Modern Trends in European Egyptology: Papers from a Session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Ninth Annual Meeting in St. Petersburg 2003 9781841718842, 9781407328928

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
AUTHORS & ADDRESSES
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE SESSION
Egypt on its Way to an Early State: The Nile Delta and the Valley
Ancient Memphis and the Helleno–Roman World: A Short Note
Among the Hidden Treasures of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2
Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges
From the History of Archaeology: The Destruction of the Late Antiquity Necropolises in Egypt reconsidered
Knowledge Engineering at the Russian Institute for Egyptology in Cairo and at the Centre for Egyptological Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology
Sothic Dates in Egyptian Chronology
Looped Pile Weaves at the Benaki Museum: More Observations on the Classification of Techniques and the Technology of Textiles
Origins of the Sd–Festival: On the History of a Hypothesis
PERIKLĒS A. KOURACHANĒS (1949-1988): IN MEMORIAM
Amanda–Alice Maravelia and Helen Palaiologou–Kourachanē

Citation preview

Modern Trends in European Egyptology Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Ninth Annual Meeting in St. Petersburg 2003 Edited by

Amanda–Alice Maravelia

BAR International Series 1448 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1448 Modern Trends in European Egyptology © The editor and contributors severally and the Publisher 2005 The wooden anthropoid coffin belonging to Hapy (NAM, AIG 3340), featuring its interior with the mummy (left) and its lid (right) © Copyright & Courtesy 2003, National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

COVER IMAGE

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 9781841718842 paperback ISBN 9781407328928 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718842 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 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] PHONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Dedicated to the Memory of my Dearest Mother, Καίτη Μαραβέλια (1924 2004), with Great Affection and Love

CONTENTS H.E. Hamdy Sanad Loza Foreword

ix

Amanda–Alice Maravelia Introduction

xi

Tatjana A. Sherkova Egypt on its Way to an Early State: The Nile Delta and the Valley

1

Galina A. Belova Ancient Memphis and the Helleno–Roman World: A Short Note

5

Amanda–Alice Maravelia Among the Hidden Treasures of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

7

Ashraf Alexandre Sadek Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

23

Maya Müller From the History of Archaeology: The Destruction of the Late Antiquity Necropolises in Egypt reconsidered

43

Edward Loring Knowledge Engineering at the Russian Institute for Egyptology in Cairo and at the CES/RAS, Moscow 49 Leo Depuydt The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology

53

Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard Sothic Dates in Egyptian Chronology

63

Sophia Tsourinaki Looped Pile Weaves at the Benaki Museum: More Observations on the Classi cation of Techniques and the Technology of Textiles

71

Alexej A. Krol Origins of the
 –Festival: On the History of a Hypothesis

87

Amanda–Alice Maravelia and Helen Palaiologou–Kourachan  Perikl  s A. Kourachan  s (1949-1988): In Memoriam

91

vii

AUTHORS & ADDRESSES Galina A. Belova: Centre for Egyptological Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences; 12, Rozhdestvenka Str., RU–103 031, Moscow, Russia. [e-mail: [email protected]] Leo Depuydt: Department of Egyptology, Brown University, Box 1899; Providence, RI–02912, USA / POB 259, Norton, MA 02766-0259, USA. [e-mail: [email protected]] Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard: 1, Place d’Iéna, F–75 116, Paris, France. [e-mail: [email protected]] Alexej A. Krol: Centre for Egyptological Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences; 12, Rozhdestvenka Str., RU–103 031, Moscow, Russia.

[e-mail: [email protected]] Edward Loring: Gnosarch Foundation, Basel (& CES/RAS, Moscow); Innere Margarethenstraße, 15; CH– 4051, Basel, Switzerland.

[e-mail: [email protected]] Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Centre de Recherches en Sciences de l’Antiquité, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Université de Limoges; 39E, Rue Camille Guérin, F–87 036, Limoges Cedex, France / Suite # 121; 24, Hagiou I annou Str., GR−153 42, Hagia Paraskeu ; Athens, Hellas. [e-mail: [email protected]] 

Maya Müller: Museum der Kulturen, Basel & Cnosarch Foundation, Basel; St. Alban–Anlage 57; CH-4052, Basel, Switzerland. [e-mail: [email protected]] Helen Palaiologou–Kourachan : 4th Ephorate of Pre–Historic & Classical Antiquities, Archaeological Museum of Nauplion; Plateia Syntagmatos, GR–211 00, Nauplion, Hellas. [e-mail: [email protected]] 

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Centre de Recherches en Sciences de l’Antiquité, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Université de Limoges; 39E, Rue Camille Guérin, F–87 036, Limoges Cedex, France. [e-mail: [email protected]] Tatjana A. Sherkova: Centre for Egyptological Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences; 12, Rozhdestvenka Str., RU–103 031, Moscow, Russia. [e-mail: [email protected]] Sophia Tsourinaki: Benaki Museum; 1, Koumbari Str., GR–106 74, Athens, Hellas. [e-mail: [email protected]]

viii

FOREWORD Having the opportunity to read the introduction to this book and its paper’s abstracts, as well as the abstracts of the papers presented during some previous egyptological sessions held at the European Association of Archaeologists 7th and 8th Annual Meetings (in Esslingen, Germany and Thessalonik , Hellas, respectively), I gladly welcomed the kind invitation by the editor, Dr Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia, to write a foreword to this book, which includes the papers of a more recent egyptological session, held during the th T EAA 9 Annual Meeting in S Petersburg, Russia. 

