书评:《超越表象的埃及:埃及罗马的材料与物质性》

IF 0.6 3区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI:10.1177/0307513319826877
T. De Putter
{"title":"书评:《超越表象的埃及:埃及罗马的材料与物质性》","authors":"T. De Putter","doi":"10.1177/0307513319826877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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","PeriodicalId":54147,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"104 1","pages":"115 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0307513319826877","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book review: Egypt Beyond Representation: Materials and Materiality of Aegyptiaca Romana\",\"authors\":\"T. De Putter\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0307513319826877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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\",\"PeriodicalId\":54147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"115 - 117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0307513319826877\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0307513319826877\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0307513319826877","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《超越表象的埃及:埃及罗马的材料和物质性》是一本430页的书,从作者的博士论文(莱顿大学,2017年)中几乎没有变化。在ASLU丛书中出版,它分为四个主要部分:首先,介绍古埃及的史学、埃及学和埃及伊蚊,以及埃及伊蚊的现有分类。第二章题为“了解罗马世界的石头”,涉及各种主题,如罗马世界的石头和石头工艺品的来源,风格和工艺,以及罗马人对石头的看法。第三,材料和方法的重要部分,包括岩石分类和来源确定小节,以及埃及古埃及的研究语料库。第四部分和最后一部分包括数据分析和讨论,并命名为“埃及超越代表性”。接下来是一个简短的展望和一系列的附录,关于罗马使用石头的古代文字资料,方尖碑运往罗马的运输,以及埃及石灰岩和砂岩的各种用途。参考书目结束了这本书。请注意,目录中列出的荷兰语摘要和作者的简历,在该书的出版版本中没有给出。如前所述,这本书是一篇发表的博士论文,而不是教科书,这有优点和缺点。博士论文的优势是众所周知的:申请人所做的大量工作可以提供给读者。在这种情况下,Sander m<e:1>斯肯斯提供了大量有用的数据:关于他的研究主题的史学;罗马使用的彩色弹珠;岩石分类;Aegyptiaca;统计和地图;书面拉丁语来源;还有一份可靠的参考书目。但也有缺点:大量的数据可能——在这种情况下确实如此——模糊了推理的思路;有很多冗余;结构不理想。很明显,加上额外的编辑工作,这本书就会失去它的一些“半生不熟”的特点。作者在“设置和目标”一节中给出了这本书的雄心勃勃的目标:研究“超越表象”的埃及文库——这意味着研究必须:(1)关注对象的物质方面;(2)“摆脱对物质文化的静态解释,将其仅仅作为固定文化意义的被动表达或表征”(第29页)。m<e:1>斯肯斯进一步解释说,“物体意味着什么”的问题被重新导向了“物体是如何被使用的,以及哪些特征决定了它们的功能”的问题(第30页)。了解罗马世界的石头是接下来30页的目标。这本书的这一部分提醒读者,罗马人对石头的“贪婪”随着时间的推移而增加,它对贸易的国际化、开采的工业化和罗马大理石庭院的设置产生了重大影响(Emporium和Portus)。储存在这些仓库里的各种各样的石头构成了一幅“帝国的独特材料地图”(第41页),当然也包括了埃及。有趣的是,在罗马大理石院子里的大理石中,埃及的石头与作者的埃及石料中最丰富的石头并不对应:蛇纹石、绿花岗岩、帝国斑岩(全部三种都来自东部沙漠)和方晶石alab石膏(石灰华)出现在Emporium和Portus(表2.1.1),而阿斯旺花岗岩(花岗岩和花岗闪长岩)和灰长石构成了一半的石料(图4.1.2.a)。这可能表明埃及埃及的石头不是作为原材料进口的,而是作为成品进口的。作者接着指出,“选择的材料[原文如此]可以与主题相互作用,甚至超越主题,以增强雕像的功效,从而证明石雕不仅仅是代表[原文如此]固定的意义”(第57页)。一些例子强调了这种石头和罗马雕塑主题之间的“语义关系”:土耳其语pavonazetto中的东方野蛮人;突尼斯的狮子giallo antico;埃及绿斑岩中的螃蟹;树和柱子希腊语cipollino;酒神在希腊文中的表现。从这个选择中可以明显看出,这种语义关系大部分取决于石头的视觉外观和/或其地理来源。此外,作者令人信服地解释说,拥有用这些昂贵的“声望”彩色石头雕刻的雕塑是展示主人社会政治地位的有效方式。罗马精英阶层之间的竞争增加了对彩色宝石的需求,有时导致使用更便宜或更丰富的替代宝石或仿制品。埃及古埃及的研究对象包括140件石头,都有已知的考古来源——这是一个深思熟虑的(和相关的)选择。 语料库之前有一个名为“岩石分类和来源确定”的部分,它提供了很少的兴趣,因为它的书评826877 ega0010.1177 /0307513319826877
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Book review: Egypt Beyond Representation: Materials and Materiality of Aegyptiaca Romana
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Ein neuer Textzeuge zu einem neunköpfigen Wesen (pBM EA 10669) The Burials at Amarna Site O45.1 Book Review: Flooded Pasts: UNESCO, Nubia, and the Recolonization of Archaeology The Fragment of a Model of a Tower House from Kom el-Gir, Central Northwestern Delta Auditing simulation practice against ASPiH standards: an experience for a district general hospital.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1