Current Research in Egyptology 2000 9781841712079, 9781407352534

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
SYMPOSIUM PAPERS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS VOLUME
The Ptolemaic Influence on Egyptian Royal Sculpture
Hysteria Revisited: Women's Public Health in Ancient Egypt
Transportation of Quarried Hard Stone from Lower Nubia to Giza During the Old Kingdom
Tomb Construction Along the Unas Causeway
Clothing and the Construction of Identity: Examples from the Old and New Kingdoms
Occupational Health in Ancient Egypt: The Evidence from Artistic Representation
Papyrological Evidence of Travelling in Byzantine Egypt
Hieratic Ostraca and Jar Labels from Tell El-Amarna: Problems and Potential
Tall Tails: The Seth Animal Reconsidered
Pictorial Evidence Depicting the Interaction Between the King and His People in Ancient Egypt
When, How and Where -- The Application of Science to Egyptology
Evidence for Late Bronze Age Libyan Culture at the New Kingdom Egyptian Fortress of Zawiyet Umm El-Rakham
An Archetype Model for the Semantics of Iconography in New Kingdom Egypt
Accuracy Issues in Ancient Egyptian Stellar Timekeeping
The Police in Byzantine Egypt: The Hierarchy in the Papyri from the Fourth to the Seventh Centuries
Of Meaning and Modality in Middle Egyptian Object Complementation
Dental Health and Disease Over the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

Citation preview

BAR S909 2000 McDONALD & RIGGS (Eds.): CURRENT RESEARCH IN EGYPTOLOGY 2000

B A R

Current Research in Egyptology 2000 Edited by

Angela McDonald Christina Riggs

BAR International Series 909 2000

Current Research in Egyptology 2000 Edited by

Angela McDonald Christina Riggs

BAR International Series 909 2000

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford

BAR International Series 909 Current Research in Egyptology 2000

© The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2000 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712079 paperback ISBN 9781407352534 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712079 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2000. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS FOREWORD

111

SYMPOSIUM PAPERS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS VOLUME

lV

THE PTOLEMAIC INFLUENCE ON EGYPTIAN ROYAL SCULPTURE

Sally-Ann Ashton HYSTERIA REVISITED: WOMEN'S PUBLIC HEALTH IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Andrew Bednarski

11

TRANSPORTATION OF QUARRIED HARD STONE FROM LOWER NUBIA TO GIZA DURING THE OLD KINGDOM

Elizabeth Bloxam

19

TOMB CONSTRUCTION ALONG THE UNAS CAUSEWAY

Ashley Cooke

29

CLOTHING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY: EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD AND NEW KINGDOMS

Rachael J. Dann

41

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IN ANCIENT EGYPT: THE EVIDENCE FROM ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION

Caroline Hebron

45

P APYROLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF TRA YELLING IN BYZANTINE EGYPT

Chrisi Kotsifou HIERATIC OSTRACA AND ]AR LABELS FROM TELL EL-AMARNA:

57 PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL

Dan Lines

65

TALL TAILS: THE SETH ANIMAL RECONSIDERED

Angela McDonald

75

PICTORIAL EVIDENCE DEPICTING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE KING AND HIS PEOPLE IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Sherine El Menshawy

83

WHEN, How AND WHERE - THE APPLICATION OF SCIENCE TO EGYPTOLOGY

A. J. Shortland

91

EVIDENCE FOR LA TE BRONZE AGE LIBYAN CULTURE AT THE NEW KINGDOM EGYPTIAN FORTRESS OF ZA WIYET UMM EL-RAKHAM

Fiona Simpson

97

'nb:AN ARCHETYPE

MODEL FOR THE SEMANTICS OF ICONOGRAPHY IN NEW KINGDOM EGYPT

Akiko Sugi

103

ACCURACY ISSUES IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN STELLAR TIMEKEEPING

Sarah Symons

111

THE POLICE IN BYZANTINE EGYPT: THE HIERARCHY IN THE PAPYRI FROM THE FOURTH TO THE SEVENTH CENTURIES

Sofia Torallas Tovar 115 OF MEANING AND MODALITY IN MIDDLE EGYPTIAN OBJECT COMPLEMENTATION