As the new Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Athens and —at the same time— as a former Egyptian Ambassador in Poland, who had the opportunity to collaborate with several distinguished Egyptologists, I would like to express some of my thoughts and ideas, relative to the development of modern Egyptian Archaeology as an interdisciplinary domain. Each paper on its own and this book in its entirety is a clear demonstration of the growing role of Egyptologists, based to a large extent on the development of interdisciplinary feedback and synthetic interaction between Egyptology (on the one hand) and the Sciences, Informatics, Modern Geographical Techniques, but also History, Philology and Anthropology (on the other). Egyptologists are no more perceived as scientists isolated in excavation sites or at the basements of Museums, conducting research the results of which are published and read only by a few other specialists ... Quite the opposite is happening nowadays! With the advent of advanced research methods, the interest in the modern egyptological analysis and ndings will be expanding further, providing additional sources of ndings and support. Concerning the theme of the present book, Modern Trends in European Egyptology, so well presented by the editor and enriched by several interesting contributions of many European (and American) researchers, it corroborates the above–mentioned ideas. It also shows that Egypt remains a virtual Pharos illuminating and inspiring a lot of people. Has the interest in the antique country of the Pharaohs and of the Pyramids been lost today? The answer is no! The proof can be found in so many initiatives and measures ranging from the position papers of the European Union towards what is called its southern ank, to the call by Hellenic and Russian Egyptologists for a more active participation at the European Association of Archaeologists Annual Conference and for the need to develop Egyptology by a larger number of countries in Europe, including Hellas. Actually, we are expecting more ourishing of Egyptology in Hellas and more involvement of this country in the domain of Egyptian Archaeology. I will help and fully support the Hellenic initiatives towards the development of serious Oriental studies at the principal Hellenic Universities, as well as the appointment of competent Egyptologists in Museum posts, in order to conserve and study thoroughly the vast number of Egyptian artifacts that are held in them (e.g.: those of the rich collection at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens).


I am in a position to con rm that these calls and initiatives are appreciated and reciprocated in the country of the Nile, which is not only a «subject» of study for foreign Egyptologists, but a eld of comprehensive research by Egyptian scientists as well, exploring their roots and planning their future. This very theme is not only attracting the attention or curiosity of their neighbours, but also expresses their own interest to discover or re–discover and interact with their neighbours around the Mediterranean, identifying their common heritage and values as well as their common interests and destiny. The creation of Bibliotheca Alexandrina is just an expression of this shared goal. With these personal thoughts, may I welcome this book published by the British Archaeological Reports, together with its inspired contributions by several distinguished European and American scholars. [Athens, September 2005] H.E. HAMDY SANAD LOZA Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Athens, Hellas

ix

FIGURE: A simpli ed map of Egypt, featuring ancient and modern sites, some of which are mentioned in the papers of this volume.

x

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Introduction

INTRODUCTION The present volume has been delayed due to various reasons. First of all, the editor has been quite busy in supporting her PhD Thesis in Egyptology at the University of Limoges (07–V–2004), as well as with the nal editing of it, in order to be published as a book. Her research activities, participation in various conferences, writing of papers, as well as family and social reasons, were also responsible for this long delay. Now, that —thanks God— everything has been perfectly arranged, nally this volume appears and the editor would like to apologize to her co–authors and colleagues for this delay. Every possible effort has been made, in order that this volume —following the tradition of several others edited by her under the loving care of BAR— should be as perfect as possible. This volume is also quite heavily sentimentally charged. It is deservedly dedicated to the memory of the editor’s Mother 1, whose passing away affected the editor considerably. Their relation was unique and very loving, a fact that makes the editor missing Her still a lot:

Of course there are no words to express the deepest human feelings appropriately and every effort of communicating them remains partial or inchoate. Still (as her Mother used to say), the memory remains … and remains for ever! This volume also features a note in memoriam of the late Egyptologist Perikl s Kourachan s. This colleague was a person of a very nice character and of a signi cant research potential, regrettably lost very early. Hence, this short note is deservedly offered here as a virtual libation.





When an egyptological session was of cially incorporated for the rst time in the agenda of the European Association of Archaeologists, during the EAA 7th Conference in Esslingen (Germany, 2001) and subsequently during the EAA 8th Conference in Thessaloniki (Hellas, 2002), we were not expecting such a warm welcome even by non Egyptologists. The ST Petersburg EAA 9th Conference had to show a tripartite egyptological session that endeavoured to continue and stabilize this short tradition, which tries focusing on European Egyptology. We tried to explore and discuss various themes, which should be mutually interesting both for Egyptologists and for specialists in European Archaeology, as well as to Egyptologists originating from other scienti c disciplines (Astronomy, Informatics, Architecture, Geography & Surveying, & c.). Hence it was divided in three sub–sessions, as follows. 1. Egyptian Collections in Modern Europe and Recent Excavations. From the early Antiquity Egyptian civilization was one of the main sources that in uenced European culture. After the Egyptian campaign of Napoleon, collecting Egyptian artifacts became a signi cant element of modern Western culture. Many tourists charmed by the mysterious land of the pyramids sought after bringing or purchasing (on various local markets) a souvenir from Egypt. With time these small acquisitions became a considerable part of modern museum collections. In most cases our knowledge of Ancient Egypt is based on the monuments of material culture. The latter include not only the famous temple or funerary complexes, but also a great diversity of lesser objects, ranging from sacred cult utensils to objects of Ancient Egyptian daily life, found during systematic digs. Each monument contains information about the context where it formerly existed in. Sometimes an ordinary «unattractive» artifact becomes a unique source leading to a signi cant discovery. That is why the collections of Ancient Egyptian antiquities kept in the museums, and especially in Europe (where the largest among them are housed), are of primary importance. It is our responsibility to study and to safeguard them for the future generations, a fact that follows our recent successful excavations in Egypt. 

