Book review: Egypt Beyond Representation: Materials and Materiality of Aegyptiaca Romana

Abstract

The book Egypt Beyond Representation: Materials and Materiality of Aegyptiaca Romana is a 430-page volume, derived with little or no changes from the PhD dissertation of the author (Leiden University, 2017). Published in the ASLU series, it is divided into four main parts: first, an introduction dealing with the historiography of ancient Egypt, Egyptology and the Aegyptiaca, as well as existing classification(s) of Aegyptiaca. Second, a chapter entitled ‘Understanding stone in the Roman world’, which deals with various themes, such as provenance, style and workmanship of stone and stone artefacts in the Roman world, and Roman perceptions of stone. Third, an important section on materials and methods that includes a rock classification and source determination subsection, and the studied corpus of Aegyptiaca. The fourth and last part comprises data analysis and discussion, and is named ‘Aegyptiaca beyond representation’. It is followed by a brief outlook and a series of appendices on ancient written sources on the use of stone(s) in Rome, the transportation of obelisks to Rome, and the various uses of limestone and sandstone in Egypt. The bibliography closes the book. Note that the Dutch summary and the curriculum vitae of the author, listed in the table of contents, are not given in the published version of the book. As stated earlier, the book is a published PhD dissertation rather than a textbook, which has advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of PhD theses are well known: extensive work done by the applicant is made available to the reader. In this case, Sander Müskens provides a wealth of useful data: on the historiography of his research theme; the coloured marbles used in Rome; a rock classification; the Aegyptiaca; statistics and maps; written Latin sources; and a robust list of references. But there are also disadvantages: the abundance of data may – and does, in this case – obscure the line of reasoning; there are many redundancies; the structure is not ideal. It is obvious that with additional editorial work the book would have lost its somewhat ‘halfbaked’ character. The ambitious objective of the book is given by the author in the ‘set-up and aims’ section: study the corpus of Aegyptiaca ‘beyond representation’ – which means that the study has to: (1) focus on the material aspects of the objects; and (2) ‘break away from static interpretations of material culture as mere passive expressions, or representations, of fixed cultural meanings’ (p. 29). Müskens further explains that questions of ‘what objects mean’ are redirected to questions ‘how objects were used, and which characteristics determined how they functioned’ (p. 30). Understanding stone in the Roman world is the objective of the next 30 pages. This part of the book reminds the reader that the Roman ‘stone greed’ increased with time and that it had significant consequences on the internationalization of trade, industrialization of extraction and the setting of marble yards in Rome (Emporium and Portus). The various stones stored in these repositories constituted a ‘unique material map of the Empire’ (p. 41), including, of course, Egypt. Interestingly, amongst the marbles present in Rome’s marble yards, the Egyptian stones do not correspond to the most abundant stones in the author’s corpus of Aegyptiaca: serpentine, green granite, Imperial Porphyry (all three from the Eastern Desert) and calcite alabaster (travertine) are present at Emporium and Portus (Table 2.1.1), while Aswan granitoids (granite and granodiorite) and greywacke constitute half of the corpus (fig. 4.1.2.a). This might suggest that the stones of Aegyptiaca were not imported as raw materials but rather as finished artefacts. The author then states that ‘material of choice [sic] could interact with and even transcend subject matter to augment a statue’s efficacy, thereby demonstrating that stone sculpture do more than representing [sic] fixed meanings’ (p. 57). Some examples emphasize this ‘semantic relation’ between the stone and the subject matter in Roman sculpture: Eastern barbarians in Turkish pavonazetto; lions in Tunisian giallo antico; crabs in Egyptian green porphyry; trees and columns in Greek cipollino; Dionysiac representations in Greek rosso antico. It is evident from this selection that most of this semantic relation rests on visual appearance of the stone and/or on its geographic provenance. Further, the author convincingly explains that the possession of sculptures carved in these costly ‘prestige’ coloured stones was an efficient way to display the socio-political position of the owner. Competition between members of the Roman elite contributed to the increase of demand for coloured stones, and sometimes resulted in the use of cheaper or more abundant substitution stones or imitations. The studied corpus of Aegyptiaca comprises 140 stone objects, all with known archaeological provenance – which is a deliberate (and relevant) choice. The corpus is preceded by a section named ‘Rock classification and source determination’, which offers little of interest as it Book Review 826877 EGA0010.1177/0307513319826877The Journal of Egyptian ArchaeologyBook Review book-review2019