Object studies and cognition

To relate the physical object more to its function, we consider the communicative power of the physical object. To this end, we draw on the potential of cognitive and communicative models to elucidate how an object can communicate. Approaching an object study from a cognitive perspective requires a localization within distributed cognition, by which cognition is ‘spread out over the brain, the non-neural body and … an environment consisting of objects, tools, other artefacts, texts, individuals, groups and/or social/institutional structures’ (Anderson et al. Reference Anderson, Wheeler, Sprevak, Anderson, Cairns and Sprevak2019, 2; also Malafouris Reference Malafouris2013, 2–3). Within this framework, the specific approach is ‘extended cognition’, whereby ‘the material vehicles [like tools, CD] that realise the thinking and thoughts concerned are spatially distributed over brain, body and world’ (see Anderson et al. Reference Anderson, Wheeler, Sprevak, Anderson, Cairns and Sprevak2019, 4; also Malafouris Reference Malafouris2013, 4–5). Such ideas are key to ‘cognitive archaeology’, which interrogates not ‘what people thought, but rather how they carried out their thinking in interaction with others and the material world’ (Iliopoulos & Malafouris Reference Iliopoulos, Malafouris and Smith2014, 1522; also Renfrew Reference Renfrew and Hodder2001, 128–9).

This position can be taken further, away from just the human use of objects as part of the cognitive process towards human interaction with objects: in cases of object agency, ‘a human agent delegates agency to an artefact—as with a speed-bump, or a landmine’ (Knappett Reference Knappett2011, 172, also Gell Reference Gell1998). Actor Network Theory (ANT) goes so far as to theorize the human–object relationship as being ‘symmetrical’, whereby agency is affected on both sides by diverse material properties (Knappett Reference Knappett2011, 172).

However, an approach tying people (and their minds) to objects, though illuminating, is not granular enough to decode, once we have established the nexus between thought process and object-making, how this object is specifically structured to work in the world.Footnote ¹⁰ Thus, the proposed framework draws on reality-structuring models like semioticsFootnote ¹¹ and communicative models. Compared to other cognitive models, like phenomenology, which focuses on the similarity of human spatial perception (Van Dyke Reference Van Dyke and Smith2014, 5909), this approach explicitly takes objects and (inter-subjective) meaning making as the main idea. To this end, the priorities of senders and receivers are taken into consideration, though I hasten to add that such roles are theoretical and predominantly serve to model a communicative act in the visual medium.

A model's intelligibility, from the perspective of the sender, is entailed by taking stock of what was able to be built and depicted in three dimensions, given the confines of material, size, space or budget, as well, of course, as the taste of the future owner. It is proposed that the constraint of practicability is the necessary correlate to the functionality of the scene depicted and helps to constitute a specific type of essentialism key to ancient Egyptian artistic production. This essentialism is based around a series of aesthetic choices in the model-making process, such as thematic simplification, structural simplification and modification, authentication and structural isolation.

From the perspective of the receiver, we can also isolate several factors that guarantee intelligibility, which are tied to semiotic principles that Angenot (Reference Angenot and Hartwig2015, 102–4) applied to two-dimensional Egyptian visual material. What we will notice is that many of the cognitive processes behind the semiotic principles can be based on transfer processes that transcend culture and aesthetics, such as metonymy and metaphor, which occur both in linguistic and visual modalities, as well as in the built environment and in landscapes.Footnote ¹²

Semiotics

Semiotics, the study of ‘the mechanism of meaning production for all signifying systems’ (Angenot Reference Angenot and Hartwig2015, 98), has long been a valuable conceptual tool in the field of cognitive archaeology.Footnote ¹³ The comprehensibility of a sign across time and space is not a given, but Peirce's sign typology gives us insight into what might be transparent to the modern analytical gaze and what remains opaque. For instance, a ‘symbol’ stands in an arbitrary relationship to its object and is the least intelligible, an ‘index’ relates to its object in a contiguous way and an ‘icon’ stands in a relationship of similarity to its object (Peirce Reference Peirce1931–1958, CP 1.369). Whereas Pilz (Reference Pilz2011, 9), who likewise applies the semiotic perspective to miniature objects, identifies miniatures as ‘iconic signs’, I think the situation is more complex. Though the models in question show a great deal of iconicity (i.e., a small garden for a garden), many of the more interesting features come from the objects’ indexical features (i.e., a gesture for an action) (see section Metaphor and metonymy, below). Because of both iconic and indexical features, the models have the potential to be unambiguous to any viewer. How this may be the case has been suggested by Angenot (Reference Angenot and Hartwig2015, 102–4) who presents a series of general semiotic principles for ‘univalence’,Footnote ¹⁴ or lack of ambiguity, when it comes to interpreting a sign:

1. 1) typicality (based on taxonomy/classification, which is culturally determined)

2. 2) readability (i.e., recognizability of an image)

3. 3) schematization (referring, e.g., to movement, variation and colour schemes) and density (i.e., degree of detail in an image)

4. 4) functionality (i.e., allowing for perspectives not necessarily possible in real life but contributing to comprehensibility)

5. 5) durability of specific culturally important motifs.

