Videos by Jayme Reichart
(EN) The ancient Egyptians used precise terminology to describe their informal and formal gardens... more (EN) The ancient Egyptians used precise terminology to describe their informal and formal gardens in antiquity. This thesis explored elite Theban formal gardens known from archaeological, textual, and pictorial evidence prior to the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. The formal garden types that existed during this period in Thebes included: the š-formal garden and the Domain of Amun (pr Imn) formal gardens, such as: the ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š. This presentation will explore the results of my study: where these formal gardens were situated in the Theban landscape, exact translations of their names in Egyptian, their characteristics, their flora and fauna, and their functions or uses by the ancient Thebans of the upper class during this portion of the New Kingdom. 73 views
Thesis Chapters by Jayme Reichart
Master of Arts (MA) thesis, The American University in Cairo, 2021
Gardens in ancient Egypt are known from the Early Dynastic Period to the Graeco-Roman Period from... more 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 informal and formal gardens. This thesis exclusively produces a typology of the š- and Domain of Amun formal garden scenes (the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-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, 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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference Presentations by Jayme Reichart
International Congress of Egyptologists (ICE) XIII, Leiden, The Netherlands, 6-11 August, 2023
In early New Kingdom Egypt (1550-1351 BCE), the early to mid-late 18th Dynasty pharaohs who ruled... more In early New Kingdom Egypt (1550-1351 BCE), the early to mid-late 18th Dynasty pharaohs who ruled from Thebes (present-day Luxor) built various types of formal gardens (i.e. the š-, the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š) in and around their capital and its localities prior to the reign of the dissenter Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (1351-1334 BCE). These formal gardens were considered monuments (mnw) and constructed in proximity to the palaces, temples, shrines, or cenotaphs of the king, royalty, and/or gods, as well as beside upper-class homes and tombs. These formal gardens were aesthetic landscapes used for various sports, festivities, rites, and forms of leisure and entertainment, as well as functioned as seasonal, surplus produce (rnpwt) for the institutions to which they were connected. More than 42 native and foreign floral and 11 faunal species were incorporated by architects into the landscape designs of these formal gardens. The flora and fauna in the formal gardens were raised and supervised by intricate networks of individuals.
Four of the 42 floral species have yet to be identified with a family and/or species with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant in hieroglyphs. In an interdisciplinary approach, the evidence of these four florae is assessed – from lexicography to ethnobotany and beyond – with the goal to identifying each with potential family(ies) and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy and to situate them into the interconnected milieu of Egypt and its neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Levant, and Near East from the 3rd millennium BCE to the 13th century AD.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
10th International Workshop for African Archaeobotany (IWAA), Musée national d'histoire naturelle, Paris, France, 27-30 June, 2023
In early New Kingdom Egypt (1550-1351 BCE), the early to mid-late 18th Dynasty pharaohs who ruled... more In early New Kingdom Egypt (1550-1351 BCE), the early to mid-late 18th Dynasty pharaohs who ruled from Thebes (present-day Luxor) built various types of formal gardens (1) in and around their capital and its localities prior to the reign of the dissenter Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (1351-1334 BCE). These formal gardens were considered monuments (mnw) and constructed in proximity to the palaces, temples, shrines, or cenotaphs of the king, royalty, and/or gods, as well as beside upper-class homes and tombs. These formal gardens were aesthetic landscapes used for various sports, festivities, rites, and forms of leisure and entertainment, as well as functioned as seasonal, surplus produce (rnpwt) for the institutions to which they were connected. More than 42 native and foreign floral and 11 faunal species were incorporated by architects into the landscape designs of these formal gardens. The flora and fauna in the formal gardens were raised and supervised by intricate networks of individuals.
Four of the 42 floral species have yet to be identified with a family and/or species with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant in hieroglyphs. In an interdisciplinary approach, the evidence of these four florae is assessed – from lexicography to ethnobotany and beyond – with the goal to identifying each with potential family(ies) and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy and to situate them into the interconnected milieu of Egypt and its neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Levant, and Near East from the 3rd millennium BCE to the 13th century AD.