Sarni Uljas

125

DENT AL HEAL TH AND DISEASE OVER THE PREDYNASTIC AND EARLY DYNASTIC PERIODS

Sonia R. Zakrzewski

135

11

FOREWORD

In order to foster communication and the exchange of ideas among students of Egyptology at institutions in the United Kingdom, we conceived the idea of bringing together graduate students and recent recipients of the doctorate in a two-day symposium. The UK enjoys a wealth of Egyptological resources, but in the absence of a regular professional forum, it is difficult for graduate students from different universities to interact. 'Current Research in Egyptology' provided such an opportunity. We were pleased by the enthusiastic response to our call for papers, and on 13-14 January, 2000, 29 speakers and 30 audience members gathered in the Headley Lecture Theatre at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford to take part in the event. The present volume collects more than half of the papers presented at the symposium. In many cases, the papers constitute ongoing research, offering the authors an opportunity to formulate the current state of their work and present it to a wider audience. Whilst we have standardized the overall format of the published papers, we have left many matters of style to the discretion of the author; abbreviations for periodicals and reference work adhere to the conventions of the Lexikon der Agyptologie, vol. 7, edited by E. Otto and W. Westendorf (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992). Unfortunately, several symposium papers could not be included in this volume because the research is part of larger project or is awaiting journal publication. On the following page, we have included a list of those speakers and their paper titles. We are indebted to the Griffith Institute of the University of Oxford, whose sponsorship made the symposium possible; in particular, we thank Dr. P.R.S. Moorey for his support. Lindsay O'Nions and Dr. Helen Whitehouse of the Ashmolean Museum were instrumental in securing the symposium's venue, and Somerville College hosted the closing dinner. We were grateful for the assistance of Jenny Cashman and Tom Hardwick during the symposium. We would also like to thank Prof. John Baines and our fellow students at Oxford for their support throughout the preparations for the symposium and this volume. Finally, we thank David Davison of Archaeopress for making the publication of the symposium possible. 'Current Research in Egyptology' will run for a second year at the University of Liverpool, organized by Ashley Cooke and Fiona Simpson, and we hope that it will continue to provide a forum for graduate discussion for many years to come.

Angela McDonald Christina Riggs November 2000

lll

SYMPOSIUM PAPERS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS VOLUME (alphabetical by author) Scribal equipment: from object to hieroglyph and symbol Jenny Cashman Lincoln College, Oxford The Helipolitan Ennead Stephanie Cousin University College London The development of fortified settlements in Late Roman and early Islamic Egypt Alison Gascoigne Darwin College, Cambridge Some aspects of Saite historical texts Roberto Gozzoli University of Birmingham Ptolemaic foundations on the Red Sea coast: the Pithom Stele in context Katja Mueller Peterhouse College, Cambridge The measure ofreality? Some critical remarks on quantification in Old Kingdom funerary archaeology Hans-Hubertus Munch The Queen's College, Oxford Facing the dead: issues in the funerary art of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt Christina Riggs The Queen's College, Oxford A site database for Egyptian Predynastic/Early Dynastic cemetery sites Joanne Mary Rowland University College London Questions of Isis and other religious texts: the unpublished Papyrus Vienna D.12006 Martin Stadler Universitiit Wurzburg The UCL/SCA excavations at the Predynatic/Early Dynastic sites ofKafr Hassan Dawood and Minshat Ezzat G.J. Tassie University College London Pastoralism and the prehistoric background of the Narmer palette David Wengrow St. Hugh's College, Oxford The lunar cycle as a leitmotiv along the middle axis of the Horus Temple at Edfu Susanne Woodhouse Universitiit Hamburg