We shall be reflecting on the applicability of these conditions to the communicative potential of Egyptian ‘models’ in the section The reception of models (below), where the needs of the receiver or viewer are modelled.

Communication theory

To understand the communicative potential of ‘models’ more deeply, especially from the perspective of the sender/producer, one must consider how communicative acts are enacted. From the perspective of object studies, Knappett (Reference Knappett2011, 9) uses Social Network Analysis (SNA) to model the role of material culture in human interaction. However, such an approach does not suit the purposes of this study, in which not social interactions, but rather the meaning-making that comes out of these interactions, is being modelled. The approach proposed is thus based on communication theory, in which the objects/signs are considered in their intersubjective context. According to Jakobson (Reference Jakobson and Sebeok1960), six factors are necessary for successful communication to occur:

1. 1) context (and co-text of the whole message)

2. 2) addresser (sender)

3. 3) addressee (receiver)

4. 4) contact between sender and receiver

5. 5) common code

6. 6) message.

The interaction of such factors helps us start to unpack the communicative potential of models, though models lack the focus and scope of conventional communication. From this perspective, the context could be the archaeological find-spot, the artefacts found in the same matrix, or thematically related models. As for the addresser/sender and the addressee/receiver, it is most reasonable, given the paucity of explicit evidence, to regard their interaction as a ‘pseudo-communication’ of the sort otherwise seen in ritual activity, whereby the message takes priority over the identification of any individual agent (Schneider Reference Schneider, Gloy and Bachmann2000). This idea could plausibly be tied to Actor Network Theory, in which the model ‘interacts’ (via its qualities of meaning-making, elaborated above) with human agents/viewers. Otherwise, we could see the primary sender as the craftsperson and the receiver as the tomb owner, although this person presumably purchased the object with the view that a secondary communicative act would take place, between themselves (now the secondary sender) and other theoretical viewers (living and dead, human and supernatural agents). We could also count the modern viewer as a receiver, though one cannot presume that the same conceptual processes would transcend cultures and millennia. The contact in this case concerns the visible physical features of the model itself, whereas the common code reflects the semiotic and cognitive principles that make the physical features both recognizable and meaningful. Lastly, the message pertains to the meaning and function conveyed in the visual features of the object.

Metaphor and metonymy

To ensure that the meaning or ‘message’ behind this object type is understood, a last cognitively driven dimension is expedient. After all, the message of the image is conveyed via comprehensible semiotic cues (the common code) that comprise literal expressions and meaning transfers like metaphor and metonymy, which are common across linguistic and visual modalities.

Metaphor is a transfer process which establishes a similarity relation between two conceptual structures, called ‘domains’ in studies of cognition (Kövecses Reference Kövecses2002, 4). By this means, in the phrase ‘lovesick’, an abstract entity like love (the target domain in Conceptual Metaphor Theory),Footnote ¹⁵ is conceptualized in terms of a more concrete entity, like sickness (the source domain), based on a relation of similarity (in behaviour or feeling) between the two entities (Goatly Reference Goatly2011, 16). Though metaphors often transcend culture and aesthetics (such as important is big), some are limited to single cultures (Di Biase-Dyson Reference Di Biase-Dyson, Stauder-Porchet, Stauder and Wendrich2017; Kövecses Reference Kövecses2005).