(1) Such types include the š-, the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-formal gardens.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Current Research in Egyptology (CRE) XXII, Université de Montpellier III - Paul Valéry, Montpellier, France, 2022
Various formal gardens were constructed in Thebes and its environs during the early to mid-late 1... more Various formal gardens were constructed in Thebes and its environs during the early to mid-late 18th Dynasty prior to the Amarna period. These types of formal gardens (i.e., the š, the ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š) were built in proximity to cult or memorial temples, god's domains, cenotaphs, shrines, palatial residences, and/or private elite homes or non-royal tombs.
These formal gardens were aesthetic landscapes used by the pharaohs, royals, and/or upper classes for sports, festivals, banquets, rituals, wakes, leisure, song, dance, and/or musical performances. More than 42 native and foreign floral and 11 faunal species were incorporated by architects into the landscape designs of early to mid-late 18th Dynasty Theban formal gardens. The flora and fauna both beautified the landscapes and functioned as surplus produce (rnpwt) for the institutions to which they were connected. The flora and fauna in the formal gardens were overseen, cultivated, collected, and administered by intricate networks of individuals (Reichart 2021; Reichart 2022; Reichart forthcoming).
Four of these 42 floral species have yet to be identified with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant. Current evidence from the Egyptian record as well as previous scholarship on the four florae will be examined in this case study, and when possible, attempt to identify each with a particular family and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Congreso iberoamericano de jóvenes investigadores en egiptología (CIJIE) I, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain, 2021
(EN) The ancient Egyptians used precise terminology to describe their informal and formal gardens... more (EN) The ancient Egyptians used precise terminology to describe their informal and formal gardens in antiquity. This thesis explored elite Theban formal gardens known from archaeological, textual, and pictorial evidence prior to the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. The formal garden types that existed during this period in Thebes included: the š-formal garden and the Domain of Amun (pr Imn) formal gardens, such as: the ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š. This presentation will explore the results of my study: where these formal gardens were situated in the Theban landscape, exact translations of their names in Egyptian, their characteristics, their flora and fauna, and their functions or uses by the ancient Thebans of the upper class during this portion of the New Kingdom.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Current Research in Egyptology (CRE) XXI, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece, 2021
Gardens in ancient Egypt are known from the Early Dynastic Period to the Graeco-Roman Period from... more 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 informal and formal gardens. This thesis exclusively produces a typology of the š- and Domain of Amun formal garden scenes (the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-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, 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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Current Research in Egyptology (CRE) XXI, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece, 2021
Gardens in ancient Egypt are known from the Early Dynastic Period to the Graeco-Roman Period from... more 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 informal and formal gardens. This thesis exclusively produces a typology of the š- and Domain of Amun formal garden scenes (the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-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, 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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
International Congress for Young Egyptologists (ICYE) IX, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019
Gardens in ancient Egypt are known from the Early Dynastic Period to the Graeco-Roman Period from... more 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 informal and formal gardens. This thesis exclusively produces a typology of the š- and Domain of Amun formal garden scenes (the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-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, 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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Graduate Annual Research Discussions on Egypt and Nubia (GARDEN) VI, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo, 2019
Gardens in ancient Egypt are known from the Early Dynastic Period to the Graeco-Roman Period from... more 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 informal and formal gardens. This thesis exclusively produces a typology of the š- and Domain of Amun formal garden scenes (the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-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, 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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Jayme Reichart
Economic Botany
The Mediterranean cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) is an evergreen conifer that belongs to the Cu... more The Mediterranean cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) is an evergreen conifer that belongs to the Cupressaceae, which is the first plant family whose detailed evolutionary history traces the break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea roughly 150 million years ago. The broad and deep economic and socio-cultural significance of the species began in at least the third millennium BCE. This interdisciplinary review highlights the tree’s exemplary uses and meanings, starting in ancient Elam, Sumer, Egypt, and Persia, and continuing to the Graeco-Roman world, Islamic Empires, and Western Europe. The Mediterranean cypress has been used as timber for buildings, coffins, furniture, and statuary; in religious and spiritual symbolism; as ornamentals in gardens and cemeteries; in aromatic anointments and medicine; as literary metaphors; and as motifs in decorative and fine art. Many of the artifacts, artworks, and literature known to be influenced by the cypress are iconic: the Gudea cylinders, the out...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Economic Botany, 2023