2. Archaeoastronomy and Egyptology. During the last three decades of the previous century there was a signi cant development in the archaeoastronomical studies, whose impact on Egyptology can be considered rather considerable. During the same period an interdisciplinary correct basis has been put towards a fruitful synthesis in Archaeoastronomy, after the important works by Anthony Aveni, Edwin Krupp, Clive Ruggles, and (in the eld of Egyptology) of Leo Depuydt, Rolf Krauss, Kurt Locher, Otto Neugebauer, Richard Parker, Anthony Spalinger, & c. The orientation of monuments all over the Mediterranean is a most fascinating topic, that presents prominent correlations with certain celestial phenomena near the horizon and/or stars, helping to understand the forma mentis of ancient people archaeologically as well as astronomically. In Egypt, North Africa, Hellas, the Balkan Peninsula, Iberia and the whole of Europe, there are numerous examples of astronomically oriented monuments that re ect past customs and ways of 

1

The unexpected illness of her Mother, during early September 2003, prevented the editor from participating in the ST Petersburg EAA 9th Conference. That very lethal illness was also responsible for the passing away of the editor’s Mother on 03–V–2004, just four days before the support of her Thesis. However, the already announced egyptological session (whose Proceedings are proudly presented in this volume) has taken place successfully, due to the presence and restless efforts of Prof. Dr Galina A. Belova [who faced though again various problems by a certain Russian group of «colleagues» ghting her (and her team) continuously, expressed in that instance by the local conference responsible Nikolaj Petrov]. 

xi

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

thought, pointing to the possible astronomical (stellar, solar or lunar) origins of ancient religions. They also echo the irresistible archetypal impact that celestial phenomena had on the lives of ancient people and their indirect incorporation into their socio–religious system. In connection with the former guidelines and concepts, a special sub– session was organized, that endeavoured to discuss the following topics: (i) Archaeoastronomy today and its impacts on Egyptology: the golden section between the two disciplines, in opposition to the hiatus between pure science and biased or uncritical fantasies (known also as pathological Archaeoastronomy). (ii) Studies of orientations of monuments (temples, tombs, & c.) and planning of ancient towns in Egypt and Nubia. (iii) Dating and chronology of ancient Egyptian history, calendrics and Sothic dates. (iv) Archaeoastronomical studies concerning astronomical objects (instruments, calendars, zodiacs, & c.), and ancient Egyptian constellations. (v) Archetypal impacts of celestial symbols in the texts and into the folklore of ancient and modern Egyptians, viewed through the Jungian Psychology of the collective unconscious. Unfortunately not all participants were able to correct or send their papers in due time for publication (e.g.: Nadezhda A. Reshetnikova, Irina B. Kulikova, the editor of the present volume 2, et al.), thus this volume features only two related articles. 3. Informatics and Egyptology. The tremendous impact of Informatics and its numerous useful applications not only in the eld of Positive Sciences, but in Humanities as well, acted as a virtual catalyst for the huge progress that characterizes Egyptology during the last decades. The application of information sciences in Egyptology has been investigated and developed by the Working Group Informatique et Égyptologie of the International Association of Egyptologists (IAE) since the advent of the personal computer. Such applications may be roughly divided into the classi cations pictorial and analytical. The term pictorial speaks for itself, in that it presents digitalized photographic and graphic representations of sites and artifacts. The domain of Analytical Informatics is less well known. It may be divided into two areas: Ancient Egyptian Linguistics and Lexical Systems for the Analysis of Ancient Egyptian Sites, Artifacts and Historical Data. Artifacts and historical data are common to all areas of ancient studies. Processing data in this area is the subject of Knowledge Engineering. The Centre for Egyptological Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (CES/RAS) presented an introduction to this new discipline based on its dynamic post–relational lexical database management system, known as GALEXYS. Interested parties had already obtained a CD–ROM with the actual development version of the system at no charge, by the main developer of this system Edward Loring. A workshop for knowledge engineering had also taken place in connection with the egyptological session. We regret that some respected colleagues (e.g.: Prof. Dr Erhart Graefe, Dr Sergej V. Ivanov) were not capable of sending us their contributions in order to be included in the present volume. We hope and wish that another time this shall become possible. Actually the quantity of papers in this book is rather small, but we rmly believe that their quality is high. In editing these Proceedings the editor paid particular attention to correct and amend for many errors of a lesser or major character, sometimes adding relevant bibliography and footnotes. She also tried to make the texts more idiomatic in English. An attempt has been made, in order that the hosted papers follow some general common guidelines in format and appearance, although some of the format speci c traits of each and every one of them have been generally preserved. The editor corrected and checked for various erroneous or unclear points in them, although we wish to point out that for any speci c error that might still exist it is only the author(s) of the corresponding articles that is(are) responsible. We should also like to thank: (i) H.E. the Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Athens, Mr Hamdy Sanad Loza, for having kindly prefaced this book; the Consul of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Athens, Mr Sami Saad Mur d, and the Counselor of the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Athens, Mrs Man l Yehia ’el-Shinnawi; (ii) the two referees (internationally distinguished colleagues in the eld of Egyptology), that peer–checked most of the papers and proposed amendments for some of them, whose anonymity we keep here —respecting their desire— and whose help was indeed valuable. Let us now take a closer brief look at the participants of this volume and their interesting contributions. The present book is characterized indeed by a multiplicity of themes, however the main axii remain Egypt and Hellas (the main temporal context being the Late Period and secondarily the early Pre– and Proto–Dynastic Periods), as well as the interdisciplinary domains of Archaeoastronomy and Informatized Egyptology.


