� I )---------- ----------------1 I i�

• 
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    • 
      
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  

--- ---

--

--

--

-----

--

• 
  

--

• --


• 
  


• 
  


• 
  

--

• 
  

------

• 
  

-----

---

--

-- --

--

--

• 
  

--

• 
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    • 
      
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  

---.-

• 
  

(b)

(c) t

1---

---

(d)

018

(e)

---

t!

1---

---

i

FIgure 4a. Beam A, fro nt. Drawing by Sameh Adly.

Figure 4b. Beam A, reverse. Drawing by Sameh Ad/y.

Figure 4c. Beam B, fro nt. Drawing by Sameh Adly.

Figure 4d. Beam B, reverse as preserved today. Drawing by Sameh Ad/y.

Figure 4e. Beam B, recol1structed. Drawil1g by Sameh Ad/y.

beam icons in the church of St. Mercurius Abu's-Saifain are not only con­
structed from planks of the same irregular dimensions, but the wood looks
so similar that it could come from one tree. The wood was identified as
sycamore (Ficus sycomorus L.): the traverses are made from cypress (Cupressus
sempervirens var. horizontalis Gord.) (11).

The Egyptian sycamore tree

The peculiar shape and dimensions of the support planks of the beam icons
A and B might have been dictated by the diameter of the tree trunk that
provided the timber. It does not seem probable that the patron of such sig­
nificant icons would economize on the timber. The choice of painter and
quality of materials usually testifY to the resources and intentions of the client.
For the art historian, the interest of this research lies not only in the date and
provenance of the wood (provide by dendrochronological tests), but mainly
in the reason why sycamore timber was preferred (12). The use of sycamore
fo r these icons might have derived from the holy attributes of the tree, which
would have been of great importance to the patron.

Skalova 87