 1929, p. 28. E. v. Garger, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, N. F., vol. viii, 1934, p. 15, n. 103.

page 213 note 2 Two more pilasters in the Louvre, apparently similar to ours, and also coming from Bawit, have been described by J. Clédat (Bulletin de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale, vol. i, 1901, pp. 90 f.) and by J. Strzygowski (Bulletin de la Société archéologique d'Alexandrie, vol. v, 1902, pp. 39 ff.). I have not been able to find them. Apart from these works there are only second class imitations of this style, such as a woodcarving from El-Moallaqa (M. Simaika Pasha, loc. cit., pl. LXVII, pp. 26 f), and reliefs of flying angels from Bawit and other places (Duthuit, loc. cit, pls. xii, xiii), which show the St. Barbara models rendered in a strongly provincialized form.

page 213 note 3 See above, pp. 202 f.

page 213 note 4 See above, pp. 203 f.

page 214 note 1 See above, p. 186

page 214 note 2 See above, pp. 198 f.

page 214 note 3 Cf. Weigand, E., Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, vol. v, 1928, pp. 81 f.Google Scholar, where further literature is quoted.

page 214 note 4 Breccia in his publication of the Oxyrhynchus sculptures, has also derived them from Alexandrian Hellenism (Le Musée Gréco-Romain, 1931–2, p. 45).

page 215 note 1 See above, p. 190.