Tatjana A. Sherkova, a bright scholar and a really nice person, vice–director of CES/RAS, guides us through the remote Egyptian Antiquity and discusses the process of formation of settled farming cultures that was completed in the Nile Valley and the Delta. In the Lower Egypt the diversity of Predynastic archaeological cultures is represented by separate sites of settled cultures in its different regions. They are of the type of: Merimde in the Western Delta; Fay m A in the Fay m Oasis; ’El-‘Omari on the Helw n plateau; & c. During the 4th Millennium BCE the Buto– Ma‘adian culture was widely spread all over the Lower Egypt. In the 6th-5th Millennia BCE the Badarian culture sprang up in the Nile Valley. In the 4th Millennium BCE this culture gave way to the Naqada culture and its spread 



2

Edward Loring’s interesting paper on the relative chronology project of the CES/RAS (that was sent well before all deadlines), will be published elsewhere, following an initiative of the editor of the present volume.

xii

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Introduction

from the Nile Delta up to the rst Nile cataracts. In the process of its development it reached the regions of the Nile Delta and the local Buto–Ma‘adian culture was excluded. Thus, in the nal stage of the Predynastic Period Egypt it existed as a single cultural space, on the basis of which an early state was formed. Nevertheless, the differences between the Upper and Lower Egypt were preserved and consolidated in the religious/mythological writing tradition of the Dynastic Era. Predynastic artifacts show a quite real hidden motive of distinctions between these gigantic regions of Egypt. Firstly, they are connected with the problem of formation of a settled population. Of no less importance were the landscape and the climatic factors which stipulated distinctions between both regions of Egypt. In the humid Lower Egypt the population was engaged in farming (growing cereals). In the arid lower desert bordering with the narrow Nile Valley, which was ooded during seasonal Nile over ows, cattle–breeding prevailed. This purely economic factor stipulated distinctions in the speci c character of socio–economic relations, and in the rate of changes during the process of the state formation Southern Egypt played a dominant role. Cattle–breeding provided Egypt with intensive surplus products, resulting in the strati cation of society, the property differentiation of population, and the concentration of wealth at the hands of the social elite. The distinctions between the Delta and the Valley became apparent in the richer material aspect of the cultures of Southern Egypt. This can be explained by the fact that some part of the population gave up farming and took up the development of handicrafts, including their production. These were made rst–class artifacts intended for the social elite and were also exchanged with other cultures. All these factors favoured the further progress of the communities of Southern Egypt in the development of social and political changes in this country. In the second half of the 4th Millennium BCE there existed dozens of chiefdoms in Egypt. The most powerful of them were located in Upper Egypt. In Hierakonpolis the formed chiefdom headed by the chief, who had sacred and military functions, became the basis for the monarchic institutionalization of royal power. The central and hierarchical structure of the social organism was also re ected in the arrangement of space of Hierakonpolis with the marked core (Predynastic town), where the ceremonial centre (from the time of Naqada II) was dedicated to the cult of the chief and to the local falcon god Horus. During the time of N‘armer, Nekhen became the centre of Hierakonpolis with a temple dedicated to Horus. A Great Deposit of ceremonial objects was found there. Similar «sets» of votive objects were uncovered in Abydos and in the temples of outlying districts (in Elephantine, at the southernmost Egypt, as well as in Tell Ibrah m Aw d, at Lower Egypt, near its NE border). In fact, these new data con rm that as far back as in the time of N‘armer who traditionally refers to «Dynasty 0» Egypt was an early territorial state stretching from the Delta as far as the rst Nile cataracts. The existence of an independent state in Lower Egypt is out of question, a fact which can be con rmed by numerous sources. 