lV

THE PTOLEMAIC INFLUENCE ON EGYPTIAN ROY AL SCULPTURE

Sally-Ann Ashton The Ptolemies ruled Egypt for almost 300 years, from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, when Ptolemy, son of Lagos, took control of Egypt until the suicide of Cleopatra VII in 30 BC and the annexation of Egypt by Rome. Although the Ptolemaic monarchs were in origin Macedonian Greeks, they embraced the art and religion of Egypt, producing images of themselves as both Hellenistic Greek kings and Egyptian pharaohs. The term Ptolemaic is often used by Egyptologists to refer to material which reflects the Egyptian character of the Macedonian rulers, with Hellenistic used to describe their Greek persona. The Ptolemaic rulers were by their nature divided and the term Ptolemaic should reflect this unique character and thus combine both identities. That is not to say, however, that these two identities were merged. On the contrary they remained distinct throughout the period and royal representations continued to be produced according to both the Greek and Egyptian traditions. Whilst the Greek representations remain unadulterated, there is evidence for adoption of Greek attributes on the Egyptian-style royal statuary from the end of the third century BC. This phenomenon occurs at several different levels and on different types of royal sculpture in the following categories: 1. Egyptian statues of male rulers with Greek portrait features and hair. (Figs. 1 and 2) 2. Egyptian statues of female rulers with Greek iconographic attributes on statues of Ptolemaic queens. (Fig. 3) 3. Egyptian versions of Greek portraits of both male and female rulers. (Fig. 4) 4. Egyptian parallels of Greek iconography, such as the double uraeus and double cornucopia associated with Arsinoe IL (Figs. 5 and 6) Scholarly opinion differs as to the earliest manifestation of the adoption of Greek features on Egyptian royal statuary. 1 There is substantial evidence to suggest that the Egyptian 1 The colossal granite head from Canopus (Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria 3364) is usually cited as the earliest representation to show a non-Egyptian influence: Dutilh 1905, 49; Breccia 1926, 60 no. 13; Needler 1949, 135; Kyrieleis 1975, 44-46 D2; Kreikenbom 1992, 123-24; Bothmer 1996, 220 fig. 18; Smith 1988, no. 80; Grimm 1998, 99. Kiss 1976, 301 and 1984, 80 suggests that the head is a representation of the Roman emperor Caracalla; in Ashton forthcoming, it will be suggested that this sculpture is closer to statues that are generally accepted to represent Ptolemies IX or X. There are also problems over the dating of a colossal statue from Karnak (Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 12108/CG 70 I), which was originally identified as Alexander lV by Mahaffy 1895, 37. Then as Ptolemy 11by Borchardt 1930, no. 701; Noshy 1937, 138; and Gebauer 1938/9, 48. Both Needler 1949, 134 and Bothmer 1960, 133 suggested a date of post 200 BC. Grimm and Johannes 1975, 18-19 no. 13 dated the statue to the late second-early first century BC, which was accepted by Parlasca 1978, 26-27 who identified it as Ptolemy X. Kiss 1984, 42-3 preferred to identify the statue as a representation of Tiberius. The view held in Ashton forthcoming agrees with that of Kyrieleis 1975, 173 E 11, who suggested by comparison with the Greek images of Ptolemy V that the Karnak statue represented the same ruler.

artists were aware of the Greek tradition and styles from early in the dynasty, as indicated on relief stelae such as that of a queen now in the Royal Ontario Museum Toronto, which shows the subject standing with a sceptre behind her rather than in front, in the usual Egyptian fashion and making an offering at a type of altar commonly found on the Greek faience cult vases. 2 On this stela the artist has adapted the posture of the queen in order to incorporate the altar and the position of the left arm, which reaches outwards. The crucial Egyptian components remain unaffected, namely the costume, crown and sceptre to distinguish the queen and the pose of the male ruler, making an offering. However, the scene itself becomes confused; rather than simply receiving the offering that is made to her, the queen herself gestures to the Greek-style altar, which thus interferes with the scene. A different form of Greek influence can be found on a later stela celebrating Ptolemy IV's victory at the battle of Raphia in November 217 BC. 3 At the top of the text is a traditional scene showing Ptolemy IV on horseback, accompanied by his wife, Arsinoe, standing before the Egyptian gods. It is striking that Ptolemy wears a Macedonian battle-dress and not the traditional Egyptian kilt. This representation therefore shows the pharaoh in a costume from his own culture, a feature common in representations of Persians. 4 Although neither example correlates with the later adoption of Greek features on representations in the round since the Egyptian form of the statues is not compromised, the confusion on the Toronto stela might suggest that such examples were early experiments in the use of Greek features by Egyptians. This view was first postulated by Bianchi, who suggested that once the Greek attributes were accepted within the Egyptian repertoire, they ceased to affect the nature of the statues, which remained essentially Egyptian in form. 5 Certainly by the time of Ptolemy VI, and possibly under his predecessor Ptolemy V, there is consistent evidence for the adoption of Greek features on Egyptian sculpture in the round. 6 Furthermore, the features allow for a deliberate