The Mediterranean cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) is an evergreen conifer that belongs to the Cu... more The Mediterranean cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) is an evergreen conifer that belongs to the Cupressaceae, which is the first plant family whose detailed evolutionary history traces the break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea roughly 150 million years ago. The broad and deep economic and socio-cultural significance of the species began in at least the third millennium BCE. This interdisciplinary review highlights the tree's exemplary uses and meanings, starting in ancient Elam, Sumer, Egypt, and Persia, and continuing to the Graeco-Roman world, Islamic Empires, and Western Europe. The Mediterranean cypress has been used as timber for buildings, coffins, furniture, and statuary; in religious and spiritual symbolism; as ornamentals in gardens and cemeteries; in aromatic anointments and medicine; as literary metaphors; and as motifs in decorative and fine art. Many of the artifacts, artworks, and literature known to be influenced by the cypress are iconic: the Gudea cylinders, the outer coffin of Pharaoh Tutankhamun, the poetry of Virgil and Ferdowsi, Istanbul's Topkapi Palace, Shakespeare's plays, and the paintings of Vélasquez and Van Gogh. Knowledge gaps in the scholarly literature on the species are identified, which require additional research in a variety of fields. For example, the number of varieties within the species remains inconclusive. Identifying the precise timing and geographic location of the tree's influence on human civilization is hampered by methodological challenges. Studies of other plant species might benefit from the holistic approach taken in this review.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In: Apostola, Electra and Christos Kekes (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology 2021. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Symposium, University of the Aegean, 9-16 May 2021. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2022
More than 42 native and foreign floral and 11 faunal species were identified as being raised in t... more More than 42 native and foreign floral and 11 faunal species were identified as being raised in the early to mid-late 18th Dynasty formal gardens constructed in proximity to the private élite homes, non-royal tombs, memorial and cult temples, palatial residences, god's domains, shrines, and/or cenotaphs at Thebes (modern-day Luxor) and its hinterlands (See Reichart 2021; Reichart forthcoming).
This article highlights the function and symbolism of five fish species propagated in the water features of these formal gardens' landscape designs: carp (Labeo spp.); elephantfish (Petrocephalus/Marcusenius spp.); Egyptian trunkfish (Mormyrus spp.); catfish (Synodontis spp.); and tilapia (Tilapia spp.) and redbelly tilapia (T. zillii Gervais). In terms of function, the fish species were raised as seasonal, surplus produce for the institutions to which they were connected. The natural habits and habitats of these fish species in the wild reveal that they would have inherently kept the water features clean and pest-free after domestication. In terms of symbolism, the fish beautified the pools, ponds, fountains, or lakes and embodied beliefs concerning specific gods associated with the sun, the moon, and/or with the Old Kingdom-age funerary belief in fish shepherds (psychopomps) who guided the recently deceased for a time on their journey towards the hereafter in the West (jmntt).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Videos by Jayme Reichart
Thesis Chapters by Jayme Reichart
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Conference Presentations by Jayme Reichart
Four of the 42 floral species have yet to be identified with a family and/or species with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant in hieroglyphs. In an interdisciplinary approach, the evidence of these four florae is assessed – from lexicography to ethnobotany and beyond – with the goal to identifying each with potential family(ies) and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy and to situate them into the interconnected milieu of Egypt and its neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Levant, and Near East from the 3rd millennium BCE to the 13th century AD.
Four of the 42 floral species have yet to be identified with a family and/or species with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant in hieroglyphs. In an interdisciplinary approach, the evidence of these four florae is assessed – from lexicography to ethnobotany and beyond – with the goal to identifying each with potential family(ies) and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy and to situate them into the interconnected milieu of Egypt and its neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Levant, and Near East from the 3rd millennium BCE to the 13th century AD.
(1) Such types include the š-, the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-formal gardens.
These formal gardens were aesthetic landscapes used by the pharaohs, royals, and/or upper classes for sports, festivals, banquets, rituals, wakes, leisure, song, dance, and/or musical performances. More than 42 native and foreign floral and 11 faunal species were incorporated by architects into the landscape designs of early to mid-late 18th Dynasty Theban formal gardens. The flora and fauna both beautified the landscapes and functioned as surplus produce (rnpwt) for the institutions to which they were connected. The flora and fauna in the formal gardens were overseen, cultivated, collected, and administered by intricate networks of individuals (Reichart 2021; Reichart 2022; Reichart forthcoming).