Galina A. Belova, head of the Russian Mission in Cairo and of the recently inaugurated Institute there, director of CES/RAS and of the GALEXYS egyptological database, presents an interesting contribution. In November 2001 the

Centre for Egyptological Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences started its work at the site of Mit Rah na (Kom Tum n, Tell Az z and Kom Dawb bi), which was continued in December 2002. The results of the rst season and the analysis of surface material were very promising. The second season at Kom Tum n was concentrated again on topographical, geological and geophysical surveys, which combined several interdisciplinary methods. The geophysical survey has detected the existence of subterranean structures resembling the plans of palace structures, and living quarters. Numerous accumulations as well as separate architectural fragments, spread all over Kom Tum n, Tell Az z and Kom Dawb bi, were examined and described. Different kinds of ceramics dating from the Helleno–Roman Period were found there: amphorae, jugs, pots, lids of vessels, several fragments of faience, black–varnished and red– polished pottery. Without any doubts local ceramics and faience production workshops existed at this region. There were also found numerous samples of pottery from Chios, Phasos, & c. In her paper the author proves that there are all grounds to be convinced for the tight links between Ancient Memphis and the Helleno–Roman world.


Amanda–Alice Maravelia continues her study of the remainder ve Egyptian sarcophagi. This is the second part of the project started before some years and is related with the complete and precise study of 10 anthropoid sarcophagi and their mummies, dating from the Ptolemaic Period. The Egyptian Collection of the Museum keeps most of its riches well hidden in the Museum’s storerooms. Among those, the author has managed to rediscover some Ptolemaic Period cof ns with their mummies. All these particular anthropoid sarcophagi have been published in the Hellenic language in a rather elementary and concise way (with some erroneous points) more than a century ago by Tasos Neroutsos. That author was a medical doctor who lived in Alexandria. Since then the cof ns have fallen into oblivion, have never been exhibited in the Museum’s showrooms (except one), and nobody else since the late Neroutsos cared to study them accurately. Now after so many years that have elapsed, a new generation of well–quali ed Egyptologists, with the Museum’s collaboration, try to bring into light these forgotten and more or less unknown nds. These cof ns have been discovered in Egypt and were donated to the Hellenic Government during the late 19th century by wealthy patriots who lived there. The purpose of this article is to remind both the Egyptologists and the Egyptophili the presence of these «forgotten» mummies and to present a complete and precise study of the remainder ve out of these ten Ptolemaic anthropoid cof ns. These together with their hieroglyphic inscriptions are thoroughly examined and discussed. The previous ve were presented in the Thessaloniki EAA 8th Conference, during the egyptological session, and have been already published by BAR (namely in BAR 1218). The third and nal part of this project will include the medical and anatomical examination of the mummies, using modern forensic techniques.

xiii

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY




Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek, a brilliant scholar and talented teacher whose love for Coptic Christianity is well known, also a Certi ed Professor of Egyptology and Coptology at the University of Limoges (France), gives an original account of the Municipal (Bishop’s) Museum of Limoges Late Antiquity erotic statuettes. The Limoges Museum owns a nice Egyptian Collection donated by Perichon Bey. This collection features about ten erotic (obscene?) gurines: they are terracotta statuettes or amulets, dating from the LP and the Hellenistic Period. The research of the author on the popular religion of ancient Egypt led him to study certain texts dealing with sexuality in an obscene way. These texts were gathered by the author in his related monograph being hexing magical spells of a sexual character and a direct allusion to human sexual impotence. This kind of texts was indeed very rare in the Pharaonic Egypt, as well as the obscene or pornographic representations. Two interesting questions arise, starting from the previous considerations: (i) What was the meaning and the exact use of these gurines? Various hypotheses were launched on this very issue, which ought to be re–discussed in the light of our evolved knowledge of the ancient Egyptian popular religion. Would it be plausible to connect these depictions to the fecundity cult, to a pathological obsession, or maybe to the magical curses used in relevant texts? (ii) Why these obscene depictions were multiplied and became more numerous during the Hellenistic Period? Why were they rare during the earlier Pharaonic eras but numerous during later times? These questions are answered, using the erotic statuettes of the Municipal Museum of Limoges as a starting point and as examples/sources for this study.


Maya Müller, ex–curator at the Museum of Cultures, member of the Gnosarch Foundation, Basel, Switzerland (as well as bis Dr in both Informatics and Egyptology) gives an interesting paper on the History of Archaeology. Although the facts are known, their impact remains unresolved. Between c. 1880 and 1914 all of the late antique cemeteries in the Nile Valley were radically destroyed and the plundered artifacts were scattered to the four winds. Targeted were tens of thousands of burials dating from the Roman to the Early Islamic Periods. According to the author, it was a real horror story because the excavations, although largely legal, they were not documented. This obviously resulted in the absolute loss of all historical information. The past few decades have seen the publication of much material pertaining to the development of of cial antiquities’ authorities and to persons such as dealers, archaeologists and collectors, who had to do with antiquities in the age of exploitation. Thus, it is now possible to progress beyond the phase of archaeological history in which the actors of the drama were simply accused, sentenced or acquitted. The exploitation of the late antique cemeteries needs no longer to be considered as an isolated phenomenon, but can now be integrated into the broader context of the Archaeology of that period. One of the principal players was the French Egyptologist Albert Gayet. Lots of thousands of Coptic textiles in many museums — also in Basel— stem from his «excavations». Gayet was the only one of the excavators of that period who left us a few notes on his activities: notes larded with romantic anecdotes meant to win sponsors for his «excavations». All this information is now re–evaluated by the author.


