Czére Andrea szerk.: A Szépművészeti Múzeum közleményei 102-103. (Budapest, 2005)

ANNUAL REPORT 2005 - A 2005. ÉV - LÁSZLÓ TÖRÖK: After the Pharaos: Treasures of Coptic Art from Egyptian Collections

AFTER THE PHARAOHS: TREASURES OF COPTIC ART FROM EGYPTIAN COLLECTIONS 18 March - 22 May 2005. Conception and catalogue: László Török; museum curator: Árpád Miklós Nagy LÁSZLÓ TÖRÖK, AFTER THE PHARAOHS: TREASURES OF COPTIC ART FROM EGYPTIAN COLLECTIONS. BUDAPEST 2005. ENGLISH TEXT. 278 PP.. 363 COL. ILLS., ISBN 963 9552 56 9 The achievements of the Egyptian culture of the Pharaonic period have dazzled the Western world ever since the ancient Greeks made their first acquaintance with the land on the Nile. With the early nineteenth-century decipherment of the hieroglyphs, the large-scale archaeological exploration of the monuments of Egypt and the foundation of collections of Egyptian antiquities, Pharaonic Egypt became an organic element of universal culture. New discoveries in the land of the pharaohs continue to make headlines in the journals, and there is no year without a major travelling exhibition of Pharaonic art, never failing to fascinate tens of thousands of new fans of Ancient Egypt. As opposed to Pharaonic Egypt before the conquest of the land by Alexander the Great in 332 B. C., the culture of Egypt under Ptolemaic (332-30 B. C.) and Roman/Byzantine rule (30 B. C. - 639/646 A.D.) remains largely unknown and generally unappreciated. Exhibitions organised in the last few decades highlighted some important aspects of the period between the foundation of the Ptolemaic dynasty and the Arab conquest in 639/646 A.D., as, e.g., the interaction between traditional Egyptian religion and Hellenistic and Roman cults, political ideology, and art forms, or the formation of special Egyptian stylistic features in the Coptic, i.e., late Romanearly Byzantine period (mid-third to seventh centuries A.D.). On the whole, however, the social context, chronology and international context of the art of these periods remained obscure, and Coptic art, though generally celebrated as a special chapter of art history, is poorly understood. Following the trends set by early twentieth century historiography, art historians interpret traditionally the monuments of Coptic art along ethnic (Greek/Roman versus native Egyptian), socio-ethnic (non-Egyptian ruling classes versus native peasantry), religious (pagan versus Christian), and confessional (Monophysite versus Orthodox) dividing lines.