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto 979.63; see Quaegebeur 1988, 46 fig. 16. Her crown is of the type commonly associated with Arsinoe II, see Dils 1998. The altar is similar to those on faience cult vases; see Thompson, 1973, 23-25 for the scene and 35-36 on the altar. The crown is, however, also worn by Cleopatra II or III and Cleopatra VII; see Quaegebeur 1983, 112-13. 3 Thompson 1988, 117-18; see Spiegelberg 1904, CG 31088, pl. 2. 4 See for example Bothmer 1960, 78, no. 65. This type of garment is often found on statues in the Persian period; there is, however, no evidence to suggest that the Ptolemaic rulers were commonly shown in Macedonian costume. 5 Bianchi 1988, 55-80. 6 1n addition to the Karnak Ptolemy V there are two other Egyptian-style representations of Ptolemy V (Agyptisches Museum, Berlin 14568 and 12457). See Kyrieleis 1975, 54-6, 134-6, 172, El and Bianchi 1988, 129, 2

Sally-Ann Ashton

appeal to both Greek and Egyptian audiences, since the essential characteristics to allow members of both communities to understand the statues are preserved; namely, the individual portrait type and hairstyle alongside the traditional statue in striding stance wearing the royal headcloth and a kilt. Although on the early examples, the Egyptian artists closely copy the Greek portrait models, as a comparison between the Greek and Egyptian heads of Ptolemy VI (Figs. 1 and 2) illustrates, the resulting Egyptian image is often of a higher quality than its Greek counterpart, particularly with regard to the rendering of the hair and the portrait expression. This observation has led some scholars to conclude that the Egyptian artist was working from the same model as the Greek sculptor. 7 It is, however, also possible that the Egyptian artist was using a higher quality original Greek sculpture as a model, the fine hair and use of inlaid eyes might suggest that this original was manufactured in bronze rather than plaster or stone. The need to use non-Egyptian models accords with the lack of comparative sculptors' models for this type of royal image in the second century BC, whereas there is tt..; old age D}

· STATESOFMIND: jubilation]\

But although it is possible to point to the sorts of qualities with which the Seth animal is associated through its uses as a determinative, the reason behind the association is less clear. It is possible that the only connection was its identity as the symbolic animal of the god Seth. Yet despite the existence of

dejection~

· ACTIONS:those involving force~;

those involving thought

or feeling~ But in certain cases a more explicit, more descriptive image was sought. At this point the Egyptian script came to a crossroads with the animal world.

a Seth deity determinative ~ which could have made this connection more specific, its use seems to be limited to certain contexts. 5 It seems, therefore, that the animal form was a significant choice. Since it is certain, for reasons that will be discussed in more detail below, that the Seth animal was a composite creature, it is likely that its make-up was meaningful. But what was it about its form that conveyed so well the concepts it was chosen to represent? In order to understand the Seth animal's role in writing fully and to find out the significance it had, questions about its identity must be answered.