Metonymy establishes a relationship of contiguity between two connected elements of a single domain, like cause for effect (Radden & Kövecses Reference Radden and Kövecses1999, 19). Metonymy (in which grouping I include synecdoche, or part for whole relations) is often less culturally bound, and cognitively speaking, more basic than metaphorical transfer. Perhaps for this reason, metonymy is often—as here—more apparent in the visual domain than metaphor. The part-for-whole relationship that a miniature object can hold to its full-sized referent has already been discussed by archaeologists (Bailey Reference Bailey2005, 33; Pilz Reference Pilz2011), but as we shall see, our model corpus demonstrates conceptual links of more diversity and complexity than this. Firstly, a range of metonymic, i.e., contiguous, relationships can be noted in the signification of the models, showing us the kinds of ‘indexical’ qualities discussed in section Semiotics (above). Also, the metonymic components sometimes form chains with a loose narrative basis, whereby gesture for action (a part for whole metonymy) is followed causally by action for action sequence (a part for whole metonymy) and action sequence for effect of action sequence (a cause for effect metonymy). We shall explore the role of such mappings and sequences in the production of these models in the following sections.

Thematic simplification

Thematic simplification, i.e., the selective elimination of detail, is a noted feature of ‘miniatures’ in general (Davy & Dixon Reference Davy, Dixon, Davy and Dixon2019, 9–10), since they undergo processes of ‘abstraction and compression’ (Bailey Reference Bailey2005, 32). This process is indicated in the Egyptian ‘model’ corpus, for instance, by the reduction of the court of a granary, as in the model of the official Meketre from his tomb in Thebes (Luxor) (Fig. 1), to represent granary-based (labour and administrative) activities. It is represented thus even though archaeological evidence in Abydos, Elephantine and Nubia indicates that such areas were frequently multifunctional, for ‘grinding grain, cooking, keeping and butchering animals, and water storage’ (Kemp Reference Kemp1986, 120–36) (Adams Reference Adams, Hawass and Richards2007, 6, 9; Arnold Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 60, 62; von Pilgrim Reference von Pilgrim1996, 85–100).

However, the opposite can also be true: for the purpose of compactness or economy, several potentially unrelated scenes can be shown on the same model, such as the granary, bakery and weaving shed model of Djehuty from Lisht (Eskenazi Museum of Art 58.34: Tooley Reference Tooley1989, 53, 109). This issue tests the limits of verisimilitude: the frequent adjacency of baking and brewing scenes may indicate their actual physical adjacency, but the grouping may also be convenient (Ikram Reference Ikram1995, 86).

The model bull from Asyut tomb 14 of Wepwawet-em-hat may also exemplify thematic simplification (Chassinat & Palanque Reference Chassinat and Palanque1911: 164). Since the bull is uncharacteristically presented alone, rather than in a scene, it has been considered whether—if it is intended to be a stand-alone piece—it represents a cattle-counting scene or a butchery scene via a part for whole transfer. This, incidentally, is ‘the only major type of food production otherwise missing from Wepwawet-em-hat's tomb’ (Roehrig Reference Roehrig, D'Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig1988b, 101).Footnote ²⁵

Another example is provided by Djehutynakht's crudely-finished offering bearers (e.g., MFA 21.418).Footnote ²⁶ These figures have nothing in their right hands (where a duck is customary), their baskets are filled with unidentifiable contents and they are portrayed standing, not in a striding posture (Freed & Doxey Reference Freed, Doxey, Freed, Berman, Doxey and Picardo2009, 154–6, fig. 114). However, since the women are standing and supporting baskets on their heads with their left hands, the salient features by which to identify them are present.

Structural simplification and modification

The process of structural simplification might involve a part for whole metonymic transfer, whereby one small, roofed room stands for a large, roofed area, as seen by a comparison of the granary of Meketre (Fig. 1) with the granary inside the fortress in Mirgissa, in which the columns indicate a roofed area, fronted by an open hall with a dais (Kemp Reference Kemp1986, 125–9).Footnote ²⁷

Simplification was also involved in the portrayal of the walls of granaries. Although in the archaeological record there is a documented practice of building double walls around granaries and filling the space between them with sand (as a desiccant or to protect against rodents, or both),Footnote ²⁸ this practice is not attested in models, which presumably has to do with the isolation of each individual structure, a feature I shall discuss in the section Structural isolation, below.

Simplification might also be entailed in the fact that many (earlier) models—and butchery models in particular—were built on a plinth, without walls, as seen in the model of Khety from Beni Hassan (Fitzwilliam Museum E.71c.1903: Bourriau Reference Bourriau1988, 106). Ikram (Reference Ikram1995, 86) suggests that these features were ‘meant to suggest that this was an open-air activity’, though she concedes that the lack of architectural setting ‘might be due to model making conventions and/or convenience and economy’.

