Pharaohs and Servants: The Scope of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Work

 An essay from my Art in Ancient Egypt course.

 

Ancient Egyptians prepared their deceased for the afterlife in many ways, ranging in detail 

for the royal and the common. The most commonly found preparations are ushabti figures, 

which originate from the Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt; the Egyptians produced so many 

of these figures that almost every museum today owns a couple of shabtis to display. 

However, on the other end of the spectrum, monuments were less frequently found and 

only built for the pharaohs and Gods. In this paper, the temple Ramesseum (Fig II) is in 

comparison with the shabti. The ushabti discussed in this paper (Fig I) comes from the 

Madison Art Collection, acquired from 2003. The shabti, referred to as the “Tomb Servant,” 

is 26 x 9 x 10 cm, made of limestone, is mostly tan in color, and dates back to around 656 

BCE in the 25th Dynasty. The face is painted red, the collar piece is painted on, and 

hieroglyphs are written on the front of the body, which read, “She makes beautiful offerings 

to the Osiris.” This shabti is larger than most other shabti figures found, though life-size 

shabtis have also been found in tombs.

Ushabti roughly translates to “one who answers” (Teeter), as their purpose was to answer 

to the call of whoever’s tomb they were buried with. According to the Madison Art 

Collective that houses this shabti, the Egyptians made around 365 shabtis for some 

individual tombs, ensuring one servant for each day in the afterlife. With the idea that these

 figures were produced in mass starting from the Old Kingdom, it’s very likely that they

 didn’t represent real servants who died. The deceased who would own ushabtis wouldn’t 

be a servant, but rather someone of higher rank that would need servants in the afterlife. 

The Art Institute of Chicago would claim that everyone except the poorest citizens would

 own shabtis in their tombs for the afterlife. This is why they are the most common 

artifact found from Ancient Egypt to this day. 

Unlike the shabti figure, the temple of Ramesseum was built specifically in honor of

 Ramses II, the third pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, also known as the longest reigning 

pharaoh in all of Ancient Egypt, and a great warrior king. An archeological research from

 Guy Lecuyot in 2001 claims that the name of the temple was “The Temple of Millions of

 Years” (Lecuyot). This temple was a point of inspiration for future pharaoh’s temples.

 It was called the Ramesseum after it was rediscovered in the 18th century. The Ramesseum

 was built for Ramses II and the god Amun. The walls of the Ramesseum depict scenes

 of Ramses II smiting his enemies in the Battle of Kadesh and funerary rituals

 (The Ramesseum). Discovered in the temple were plenty of ushabti figures (Fig III) meant

 to serve Ramses II in the afterlife. 

Even while ushabti figures were made for both the common folk and the royal families,

 servants were unlikely to receive these figures in their tombs; why would a servant have

 servants of their own? A study examining skulls from Egyptian servants found that the

 servants were often sacrificed after their pharaoh had died, so they can continue to serve 

them in the afterlife (Jarus). The shabtis might not have represented the literal deceased

 servants, but they were definitely provided alongside the sacrifice of real servants.

 Hundreds of ushabti figures are made for the royal to have a servant for each day of the 

year, and that still didn’t meet the quota for pharaohs, so real servants were killed after the 

pharaoh passed away. 

The range of funerary preparations for the deceased is smaller than expected when 

considering the rank of every person in the kingdom, as not everyone even had the chance 

to own their own shabti figures. The shabti figure from the Madison Collection belonged

 to someone higher rank, maybe a pharaoh or scribe, but that shabti, if it was based on a

 real servant, wouldn’t have their own funeral ritual, and would keep living in the afterlife 

as a servant to the king.

 

 Fig I: Ushabti "Tomb Servant" Figure, Madison Art Collective

 

 Fig II: Ramsesseum

 

  Fig III: Ushabtis found in the Ramsesseum

"American Paradise" and Postmodernism

 This paper is from my Analytical Paper in Art in American History Before 1870.

 This paper doesn't talk about the painting attached; it is there to give context on 

the Hudson River School's American Paradise. Sources are not attached because 

it came from class readings.

 

The postmodernism movement is not effective nowadays because of how it lacks

 reach to many Americans. Art that criticizes and teaches history is only effective 

if it can be reached, which may be impossible under corporate control of the art 

world. In Wallach’s paper, “Revisionism has Changed Art History but Not 

Museums,” he states that museums now are too polished to engage the average 

American’s critical thinking skills, and in turn we become uneducated in American 

history. We should study the art and historical context of the United States because a

 lack of controversial art dulls people’s critical thinking and erases history that is 

relevant to art and America. The most accessible art and history museums in 

America are National museums backed by the government. When one central power

 is in control of most access to history, they can cherry-pick what to display and what

 to omit. National museums often pick the most polished, sanitized works of history

 for the public eye, which can lead to a lack of individual thought. Wallach and 

Cooper both reference the Catskill Hudson River School Museum, but Wallach 

especially compares this showcase to a more polished showing, called

 “American Paradise.” 

If one walked into “American Paradise” with little knowledge about the Hudson 

River, they would walk into neatly picked pieces, and walk away learning nothing 

about the history and culture of the area. Now if one walked into Catskill, they 

would learn much more about the tourism, patriotism, and industrialization of the 

Hudson River area. “American Paradise” omits this history, as a literal “paradise” 

free of conflicting history. Even though Catskill wasn’t controversial in nature, it 

implied that there is so much that a government funded museum can hide in order 

to keep public opinion in favor of corporate America. Art that talks about history 

does not need to be a major controversy, but it should spark discussion, even 

debate. That’s not to say American Paradise isn’t worth discussing; even art that 

lacks historical context should be discussed, especially about what it is missing 

or purposefully leaving out. Unlike Wallach, Cooper seems to claim that it wasn’t 

the museums that failed current art history, but rather that art history now does not 

renew one’s faith, spirituality, and morality. Cooper states in his paper that a change 

occurred in art from the 19th to the 20th century; artists went from taking nature 

hikes to bask in light, to alienating themselves in a sinister darkness. He believes 

that postmodernism is an obstacle to moral and cultural development, however we 

can see from the Hudson River School Museum that revisionist ideas can become 

popular with the public, especially from a cultural standpoint. The Catskill exhibit 

was a success, and inspired other exhibitions to break the mold of aesthetic and 

individual pieces. 

Only engaging with art that is too comfortable to look at, especially historical art, 

lessens our critical thinking. National museums can take advantage of this, leaving 

less room for criticism on our history as a nation. Wallach states that museums are 

aware of this, but will excuse it as “giving the public what they want.” This makes 

the public comfortable in familiarity, if the only thing they become familiar with 

is a sanitized American history, as the national museums “dull the public’s critical 

capacities” (Wallach 121). It’s not just about giving the public a clean, simple 

answer to history, but it’s also about keeping the museums running. If any extreme 

controversy was displayed, then those museums could lose funds and shut down. 

Therefore, works are carefully selected to make sure public curiosity is satisfied 

without a second thought. For Cooper to claim that postmodernism contributes to a 

cultural crisis is misleading, since the biggest threat to a culture is to erase it. 

Postmodernism invites many perspectives and debates of history, which is necessary 

for a society of individuals. 

Art itself doesn’t need to be scandalous or controversial, but it should spark something 

worth discussing. For example, abstract contemporary pieces are also worth talking 

about, in regards to how they break away from standards of art. The Hudson River 

School wasn’t just a talking point of the area’s complex history, but it was also a 

lesson in history that most museums are too cautious to teach. Real American 

identity can be found in the people and artists themselves, rather than a corporate 

outsider’s perspective.