Ian Iracheta

University College London

Institute of Archaeology

The Nature of Predynastic Palettes in Ancient Egypt:

Communication, Propaganda, or Art?

In 1819, Hegel put into words a thought that was to have a tremendous impact on the study of the history

of ideas and that now sits at the very core of schools of thought as cultural materialism: Es kann niemand

seine Zeit berspringen; der Geist seiner Zeit ist auch sein Geist (cited by Grieer 2005, 17). This quote

is usually understood in the sense that it is impossible for, say, an author to be ahead of his time but its

corollary is equally important: a man trying to jump behind the Zeitgeist will find nothing but disillusion

as well.

This postulate from philosophy is central to archaeology because it calls into question not only

our object of study but the very role of the scholar on the other end of the trowel. As human beings in the

present studying the past, we are constantly torn asunder between the two, and some reflection must be

dedicated to whether we are indeed studying the past in itself, as Kant would put it, or merely our

perspective of it. It is under from this approach that I intend to answer the following question: Are the

sculpture palettes of the late Predynastic Period communication, propaganda, or art?

It is hard to talk about art without thinking about the nineteenth-century notion of the aesthete;

furthermore, can we discuss communication without thinking of Saussure? Finally, can anyone hear the

word propaganda without being immediately reminded of the Nazi and anti-Nazi movement? All of

these concepts are historically determined, therefore an underlying issue behind our trying to apply them

to predynastic palettes is whether doing this is correct, useful, or, quite regrettably, just inevitable. In this

essay, I will discuss three different perspectives we can take to approach these objects. Section one will

explore whether they are conduits for communication, section two whether they can be read as

propaganda, and section three whether we should consider them as art. Because each approach is quite

different, I will not review the critical literature all at once in the introduction. Rather, I propose to give an

overview of the models governing each line of approach in each of the relevant sections.

1
 Ian Iracheta
University College London
Institute of Archaeology
That being said, I will comment on the palettes in general, but I take two main examples as

paradigmatic: the Narmer Palette currently at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (CG 14716), and the

Hunters Palette, two pieces of which reside at the British Museum (G64/dc6) and one at le Louvre (E

11254).

As way of a brief introduction into these archaeological pieces, it is worth noting that the exact

nature of the palettes is still the subject of much discussion today (OConnor 2002, 5). Even the way they

are exhibited has been called into question, notably by Tefnin, who writes that both at le Louvre and the

British Museum, the curators have preferred a horizontal display when perhaps a vertical arrangement is

more correct (1979, 223). The same uncertainty surrounds their purpose. It is true that smaller versions of

these objects were utilized for grinding cosmetics, especially green eye shadow made out of copper ore

(Pierrat-Bonnefois & Marc 2000); however, no traces of such pigments have been found on the Narmer

palette (OConnor 2002, 8), and the place where it was found, Kom el-Akhmar, a major sanctuary of the

Early Dynastic period (cited by Khler 2002, 499) suggests a ceremonial rather than a domestic use.

The Palettes as Instances of Communication

A good percentage of the theories regarding these palettes are concerned with what it is they want to tell

us. Let us consider, however, that this starting point is debatable enough. Tefnin, for example, is

convinced that these palettes do not provide us with a narrative as such, and that to desire to read them is

to try to impose the Western model of a comic book (bandes dessines) to Egyptian art (1979, 223). On

the other hand, Davis believes that these images were pictorial narratives (1992, 22), and Williams

theorises about a system of proto-hieroglyphics when he says that the rosettes seen in some of the palettes

(as well as on other late pre-historic objects) may be an early precursor for the serekh and therefore a

metonymical symbol for the king (cited by Cialowicz 1991, 52). Irrespective of their differences and

degree of specificity, both Williams and Davis agree on the narrative character of these objects.

On this issue, Tefnins objections are convincing. If the Hunters Palette were meant to be read

we would not have so much trouble asserting the number of lions in the scene, or whether they are all one

the same lion at different points in the story. Nevertheless, as we are concerned with how modern

2
 Ian Iracheta
University College London
Institute of Archaeology
concepts of storytelling can influence our perspective of antique pieces, it is worth considering that the

limited ability of pictorial representation to narrate events is a phenomenon that was not studied in depth

until Lessings Laocoon (1766). In this treatise, Lessing creates a distinction between temporal and spatial

arts, and highlights that narration presupposes time, embodied in verbal tenses, and that painting, or, in

our case, bas-relief, is therefore not entirely suitable for storytelling.