The columned area and garden of Meketre's identical residence models (MMA 20.3.13 and JE 46721)Footnote ²⁹ also show simplification by representing the house behind the colonnade only via doors and windows on the back wall of each model. These portals to the exterior stand for the interior of the house (Winlock Reference Winlock1955, pl. 10–11), establishing a part for whole metonymy in the relationship of door to structure (von Pilgrim Reference von Pilgrim1996, 204; also Kemp Reference Kemp1989, 152–3). Interestingly, this metonymic reduction may also have been present within the Egyptian language, as suggested by taxation records and wills, like ostracon DeM 00112 = IFAO 00334 (Kitchen Reference Kitchen1980, 546–7), in which the worth of structures is described with reference to their number of doors, or sbꜣ (von Pilgrim Reference von Pilgrim1996, 204, n. 565, referring to Helck Reference Helck1963, 338, 344).

Architectural structures could also be modified for the purpose of intelligibility. In this case, the lack of roofs on some model silos presents scholars with a contentious example. Silos without any roof may have been built this way to emphasize the contents (Garstang Reference Garstang1907, 87), though Winlock (Reference Winlock1955, 25 & 36, n. 8), in relation to Meketre's granary model (Fig. 1), challenges the idea, by supplying modern examples for the construction of open-roofed granaries. As Adams (Reference Adams, Hawass and Richards2007, 5) points out, ‘[i]t is difficult to see, however, how grain or other produce could have been kept safe from rodents, insects, occasional rainfall, and windborne dust and debris without a cover of some kind’. Archaeological evidence seems to indicate that most granaries were roofed, as seen in the Nubian fortress granaries (Kemp Reference Kemp1986, 121, 124–30), or at least had a removable cover, as seen on a silo in Elephantine (von Pilgrim Reference von Pilgrim1996, 45, Abb. 9, Taf. 3c). We can thus stand behind the early supposition of Garstang that the roofless construction of models was an aesthetic choice.

Meketre's slaughterhouse model (Fig. 2), the only model with a full roof, is really the only structure that challenges the simplification argument, which has heretofore justified the modification of walled and roofed structures for the sake of visibility (Arnold Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 2). The fact that the roof in question is removable may be a point to consider, however, and imply that the sender wanted the receiver to see inside the model if they desired.

Some structures are shown with a partial covering. Arnold (Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 46) argues that ‘[s]ince it seems to be irrelevant which part of the enclosure is covered, the incomplete covering may reasonably be understood as indicating a fully roofed building’. However, the degree of irrelevance of the roof's placement should perhaps be subjected to further scrutiny. A few partial covers are actually canopies, under which, for instance, the scribes could sit, as in the granary model of Sepi III from Deir el-Bersha (JE 32831: Tooley Reference Tooley1995, 41). These partial roofs could also be covers for storage areas, as seen in the storehouse, baking and brewing model of Karenen/Karenni and Nefersemdenet/Nefermedjdenyt from Saqqara (Cairo Museum temporary register 4/3/23/1: Quibell Reference Quibell1908, pl. XIX.1). The functionality of the canopy, as a means of providing shade, could thus imply a degree of verisimilitude in the structure, which thus corresponds to the next factor, that of authentication.

Authentication

Authentication, or verisimilitude, could be attained not only via depicting key parts of real structures but also via the use of cost-effective mixed media (Adams Reference Adams, Hawass and Richards2007, 5; Barker Reference Barker2018, 10–11; Tooley Reference Tooley1995, 40, 65). For instance, model figures were often dressed in scraps of real fabric and granaries were sometimes filled with real grain, as seen in a number of examples from Beni Hassan (Garstang Reference Garstang1907, 73, fig. 60 (tomb 116), 87, fig. 76 (tomb 186), 125, fig. 121 (tomb 575)) and also in Meketre's granary (Fig. 1; Winlock Reference Winlock1955, 87, pls. 20, 62), although on discovery only the husks remained (Winlock Reference Winlock1955, 26).

To this example we could also add the use of ‘real’ (i.e., functional) miniature tools in some carpentry models, pegs and most probably string in weaving models (JE 46723: Breasted Reference Breasted1948, 54, pl. 48b) and ponds in the garden models of Meketre (MMA 20.3.13 and JE 46721), which would have been filled with water, as suggested by state of the ponds’ copper lining (Winlock Reference Winlock1955, 83–4). Arnold takes a hermeneutic approach (Angenot Reference Angenot and Hartwig2015, 108), reading into these objects even further layers of meaning: that the garden ponds are shaped like offering basins and that the carpentry tools could be linked to rituals for the revivification of the mummy like the ‘opening of the mouth’ (Arnold Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 47). In this way, she argues that ‘the potency of a ritual object (a purification tank or a toolbox) is intensified by the addition of narrative elements taken from the real world’.

