Abstract
Gardens in ancient Egypt are known from the Early Dynastic Period to
the Graeco-Roman Period from archaeological, textual, and pictorial
evidence. From this evidence, one can differentiate between simple and
formal gardens. This thesis exclusively produces a typology of the S-
and Domain of Amun formal garden scenes (the xnty-S-, kAmw-, sS-,
at-nt-xt-, and Hrrt-S-formal gardens) represented in the early to
mid-late Eighteenth Dynasty Theban private tomb art prior to the Amarna
Period (TT E2, TT 39, TT 63, TT 80, TT 81, TT 85, TT 87, TT 90, TT 93,
TT 96, TT 100, TT 109, TT 161, and TT 334) by their Egyptian names.
These formal gardens are examined in this study through (i) visual
analyses and (ii) discussions in terms of their additional extant
evidence, tomb locations, flora and fauna they sustained (including
their actual growth cycles, as well as use, symbolism, and significance
for the ancient Egyptians in life and death found in Appendix II:
Herbarium and Faunarium), and wider sociocultural significance and
relevance to the tomb-owners’ titles in early to mid-late Eighteenth
Dynasty Thebes prior to the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.
This study concludes that the formal gardens represented as tomb
scenes, and the actual ones known from extant textual, pictorial, and/or
archaeological evidence of the period, were symmetrical and even
sometimes asymmetrical landscapes, that were located in proximity to
either private homes and tombs, palatial residences, cult and/or
memorial temples/shrines, and domains. The S-formal gardens were first
constructed by the pharaohs, who sometimes gifted them to private and
royal individuals, and which influenced other elite individuals, who had
the power and resources, to construct ones of their own. The xnty-S-,
kAmw-, sS-, at-nt-xt-, and Hrrt-S-formal gardens were principally
constructed as monuments (mnw) by the kings for their palaces or for the
gods. In the royal and private spheres, the S- and Domain of Amun
formal gardens were aesthetic landscapes with numerous features used for
sports, leisure, music, song, and dance performances, boat rites,
meals, wakes, private banquets, and/or religious festivals and rituals,
as well as provided surplus flower, herb, wine, fruit, fish, fowl,
incense, and/or honey production for the institution(s) to which they
were connected. Important to note is that the native and foreign flora
of these formal gardens would have been purchased and/or introduced
locally as seeds, fruit, and/or potted young specimens via gardeners or
one’s other gardens or via foreign trade. Each of the 42 floral and 11
faunal species identified in these formal gardens have a specific growth
and/or development cycle, which only allows them to be in bloom and/or
available for harvest during a certain time of the year for use in food,
medicine, festivities, meals, banquets, offerings, and floral
arrangements, etc. Additionally, these formal gardens and their
production were established, constructed, cultivated, maintained,
overseen, and administered by intricate networks of individuals who
worked in and/or liaised with them directly or indirectly. This
relationship was evident in terms of the relevant titles of the
tomb-owners and their colleagues, as well as from the location of the
formal garden scenes in the porticos, transverse halls, passages, and
chapels of the tombs in proximity to other self-glorifying ‘focal
representations’ (Blickpunktsbilder) that would have been
regularly viewed by family and community members and ideally visited by
the bA and kA of the tomb-owner after death.
Cenati;
Cooley;
Elliott;
Evangelisti;
Felicetti;
Granados;
Grieshaber;
Gruber;
Posts
Stumble It!