We must consider, however, that before such theoretical objections were raised, narrative

paintings were very much a feature of medieval and Renaissance art, and the problem that Tefnin points

out, i.e. the impossibility to say with all certainty the number of lions in the Hunters Palette is also one

we could apply to the Tapisserie de Bayeux or the Spalliera Panels at the National Gallery. Quite simply,

it is possible that both Egyptian and twelfth-century artisans, perhaps not used to philosophising about the

metaphysical (in the original sense of the word) limitations of their craft, would probably not consider

them very deeply. Whatever position we take about the ability of these palettes to narrate a story, the fact

that they communicate something to us is indisputable. They are human creations that make use of

symbols to represent something else. Modern theories of semiotics have the advantage that they work

retroactively, and Saussures Cours de linguistique gnrale applies as well to Ancient Egyptian as it does

to French because it is concerned with how language symbolises meaning. Even if the lion in the Hunters

Palette does not mean king but lion, that is still an example of semiotics at play.

The Palettes as Propaganda

If by propaganda we understand a political message preached with the specific aim of swaying public

opinion, often in a mendacious way, then its application to the Egyptian palettes is problematic. First and

foremost, these palettes lacked a public dimension; they were kept within the confines of temples (Baines

1995), where only the lite could access them. Their demagogical function, therefore, was very limited.

Nevertheless, King Narmer certainly is exalted in his palette by dint of iconography and style of

representation. In Figure 1 we can appreciate how bigger he appears in comparison to his sandal bearer.

Schfers analysis of representational techniques (1917 reviewed by Frankfort 1932) established that as a

pre-Greek society, the Ancient Egyptians were not influenced by the principles of perspective. Size is

3
 Ian Iracheta
University College London
Institute of Archaeology
therefore symbolic, and not merely an accident of distance, and the superhuman body of Narmer is

therefore all the more meaningful.

However, because propaganda also presupposes a conscious effort of a political faction in power

to make itself agreeable in the eyes of the public, the historicity of these objects is also important. Baines

postulates that whatever events are depicted on the Narmer Palette, they probably antedated the piece

itself for a considerable span of time (1989, 479). This begs the question, if Narmer himself was not the

driving force behind this piece, is it propaganda? Or, to give a more contemporary example, if George

Jones had painted his famous The Battle of Waterloo in 2017 and not in 1822, would it still be a stab

against the French? Meaning is constituted historically, and to remove a piece from its time is to alter this

meaning.

Finally, it is not clear whether the events depicted on this palette are meant to be symbolic, or are

actually based on historical fact. If the former, then we move away from the sphere of propaganda and

into something quite different.

Figure 1: Cast of the Narmer Palette. British Museum Online Catalogue EA35714

4
 Ian Iracheta
University College London
Institute of Archaeology

The Palettes as Art

An etymological problem with regarding any Egyptian object as art is that the word as we understand it

now did not exist back then. The most similar concept is that of hmt, which means craft (Baines, 1994,

68), and implies certain utilitarianism. In that sense, Egyptian works of art are non-existent, as there were

no objects created purely for their artistic value in Egyptian times.

Nevertheless, this conception of art as something that is supposed to serve no function outside

aesthetics is not even consistent in the Western tradition. For the one part, it is perhaps only expressed

until the nineteenth century, with Gautiers L'art pour l'art maxim and Oscar Wildes all art is quite

useless aphorism. In the Renaissance, however, art and crafts overlap at times.

An interesting example of this are Italian casonni, as they combine the functionality of a chest

with the aesthetic qualities of painting in much the same way as the palettes amalgamate artistic and

utilitarian (if for ritual, if no other purposes) components. Consider the following painting by Botticelli

(1485).

Figure 2: Venus and Mars. National Gallery Catalogue. NG915

5
 Ian Iracheta
University College London
Institute of Archaeology

At first sight, one would think we deal with a conventional painting to be framed and hung, but

actually this work was probably a piece of bedroom furniture, [] most probably the spalliera or

backboard from a chest, i.e. a casone.