Structural isolation

Structural isolation implies the extraction of a model from its spatial context of other (supporting or adjacent) buildings, such as in the real-world case of the Abydos granary and its surrounding structures (Adams Reference Adams, Hawass and Richards2007, 7). The use of walls to demarcate or delimit this isolated architectural element in a model was undertaken first—and until the Twelfth Dynasty (c. 1990–1800 bce) exclusively—in the context of granaries (Arnold Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 26, 33). This was perhaps because granaries were too structurally complex to realize in any other way or because the architecture of granaries is so recognizable (and thus salient).

The containment of a model seems to be contingent on budget and artistry, and perhaps fashion and taste. Djehutynakht's models from Deir el-Bersha, for instance, rarely feature exterior structures, in contrast with Meketre's. Only Djehutynakht's eight granaries are enclosed in a box-shaped enclosure, without a roof (Roehrig Reference Roehrig, D'Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig1988c, 113, fig. 59; Freed & Doxey Reference Freed, Doxey, Freed, Berman, Doxey and Picardo2009, 162, fig. 121). However, an isolating aesthetic is not only achieved by walls. Arnold (Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 43–55) identifies seven different types of architectural settings for groups of figures doing various activities that ensure this structural delimitation: a flat board,Footnote ³⁰ a board with a back-board on one or two sides,Footnote ³¹ a board surrounded by a low wall,Footnote ³² a board with higher enclosure walls and a roof board that covers part of the structure,Footnote ³³ a granary with a new interpretation of the roof (namely, no longer for pouring in grain but for sitting on),Footnote ³⁴ intricately vaulted ceiling frameworks, seen mostly in models of spinning and weaving,Footnote ³⁵ and columned rooms, often with partial roofing or full roofing.Footnote ³⁶

Sometimes the isolation of a scene inside a walled structure complicates our interpretation of its verisimilitude, as can be seen from the dispute surrounding the above-mentioned slaughterhouse model of Meketre (Fig. 2), which is uniquely represented inside a complex structure. Whereas Ikram (Reference Ikram1995, 87–8) regards the model as a representation of an actual structure on Meketre's estate, the use of interior structures with columns as slaughterhouses is unattested in two-dimensional representations (Arnold Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 25). Arnold (Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 56) thus concludes that it is ill-advised to take the model as a ‘straightforward depiction of an actual ancient Egyptian slaughterhouse’ and implies thereby that the structure is an ideation of a situation which may have little or no relation to real architectural structures. As Arnold (Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 48) argues, ‘the basic idea of using high positioned windows to created [sic] an airy and shaded environment inside buildings existed in Egypt as early as the Middle Kingdom’. Given this, the interesting part is that the airiness and shadiness of the environment is what the structure may be being used to convey in relation to butchery, in other words, that optimal conditions ensured that Meketre's meat was of the best quality. Thus, it seems clear via these tendencies that producers/senders were not depicting but rather interpreting the ‘real world’ to fulfil a specific agenda (i.e., of provisioning), given that these objects were destined for use in a funerary context.

Typicality

A receiver might see typicality, which is tied to taxonomy, in the use of beef to stand for the provision of animal protein, since the plucking of birds and the catching of fish are comparably underrepresented in the model corpus. Both appear, however, in the opulent model sets of Meketre (Fig. 2 and JE 46715),Footnote ³⁷ and the numerous skiffs, even the unmanned ones, may also stand metonymically (instrument for action and part for whole, perhaps place for activity performed at that place) for the well-documented activities of fishing and fowling. Perhaps depictions of these actions were reduced in this way for the purpose of practicability, as discussed in the previous section. We may also see typicality in the gender roles depicted, whereby women weave and carry offerings and men undertake most other activities.

Readability

Readability, or recognizability of an image, is contingent on the fact that there is a degree of medial awareness, or aesthetic priming, taking place. This priming is based on real-world structures or situations, or motifs in other media, such as two-dimensional scenes, and is thus iconic in scope. This factor is supported by the limited repertoire of activities represented in models (Tooley Reference Tooley1995, 16–18).