Animal imagery played a very large role in the ways in which the Egyptians expressed themselves, both artistically and linguistically. Paintings and reliefs show that artists were able to capture details of the animal world with meticulous accuracy. Textual evidence corroborates that they were very familiar with animal behaviour. Thus when the script demanded a determinative be assigned to certain complex, abstract concepts, the Egyptians often turned to the animal world for their visualisation. In that way aggression and power found form in the shape of the crocodile, the leopard, and the bull; fear was encapsulated in various birds, both those which inspired it like the vulture, and those which typically suffered it, like the complicated sng'-bird. 1

In this paper, I present a new explanation of the Seth animal, while also reviewing some of the studies of both Egyptologists and zoologists who proposed identifications in the past. For although many insightful articles have been published about the Seth animal, if they culminated in an identification they tended to be summarily dismissed as erroneous. 6 Yet their contribution is arguably more valuable than that of those who have done no more than state that the Seth animal is a composite creature, even though this conclusion can be taken further; for example, after his discussion of the Seth animal, Herman te Velde concluded:

Of all the animals which transcended their physical form to become, as determinatives, symbols of those invisible qualities they were seen to epitomise, the Seth animal is perhaps the most enigmatic. Unlike creatures such as the crocodile, the Seth animal is not easily identifiable in the modem animal world; indeed, there is now general agreement among Egyptologists that it was never a real creature and that it existed only in the ancient Egyptian imagination. However, in the past there were many attempts to find the Seth animal in nature. 2 These attempts were made mainly by zoologists,

mention in Schwabe 1994, 44. 3 Newberry 1928, 217. 4 Newberry 1898, pis. IV, XIII.

A chapter of my thesis is devoted to discussion of the ~ -sign. There have been no further proposals for zoological identification recently, although a rather radical theory was advanced by the American anthropologist Richard Lobban (1999), in which he proposed that the Seth animal's head derived from the shape of a desiccated bull's phallus. Compare an earlier

~

1

5 For example, as is clear from Fig. 1, (not !bd) is the determinative of many words denoting a disruption of health. 6 Such articles are usually cited as no more than the author's name alongside his proposed identification, as in Newberry 1928, 223-24; Jensen 1934, 7.

2

75

Angela Mc Donald

The hieroglyph of the Seth animal does not represent an actual living animal. It is not possible to detennine from what living creature the hieroglyph of the Seth animal is derived. It is doubtful whether the hieroglyph of the Seth animal goes back to any animal which ever belonged to the fauna ofEgypt. 7

The earliest clearly identifiable depiction of a Seth animal is on the Scorpion Macehead, where two are depicted in the top register upon standards (Fig. 2). The animal is a rather stocky quadruped with an erect tail terminating like an arrow; it has pricked ears, and a long, downward-pointing snout. In comparison to a Middle Kingdom representation from the mortuary temple of Amenemhat I at Lisht (Fig. 3), a difference is apparent.

A similarly negative statement had been made by Samuel Birch almost a hundred years previously: All conjecture is ... useless, both regarding (the Seth animal's) name and the reason for which it was selected.'

The body has trimmed down and become sleek and muscular. The head is held high on a long neck and ends in the same downward-pointing snout. The ears are pricked and squared off at the tip, and the tail, which in this depiction takes the form of an arrow, is erect. It is appropriate to think of the Seth animal as a completed puzzle, and of its key features the head and snout, the body shape and feet, the ears, and the tail - as individual pieces. Ironically, only those who have believed the Seth animal to be real have unravelled the clues these pieces provide.

Thus it seemed to be the case that one either believed that the Seth animal was identifiable in the animal world as one specific creature, or that it was a composite creature and so nothing more could be said. The German anatomist G. Thilenius was the first to point out the existence of middle ground. Although he acknowledged that the Seth animal was a composite, he turned to the natural world to identify the animals of which it was composed since, he said, even composite creatures tend to have a basis in reality through their components. 9

The first piece of the puzzle, the head, was put into place by the Danish zoologist Adolf Jensen, who proposed that the Seth animal was a giraffe. In the giraffe's horns, Jensen believed that he had found the solution to the problem of Seth's square ears: rather than being ears they were horns. The ears had been one of the main hindrances to an identification of the animal, since in nature no animal has such square-tipped ears. 12 Of course, the giraffe has ears as well as horns, but Jensen thought that they had been lost somewhere in the transition from reality to depiction since perhaps initial knowledge of the giraffe was poor. He provided a convincing photographic comparison between the head shape of the giraffe and that of the Seth animal. 13 However, when accounting for the raised tail, which is a consistent feature of the Seth animal but not of the giraffe, his logic went awry:

Composite creatures are created to make a statement, and the force of that statement derives from the significance of their components. The Egyptian world contained many composite creatures besides the Seth animal: an example is Ammit, the 'Devourer of the dead' in judgement scenes in the Book of the Dead. The details of her appearance change, but her purpose is always to intimidate. In a vignette in the Papyrus of Arri,'" she has the hindquarters of a hippo, the foreparts of a leopard and the head of a crocodile, all aggressive, voracious creatures associated with wrath in art and especially in language.'' Adding to the fearsomeness Ammit embodies is the fact that she looks strange; while familiarity gives comfort, by the opposite token that which cannot be identified is frightening. Children who imagine monsters are lurking in closets and underneath beds put the same principle to work, envisaging creatures of human size but with claws instead of fingers, fangs instead of human teeth, and so on. In creating such monsters, they tap into the characteristics that scare them the most and combine them into one monstrous being. The Seth animal was put together in the same way for a specific and largely retrievable purpose. Appropriately the explanation for this purpose is also of a composite nature, with many scholars providing different individual pieces.

It is true that the Set-animal carries its tail in an erect position, whereas giraffes in zoological gardens have pendent tails. But, from films showing giraffes in the open, it may be seen that their tails swing upwards when they are running.14

Since the Seth animal is most frequently depicted at rest, either recumbent or seated, his explanation is unconvincing. Jensen was perhaps right, however, about the basic shape of the Seth animal's head: it often does resemble that of a giraffe. Moreover, orthographic evidence suggests that there was sometimes confusion between the Seth animal and the giraffe as hieroglyphs. Both in the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor and in spell 631 of the Coffin Texts, a Seth determinative substitutes for the usual giraffe sign.''

te Velde 1967, 15. Birch's re-edition of Wilkinson 1878, 136-37. 9 Thilenius 1900, 215. In a personal communication to F. LI. Griffith, he stated the same belief, elaborating that the components were the 'head of a Macroscelides, body and legs of a Canis (fenek or jackal), tail of a Dipus '. 1°Faulkner 1984, 14 (BM 10470); in the Papyrus of Hor (BM 10479), she has the body of a lion and a hippo's head, see Faulkner 1984, 31; in the Papyrus ofHunefer (BM 9901), she has the head of a crocodile, foreparts of a lion, and hindquarters of a hippo, see Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 30. 7 8

11 For example, ~-J'tl3sb 'to be aggressive' (Wb. I. 24).

'fierce' (Faulkner 1962, 5);~

Hart (1986, 194) described them as 'appendages' rather than ears. Jensen 1934, figs. 3- 4. 14 Jensen 1934, 15. 15 The Shipwrecked Sailor, II. 31, 97, and 155: see Golenischeff 1913, pis. 2, 4 and 7. Spell 631: CT VI. 254a (Sq6C). In both instances the verb in question is sr 'to foretell'. Gareth Lucas has suggested to me that perhaps the substitution of the Seth animal in the case of the Shipwrecked Sailor is meaningful: the context is the foretelling of storms, something with which the Seth animal had a strong connection. 12 13

~ 3d 76

Tall Tails: The Seth Animal Reconsidered

However, his identification fails to account for the fact that sometimes the Seth animal's muzzle terminates so sharply that it looks more like and is probably meant to be the downward-curving beak of a bird of prey. 16

that the general body shape is canine. The problem with both theories is that they concentrate too much on particular features while glossing over others in order to promote their ideas. Yet, they provide the first two pieces of the puzzle: the strange, often giraffe-like head coupled with the canine body shape and paws. The mismatch of these two features alone reaffirms the Seth animal's composite nature.