Four of these 42 floral species have yet to be identified with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant. Current evidence from the Egyptian record as well as previous scholarship on the four florae will be examined in this case study, and when possible, attempt to identify each with a particular family and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Papers by Jayme Reichart
This article highlights the function and symbolism of five fish species propagated in the water features of these formal gardens' landscape designs: carp (Labeo spp.); elephantfish (Petrocephalus/Marcusenius spp.); Egyptian trunkfish (Mormyrus spp.); catfish (Synodontis spp.); and tilapia (Tilapia spp.) and redbelly tilapia (T. zillii Gervais). In terms of function, the fish species were raised as seasonal, surplus produce for the institutions to which they were connected. The natural habits and habitats of these fish species in the wild reveal that they would have inherently kept the water features clean and pest-free after domestication. In terms of symbolism, the fish beautified the pools, ponds, fountains, or lakes and embodied beliefs concerning specific gods associated with the sun, the moon, and/or with the Old Kingdom-age funerary belief in fish shepherds (psychopomps) who guided the recently deceased for a time on their journey towards the hereafter in the West (jmntt).
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
Four of the 42 floral species have yet to be identified with a family and/or species with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant in hieroglyphs. In an interdisciplinary approach, the evidence of these four florae is assessed – from lexicography to ethnobotany and beyond – with the goal to identifying each with potential family(ies) and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy and to situate them into the interconnected milieu of Egypt and its neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Levant, and Near East from the 3rd millennium BCE to the 13th century AD.
Four of the 42 floral species have yet to be identified with a family and/or species with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant in hieroglyphs. In an interdisciplinary approach, the evidence of these four florae is assessed – from lexicography to ethnobotany and beyond – with the goal to identifying each with potential family(ies) and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy and to situate them into the interconnected milieu of Egypt and its neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, Levant, and Near East from the 3rd millennium BCE to the 13th century AD.
(1) Such types include the š-, the ḫnty-š-, the sš-, the k3mw-, the 'at-nt-ḫt-, and the ḥrrt-š-formal gardens.
These formal gardens were aesthetic landscapes used by the pharaohs, royals, and/or upper classes for sports, festivals, banquets, rituals, wakes, leisure, song, dance, and/or musical performances. More than 42 native and foreign floral and 11 faunal species were incorporated by architects into the landscape designs of early to mid-late 18th Dynasty Theban formal gardens. The flora and fauna both beautified the landscapes and functioned as surplus produce (rnpwt) for the institutions to which they were connected. The flora and fauna in the formal gardens were overseen, cultivated, collected, and administered by intricate networks of individuals (Reichart 2021; Reichart 2022; Reichart forthcoming).
Four of these 42 floral species have yet to be identified with certainty by scholars: the mnw-plant, the mnwḥ-plant, and the ṯwn-plant, and the iḥy-plant. Current evidence from the Egyptian record as well as previous scholarship on the four florae will be examined in this case study, and when possible, attempt to identify each with a particular family and/or species from our modern plant taxonomy.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
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 š-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 ḫnty-š, the sš, the k3mw, the 'at-nt-ḫt, and the ḥrrt-š-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 š- 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 b3 and k3 of the tomb-owner after death.
This article highlights the function and symbolism of five fish species propagated in the water features of these formal gardens' landscape designs: carp (Labeo spp.); elephantfish (Petrocephalus/Marcusenius spp.); Egyptian trunkfish (Mormyrus spp.); catfish (Synodontis spp.); and tilapia (Tilapia spp.) and redbelly tilapia (T. zillii Gervais). In terms of function, the fish species were raised as seasonal, surplus produce for the institutions to which they were connected. The natural habits and habitats of these fish species in the wild reveal that they would have inherently kept the water features clean and pest-free after domestication. In terms of symbolism, the fish beautified the pools, ponds, fountains, or lakes and embodied beliefs concerning specific gods associated with the sun, the moon, and/or with the Old Kingdom-age funerary belief in fish shepherds (psychopomps) who guided the recently deceased for a time on their journey towards the hereafter in the West (jmntt).