The lack of cover on the silos in a granary (MMA 20.3.11, Fig. 1) could increase its readability, since, as discussed in the section Authentication above, this feature is widely considered not to have reflected real-life conditions (Adams Reference Adams, Hawass and Richards2007, 5; Badawy Reference Badawy1966, 31; Roehrig Reference Roehrig, D'Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig1988c, 113). What is also unusual is the shape of the silos themselves (section on The production of models), in which ‘painters and relief artists most often chose the older, dome shaped type of structure, because this was more recognizable in the profile view’, whereas ‘the model makers preferred the rectangular grain receptacles because they were much easier to make in wood’ (Arnold Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 60). Nevertheless, the readability of granary structures, thanks to the outer perimeter with its characteristic peaked edges, is indisputable.

The columned porticoes of houses may also have been unambiguous to the Egyptian eye. As Arnold (Reference Arnold and Jánosi2005, 58, referring to von Pilgrim Reference von Pilgrim1996, 207–8) stipulates, ‘columns and porticoes evoked administration, oversight and the presence of authority’. Many other potential cases of readability overlap with the principles of typicality and schematization and will be handled in those sections.

Schematization and density

Schematization stands on a cline in relation to density to refer to the degree of detail and variation used in the representation of such features as movement, colour, perhaps shape and number. All these factors can affect the intelligibility of a model's design.

Functionality

Functionality is the principle that allows for perspectives to be portrayed that are not necessarily possible in real life but nevertheless contribute to an image's comprehensibility. The world of models supplies breaks in the relative proportionality of the components of a single model, of which the best examples are the toolboxes, which are oversized (and thus in relation to the human figures look more like coffins) because they are filled with real miniature tools.Footnote ⁴³ Since both boxes are closed, unless the receiver knows what they are looking at, the principle of readability does not apply here. However, those of Meketre are openable, mirroring the roof of his butchery model.

Durability of specific culturally important motifs

Motifs are usually durable because they relate in some way to conceptual primaries, or what Adams (Reference Adams, Hawass and Richards2007, 11) calls ‘cultural ideals’, which may not only affect object-making, but also affect how such objects are or were viewed. In this category, greater degrees of abstraction and cross-domain mapping—metaphors, in other words—are visible. For instance, in the scale of some models, the metaphors important is big, important is up and their correlates may play a role, though there are exceptions to the rule. Meketre is depicted in his cattle-count model as only slightly larger than the other figures.Footnote ⁴⁴ He and all people of higher status are seated or standing on a plinth, and the tomb-owner is the only figure seated on a chair. As ‘sitting was superior to standing’ (Robins Reference Robins2008, 73), Meketre is indubitably represented as the individual with the highest status.

One might ask why scribes, especially in granaries, were often depicted in the uppermost part of the model. It may be indicative of the important is up metaphor, but since the uppermost area is also where visibility was high, it may just have been an element of realism. The latter is likely, on the grounds that the opposite can also occur. Meketre's granary model (Fig. 1) has the scribes in the lowest, but most salient position: whereas the workmen must climb the stairs to dump the grain into the silo from above, the scribes are seated in the front hall along the central entryway to the silo. From this vantage point, they are privy to the entry of every sack on the back of a workman. By contrast, unimportant is down may be seen not only in the portrayal of the workers driving the cattle in Meketre's cattle-count model (JE 46724),Footnote ⁴⁵ but also by the cow in Meketre's manger (MMA 20.3.9),Footnote ⁴⁶ which, in the process of being hand-fed, is seated on (or has sunk onto) the floor. A similar case appears in a model of Djehutynakht (Freed & Doxey Reference Freed, Doxey, Freed, Berman, Doxey and Picardo2009, 160–61, fig. 119).

Another issue of scale, perhaps related to the metaphor important is big, is the fact that human figures (and sometimes animals) are often too large for the structure in which they stand.Footnote ⁴⁷ The extent to which humans were routinely larger than their animals is unresolved. Winlock (Reference Winlock1955, 21–2) assumed that the cattle in Meketre's count scene were to scale and therefore ‘food cattle’ rather than larger beasts of burden. Gilbert (Reference Gilbert1988, 71–2) follows this logic and presumes that the cattle in question were young. However, this would mean that under any other circumstances the cattle would not be to scale, which calls into question the plausibility of this idea. In any case, the opposite scale also occurs: in a milking model (Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim, Inv. Nr. 1690: Tooley Reference Tooley1995, 50), the cow dwarfs the human. It thus seems that considerations regarding human and animal scale in relation to real prototypes must be regarded with caution. More relevant seems to be the primacy of conceptual metaphors, like important is big, which consider the relative saliency of elements in the scene. Moreover, we must bear in mind that is is not the individuals, but the activity for which they metonymically stand (actor for action), which has visual—and thus conceptual—primacy.