Edward Loring, head of the Gnosarch Foundation at Basel, Switzerland, member of the CES/RAS Russian Team and also a very competent scholar in Informatized Egyptology, offers a brief but interesting account on this interdisciplinary domain of Knowledge Engineering. The application of Information Sciences in Egyptology has been investigated and developed by the Working Group Informatique et Égyptologie of the International Association of Egyptologists since the advent of the personal computer. Such applications may be roughly divided into two classi cations: pictorial and analytical. The term pictorial speaks for itself in that it presents digitalized photographic and graphic representations of sites and artifacts. The area of Analytical Informatics is less well known. It may be divided into two domains: Ancient Egyptian Linguistics and Lexical Systems for the analysis of Ancient Egyptian sites, artifacts and historical data. The purpose of Loring’s paper is to elucidate the work of the CES/RAS in the lexical/analyticcal area. The author speaks of Knowledge Engineering, a discipline in which lexical data are decomposed into normalized building blocks. These can be selectively searched and re–integrated to constitute output, describing all instances in which they occur. As opposed to hypertext databanks —in which words in at texts are simply indexed without concern for their actual meanings—, the project here described is a dynamic multi–dimensional structure, based on the speci c meanings and nature of terms stored in thesauri. Output is generated at runtime and mutations are possible at any time. Formally the system has the nature of a sparse matrix, providing space for any number of additions at any structural juncture. The system allows analysis of ancient Egyptian texts in the archaeological/historical contexts of their carriers. At present the system can be inverted for input/output in English or German and includes a module for Ancient Egyptian. For a related topic, see also the paper by S. Ivanov in a former BAR volume (namely, BAR 1052). 




Leo Depuydt, Associate Professor of Egyptology at Brown University, Rhode Island, USA, discusses an interesting archaeoastronomical topic. The aim of his paper is to portray what may well be one of the principal tasks awaiting students of the chronology of the centuries BCE (~ BC): proving and by the same token superseding Ptolemy’s Royal Canon. The result will be a shift in the very foundations of ancient chronology. Quite in general, calendars and chronology demand much more attention from historians of centuries BCE than from historians of centuries CE (~ AD). The reason is the Julian Calendar, instituted by Julius Caesar in 45 BCE. Except for an adjustment decreed by Pope Gregorius XIII in 1582 CE, which turned the Julian calendar into the «Julian–Gregorian» calendar, Caesar’s calendar

xiv

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Introduction

is basically the calendar we still use today. The Julian Calendar guarantees a type of continuity with the past that makes chronology much less of a concern to the historian of medieval France than of Pharaonic Egypt. The chronology of the centuries BCE can be thought of as a complex intellectual structure. In any structure, some elements are logically prior to others. At the origin, one nds the foundations. This paper is concerned with the foundations of the chronology of the years BCE, especially of the 1st Millennium BCE. The main purpose of it is to describe a shift in the foundations of ancient chronology. How can something so fundamental to a eld as its foundations shift? Whence and whither will they shift? They will shift from Ptolemy’s Royal Canon to a complex set of sources including cuneiform astronomical texts from Babylon, Aramaic papyri from Egypt, and civil–lunar double dates in hieroglyphic Egyptian. This paper’s aim is hardly to accomplish this shift. The task at hand —according to the author— will require many more years and much labour.


Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard, sister of Frank Goddio (known for his underwater excavations in Alexandria), as well as the author of an interesting book on the ancient Egyptian calendar (and by profession a medical doctor in Paris), presents the second archaeoastronomical article of this volume. To establish a chronology of the ancient Egyptian History requires contributions from several generations of Egyptologists. It calls for the results of archaeological excavations, for the study of Egyptian texts, and for a parallel comparison with other contemporary civilisations. The fundamental base, according to which these facts are organized, the very backbone of Egyptian chronology, is the corpus of Sothic dates, i.e.: the mention of the rst (heliacal) rising of Sirius within the Egyptian Civil Year. Unfortunately, few such dates are known, and some of them, in addition, seem to be incompatible. Any thorough scienti c approach —however— would forbid to take only some of them into account and to exclude others. We must include all such dates appearing in the Egyptian texts, because their lack of conformability could be merely outwardly apparent and due to erroneous interpretations by some researchers. The purpose of her paper is to review all currently known Sothic dates, to precisely determine the context in which they appear in order to better apprehend the information they provide, and for each of them to carry out a critical analysis of their possible interpretations.


Sophia Tsourinaki, a devoted specialist in ancient textiles, ex–research associate at the Benaki Museum, gives us one more original and well–written contribution on ancient textiles. The collection of Egyptian textiles at the Benaki Museum comprises 21 looped pile textiles dating from the 2nd to the 6th centuries CE, which display a variety in the techniques applied. Of special interest are the remains of a ne tunic with pile on both sides of the textile, illustrating the ancient Hellenic terms 

   

 
  and attesting that this rare type of weaving method was executed on a vertical two–beam loom. On the basis of actual experiments of the different looping applications and thorough analysis of the textiles, they will be classi ed into three methods of pile formation and subdivided into three technical groups. Moreover, a direct relationship between the cloth characteristics and the loom types will allow for a detailed insight into the highly developed manufacturing techniques of the Late Antiquity and will indicate a practical manner of interpreting data that is not so well documented.