If by Western etymological standards, we refuse to grant the status of art to Egyptian palettes,

then it is worth noting that we would also have to demote painting, poetry and dancing to little more than

crafts. The artes liberales, according to their classical origins as exposed by Plato, are the trivium and the

quadrivium, i.e, grammar, logic, and rhetoric; and arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy,

respectively. Out of them, only music retains the status of an art today. Painting and masonry, because

they involve the use of ones hands, would have been considered artes mechanicae or sometimes even

artes sordidae (Rigg 1996, 431).

Conclusion

As we have explored, the application of modern categories to ancient artefacts is not without its problems.

Terms such as propaganda, communication, and art have a history that they try to impose on anything on

which we try to impose them.

Perhaps the solution to the question this essay tries to answer is not as interesting as the questions

it opens up, but let us consider that all art is a means of communication, and all art caters to an agenda,

which can be political and therefore propagandistic. Instead of the expected conclusion that says the

palettes are a mixture of everything, let us turn that thought on its head and say that there were actually no

divisions between these different concepts in Ancient Egypt.

The more interesting question remains of whether we are right to apply modern categories to

these works, and whether, despite the problems this implies, it also provides us with solutions. Hegel

would argue that there is no way to avoid our modern perspective, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.

One of the corollaries of studying the past is that it sheds a powerful life on the present. Several works

have analysed Egyptian art in depth in terms of itself; of these, Schfer and Baines seem to me

fundamental. In this essay, I sought to analyse this art in terms of our own era. To provide an overview of

6
 Ian Iracheta
University College London
Institute of Archaeology
three different categories, my approach was quite general, and a future essay should tackle specific

palettes and contrast them with specific more contemporary works. Walter Benjamins notion of arts

aura was also a concept that I needed to leave out but which could be very useful to analyse Egyptian

art.

My meaning in proceeding in the manner I did was not only to contextualise Egyptian art in

relation to its Western analogue, but to provide the opportunity for a rapport the other way. Nobody would

doubt that Botticelli, to take the example I mentioned earlier on, is a great artist, and so, the question

lingers, if he had carved his Venus and Mars into a stone palette rather than painting it on a spalliera,

would we interact any differently with it?

7
 Ian Iracheta
University College London
Institute of Archaeology

References:

Baines, J. 1989. Communication and display: the integration of early Egyptian art
and writing, Antiquity 63, 471482.
Baines, J. 1994. On the status and purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 4:1, 67-94.
Baines, J. 1995. Origins of Egyptian Kingship. In: OConnor, D & Silverman, D.P. (eds.)
Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Leiden; New York; Kln: Brill Publishers. 95-156.
British Museum Catalogue. Narmer Palette Cast. London. Retrieved on 7 February 2017 from
World Wide Web:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?
objectId=109866&partId=1
Cialowicz, K.M. 1991. Les Palettes gyptiennes aux Motifs Zoomorphes et sans Dcoration:
tudes de l'art Prdynastique. Krakw: Uniwersytet Jagielloski. 52-5.
Davis, W. 1992. Masking the Blow: The Scene of Representation in Late Prehistoric Egyptian
Art. Berkeley; Los Angeles; Oxford: University of California Press. 20-30.
Frankfort, H. 1932. On Egyptian art, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18,
3348 .
Grieer, W. 2005. Geist zu seiner Zeit: Mit Hegel die Zeit denken. Berlin: Knigshausen
& Neumann. 17.
Khler, C. 2002. History or ideology? New reflections on the Narmer palette. In: van den Brink,
E. & Levy, T. (eds.) Egypt and Levant: Interrelations from the 4th Through the Early 3rd
Millennium BCE. London: Leicester University Press. 499-513.
Rigg, A.G. 1996. Medieval Latin. An Introduction and Bibliographical
Guide. Washington D.C. The Catholic University of America Press. 430-1.
Millet, N. 1990. The Narmer macehead and related objects. Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt XXVII, 53-9.
National Gallery Catalogue. Venus and Mars by Sandro Botticelli. 1485. London.
Retrieved on 7 February 2017 from World Wide Web:
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/sandro-botticelli-venus-and-mars
OConnor, D. 2002. Function and Program: Understanding Ceremonial Slate Palettes,
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, XXXIX, 5-25.
Pierrat-Bonnefois, G., and Marc, E. 2000. Louvre Catalogue. Fragment of the Hunting
Palette. Retrieved on 7 February 2017 from World Wide Web:
http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/fragment-hunting-palette
Tefnin, R. 1979. Image et histoire: rflexions sur lusage docum entaire de limage gyptienne.
CdE 54, no. 108, 218-44.