Jensen was also incorrect in his belief that knowledge of the giraffe was poor in predynastic times. Accurate depictions occur on predynastic slate palettes and on decorated pottery." Several rock drawings depict recognisable giraffes; some even give the animal a raised tail, although the reasons for this are not clear. 18 Despite this evidence, however, Jensen's theory is shown to be incorrect by comparison to the earlier theory of the zoologist Hippolyte Boussac, who pointed out that the Seth animal has paws and not hooves. This is a detail that never changes and so the Seth animal cannot be a giraffe.

The third piece of the puzzle was put into place by Newberry. In 1912 and 1928, he published two similarly-themed articles promoting his idea that the Seth animal was to be identified as the old Irish Greyhound pig. Part of his argument focused on the animal's tail and he made the following observation: All specimens of the pig family have the habit of erecting their tails when irritated; even domestic pigs uncurl their tails when annoyed."

In focusing on the Seth animal's feet, Boussac solved another important piece of the puzzle. He supported his wider argument that the Seth animal was a dog by its having paws and also by the canine-like shape of its body, although its squared-off ears and raised tail were, by his own admission, hindrances to his identification. To solve these problems he suggested, rather novelly, that they should be replaced with the 'real' ears and tail. Although this was a convenient way to eliminate the problematic features, he was only able to cite two actual examples of the 'real' ears and tail. One is a New Kingdom statue of the Seth animal, which depicts its tail curving around its right flank, in what Boussac took to be the 'natural' pose.'' But in statuary, it would be almost impossible and certainly impractical to depict the tail pointing upwards away from the body. His evidence for the 'real' ears is a painting of the god Seth on the ceiling of the tomb of Seti I but, as is clear from the shape of the snout, here Seth has the head of an ass rather than that of the Seth animal. 20

Newberry was making a crucial point, but he was thinking in terms that were too specific. Most animals, not just pigs, manifest their annoyance by stiffening their tails. The erecting of the tail is particularly significant in animal body language as part of a dominance display, which typically involves a show of aggression. Fig. 4 depicts the opposing stances of a pair of dogs, one dominant and the other submissive. This had been noticed many years previously by Eugene Lefebure, who included the carriage of the Seth animal's ears in his discussion. 22 Quoting from Darwin's studies of dominance displays in animals, he came to the conclusion that the raised tail and the pricked ears were the unmistakable signs of animal body language for aggression. Lefebure also had evidence that the ancient Egyptians understood these signs in the same way as they are now understood: a passage from a protective spell to be cast over a field in the magical Papyrus Harris, given below with Borghouts' translation: 21

Despite the flaws in the suggestions of Jensen and Boussac, their contributions to the discussion are important and should not be dismissed altogether. Jensen may have been right that the giraffe provided the inspiration for the basic shape of the Seth animal's head, although the snout was subject to variation. It is certainly not similar to a canine head, as Boussac believed, but he in turn was correct in pointing out

Q-1\~~~~ )i-

J~~

Let there be called out for me to Isis,

iQQ~~~~:::my good mother

~iQn~~iQQ~t~~

16 For example, the Nineteenth Dynasty stele of Aapehty in the British Museum (EA 35360): see Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 264. 17 For example, the Four Dog Palette in the Louvre: see Asselberghs 1961, fig. 130 (pl. 73). Compare the painted figure of a giraffe on a late Gerzean pot (Berlin 15129): see Asselberghs 1961, figs. 24-25 (pis. 17-18), in which both the ears and horns are depicted. 18 Hellstrom andLangballe 1970, vol. 1:2, §K: e.g. Kl 4, Kl 7, K48 are clearly giraffes, although some of the other examples are doubtful. K49 (Hellstrom and Langballe 1970, vol. 1:2; photograph on pl. 64.4) is described as 'an outlined giraffe with exaggeratedly long, back-sweeping tail'. No further interpretation has been attempted. I owe these references to David Wengrow and Hiroshi Hiroyama. An added difficulty is that there is no way to date such depictions accurately. 19 Boussac 1920, 197 fig. 3. 20 Boussac I 920,204 fig. 5: compare the wider pictorial context (see Hornung et al. 1991, pl. 177), in which there are two further depictions of Seth with his animal's head. The depiction of Seth with an ass' head started in the Middle Kingdom and became increasingly common, especially in the Greco-Roman period (see Daressy 1920, 165), possibly as an attempt to eliminate the ambiguity of the Seth animal's form.