A. Krol, member of the CES/RAS team (Moscow), reviews a topic related to the Pharaonic  –festivals. The Alexej 

jubilee belongs to one of the most mysterious phenomena of the Ancient Egyptian culture. On the present day stage of our knowledge about the festival, everything could be contested except of the very fact that it existed for almost the whole lifespan of Pharaonic Egypt. It seems likely that some of the ideas put forward in order to explain the possible origins of this festival, the very meaning of its rituals and such, pointed beaten but wrong paths or (according to the author) «ring roads». As a result, false conclusions based on wrong premises only increase our misunderstanding of the phenomenon. In his paper the author attempts to come back to the beginning of the 20th century, when the rstefforts to understand the  –festival were undertaken. He believes that the misinterpretation of the very origins of  the that happened at that time still consists of an obstacle blocking the way towards its correct comprehension.


Amanda–Alice Maravelia and Helen Palaiologou–Kourachan —last but not least— offer a short, but concise, note in memoriam of Perikl s A. Kourachan s, the late Egyptologist, whose unexpected and early loss was crucial for some of the unforgivable delays of modern Hellenic Egyptology. In their brief account they give some important information on his life, good deeds and work, paying the necessary and deserved respect to his memory. We do hope that the readers will nd in the present volume some answers to several issues concerned with various aspects of the current egyptological research, especially with the fascinating domain of the cultural interactions and feedback between Egypt and Hellas (mainly during the Late Antiquity), as well as to issues related to the modern interdisciplinary domains of Archaeoastronomy and Informatized Egyptology. We wholeheartedly wish them to enjoy the lecture of this volume, whose nice appearance is equally due to the restless efforts of the BAR team in Oxford. [Athens, June 2005 / New Delhi, August 2005]

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA

xv

PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE SESSION

Tatjana A. Sherkova: Egypt on its Way to an Early State: The Nile Delta and the Valley

Egypt on its Way to an Early State: The Nile Delta and the Valley Tatjana A. Sherkova

Abstract

Egypt is out of question, a fact which can be con rmed by numerous sources. 

The process of formation of settled farming cultures was completed in the Nile Valley and the Delta in the Vth Millennium BCE. In the Lower Egypt the diversity of Pre–Dynastic archaeological cultures is represented by separate sites of settled cultures in its different regions. They are of the type of: Merimde in the Western Delta; Fay m A in the Fay m Oasis; ’El-‘Omari on the Helw n plateau; & c. During the 4th Millennium BCE the Buto–Ma‘adian culture was very widely spread all over the Lower Egypt. In the 6th-5th Millennia BCE the Badarian culture sprang up in the Nile Valley. In the 4th Millennium BCE this culture gave way to the Naq da culture and its spread from the Nile Delta up to the rst Nile cataracts. In the process of its development it reached the regions of the Nile Delta and the local Buto–Ma‘adian culture was excluded. Thus, in the nal stage of the Pre–Dynastic Period Egypt it existed as a single cultural space, on the basis of which an early state was formed. Nevertheless, the differences between the Upper and Lower Egypt were preserved and consolidated in the religious/mythological writing tradition of the Dynastic Era. Pre–Dynastic artifacts show a quite real hidden motive of distinctions between these gigantic regions of Egypt. Firstly, they are connected with the problem of formation of a settled population. Of no less importance were the landscape and the climatic factors which stipulated distinctions between both regions of Egypt. In the humid Lower Egypt the population was engaged in farming (growing cereals). In the arid lower desert bordering with the narrow Nile Valley, which was ooded during seasonal Nile overows, cattle–breeding prevailed. This purely economic factor stipulated distinctions in the speci c character of socio–economic relations, and in the rate of changes during the process of the state formation Southern Egypt played a dominant role. Cattle–breeding provided Egypt with intensive surplus products, resulting in the strati cation of society, the property differentiation of population, and the concentration of wealth at the hands of the social élite. The distinctions between the Delta and the Valley became apparent in the richer material aspect of the cultures of Southern Egypt. This can be explained by the fact that some part of the population gave up farming and took up the development of handicrafts, including their production. These were made rst–class artifacts intended for the social élite and were also exchanged with other cultures. All these factors favoured the further progress of the communities of Southern Egypt in the development of social and political changes in this country. In the second half of the 4th Millennium BCE there existed dozens of chiefdoms in Egypt. The most powerful of them were located in Upper Egypt. In Hierakonpolis the formed chiefdom headed by the chief, who had sacred and military functions, became the basis for the monarchic institutionalisation of royal power. The central and hierarchical structure of the social organism was also re ected in the arrangement of space of Hierakonpolis with the marked core (Pre–Dynastic town), where the ceremonial centre (from the time of Naq da II) was dedicated to the cult of the chief and to the local falcon god Horus. During the time of N‘armer, Nekhen became the centre of Hierakonpolis with a temple dedicated to Horus. A Great Deposit of the ceremonial objects was found there. Similar «sets» of votive objects were uncovered in Abydos and in the temples of outlying districts (in Elephantine, at the southernmost Egypt, as well as in Tell Ibrah m Aw d, at Lower Egypt, near its NE border). In fact, these new data con rm that as far back as in the time of N‘armer who traditionally refers to «Dynasty 0» Egypt was an early territorial state stretching from the Delta as far as the rst Nile cataracts. The existence of an independent state in Lower
































KEY WORDS: Ancient Egypt, Upper and Lower Egypt, Early State, Prehistory, State Formation, Badarian, Naq da I & II and Buto–Ma‘adian Cultures, Early Dynasties, Early Sanctuaries/Shrines, Pre–Dynastic Towns, Delta, Tell Ibrah m Aw d, Merimda, Hierakonpolis.