and to N ephthys, my sister

1~ -;:~= :Ji~I~

that they may throw out protection

=+~l~=~I~

to the south of me, to the north of me,

i:7~tJ:7~ to the west of me, to the east of me 21

22 23

77

Newberry 1928, 217. Lefebure 1898. P. Harris 501, X. 2-4 (BM 10042): Lange 1927, 84; Borghouts 1978, 50.

Angela Mc Donald

!l\

()Q~

Although he mentioned that ~J sd literally means 'high of tail', Caminos dismissed it in his final translation. Together with the description of the animal's face as fierce and its aggressive behaviour, it is, however, clear that an aggressive predatory animal is meant and the literal meaning of the phrase ~J sd is appropriate.

I> ~Q()~l=HJ~1=

to shut the mouths of lions, hyenas

~Q~~'f1==,il~ r-r~

and all kind of wild animals with uplifted tails

This textual evidence is supported by representations of predatory animals in hunting scenes, pursuing or devouring their prey with their tails raised. 26 These animals are usually predatory canines or felines, like dogs,jackals, and lions. The repeated occurrence of the raised tail motif shows that the Egyptians recognised it as a characteristic of aggressive animals. This seems, therefore, to be what the Seth animal's tail means; aggression and dominance were always predominant in the character of the god Seth, especially in the myths of his struggles for supremacy against Horus. 27

=ro~ILJ~~()= to turn them aside ...

Both Lefebure and Borghouts overlooked an important element in the Egyptian. The phrase tp n i3wt nb should mean, literally, something like 'the best of every animal'. Coupled with the description of such animals eating meat and drinking blood, it is clear that an aggressive predatory animal is meant; the key phrase in the passage ~J sd 'uplifted of tail' then reinforces this idea. The phrase occurs again in a letter in the Late Egyptian Miscellanies describing the lot of an official stationed abroad and bewailing the foreign environment. 24 At one point the writer talks about the local wildlife. I quote from Caminos' translation: 25

The final piece of the puzzle was put into place by Ludwig Borchardt, who called attention to representations of the Seth animal where its tail is an arrow. 28 He went further to suggest that the tail is always an arrow, but its exact termination seems to vary. 29 But the fact that it sometimes is clearly an arrow is very significant, because the representation of the tail as a weapon can be viewed as another means of visually expressing the message of aggression conveyed by raised animal tails in general. To conclude, the iconography of the Seth animal was put together so as to convey the essential characteristics of the god Seth. Thus, it has the basic shape of a predatory animal: a sleek, muscular body and clawed paws. Its permanently erect tail and pricked ears reinforce its aggression and emphasise its dominant nature. Its tail could even be represented as an arrow to strengthen the message of aggression. The shape of its head varies: sometimes it looks like that of the exotic giraffe, sometimes it ends in the curved beak of a bird of prey, but the muzzle always inclines sharply downwards, giving the head a strange appearance and distinguishing the animal from others as clearly as its squared ears do. Aggression, dominance, strangeness: these are the primary characteristics of the god Seth, and they are mirrored in the appearance of his symbolic animal and feed into all the words it determines.

AA~Qrw~J()~= The ishb ®

=

-

~~

()=-

~

......L1I......L1I-

n

="J()

i:;::i-=

~==

'-

they call a certain red jackal

,i]~r-r~~ long of tail:

~"=-91'7f"

]\~]\~JT01

it goes out by night

]\ ';riJo()n~Q~w~QQ~=-~ into the stall of bulls,

n~

.=o.._

~""1--?--=

~

"JJ;li!=...__~~-///r0---

=

~

a

I

begins with the largest first,

J ().=o.._"=-n

1

O

()()