I. Introduction In the VIth-Vth Millennium BCE the process of formation of settled farming cultures was completed in the Nile Valley and the Delta. In different regions of the Lower Egypt the Pre–Dynastic Period is represented by separate sites of settled cultures. They are Merimda in the Western Delta, Fay m A in the Fay m Oasis, ’El-‘Omari on the plateau of Helw n. During the IVth Millennium BCE the Buto–Ma‘adian culture was widely spread in Lower Egypt. 





In the VIth-Vth Millennium BCE the Badarian culture came into being in the Nile Valley. Its sites were concentrated along the right bank of the Nile in Middle Egypt. In the IVth Millennium BCE this ancient culture gave way to the Naq da culture, spread all along the Nile Valley up to the rst Nile cataract. In the process of its development it reached the regions of the Nile Delta and the local Buto–Ma‘adian culture was forced out. Thus, in the nal stage of the Pre–Dynastic Period Egypt existed as a single cultural space on the basis of which an early state was formed. Nevertheless, the differences between Upper and Lower Egypt were preserved in the religious–mythological tradition of the Dynastic epoch1. 





However, Pre–Dynastic artifacts show quite real reasons for distinctions between these gigantic regions of Egypt. First of all they are connected with the problem of formation of settled cultures. While Lower Egypt was under a certain in uence from the Levant2, Upper Egypt was being developing through the contacts with the cultures of the Eastern Sahara3.

Of no less importance are the landscape and the climatic factors, which stipulated distinctions between both regions of Egypt. While in the damp Lower Egypt the population was oc1 Kemp, B., J.: Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, London & New York 1991, 50-53; Rice, V.: Egyptian’s Making: The Origins of Ancient Egypt. 50002000 BC, London 1990, 24-25. 2 See for instance, Clark, J.D.: «Prehistoric Population and Pressures Favoring Plant Domestication in Africa», OAPD, 68-69; Shaw, I.: «Crops in Africa: A Review of Evidence», OAPD, 116; Smith, P.E.L.: «Early Food Production in Northern Africa as seen from Southwestern Asia», OAPD, 176-77; Smith, A.B.: «Cultural Contacts with the Nile Delta and the Sahara», Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa (Krzyzaniak, L., Kroeper, K. et al., eds), Posnan (Studies in African Archaeology, 5) 1996, 32. 3 See for instance, Close, A.E.: «Early Holocene Raw Material Economies in the Western Desert of Egypt», OED, 165-67; Hassan, F.A.: «Desert Environment and Origins of Agriculture in Egypt», Norwegian Archaeological Review, 192, 1986, 6 ff; Hays, T.R.: «Predynastic Development in Upper Egypt», OED, 189217; Mussi, M., Caneva, I., Zarattini, A.: «Paleolithic of the Fayum Depression», OED, 190; Wendorf, F. & Schild, R.: «Ground Grain Use in the Late Paleolithic of the Lower Nile Valley», OAPD, 272-84.

1

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

cupied with farming, in the dry lower desert of the narrow Nile Valley, which was ooded during seasonal Nile overows, cattle breeding prevailed. This purely economic factor was one of the main reasons of distinctions in the speci c character of soci –economic relations and in the rate of changes in the process of the state formation, under the dominating role of Southern Egypt. Cattle breeding favoured the intensive getting of surplus products that lead to the strati cation of society, the property differentiation of population and the formation of a wealthy social élite.





dence of the transitional character of the economic, social and political life of the society in the process of formation of an early state7. Step by step, more and more signi cant resources of the society, its working activities and the surplus products, began to be intended for the funeral cult of socio–political élite. There appeared a pictorial written language as a sign of important social, economical and political changes towards the state formation. 



II. The Nile Delta and the Valley The distinctions between the Delta and the Valley became apparent in the rich material cultures of Southern Egypt beginning from the Badarian period. This can be explained by the fact that some part of the population gave up farming and became craftsmen. So there were made high quality handicrafts intended for the social élite and also for exchange with other cultures. All these factors favoured the further progress of communities of Southern Egypt and development of social and political structures in the region. In the second half of the IVth Millennium BCE during the Naq da II Period there existed dozens of chiefdoms in Egypt. In the course of historical development they became nomes of a united state. However, according to the artifacts, there was an uneven development of these political structures, which stipulated the concrete forms of the process of uni cation of the country and the formation of an early state. The most powerful chiefdoms were formed in Naq da, Hierakonpolis, and apparently in Abydos. The existence of these —at least equal in strength— chiefdoms con rms the idea of existence of the stage of nome states in the Naq da III period, which preceded the formation of an early territorial state in Egypt4. 









The chiefdom in Hierakonpolis5, headed by the chief with sacred and military functions became the basis of the institution of the royal power. The centric structure of social organism was also re ected in the arrangement of space of Hierakonpolis with its ceremonial centre. There was a «Pre –Dynastic town» with the ceremonial centre6 dedicated to the cult of the chief and to the local falcon– god Horus, symbolizing his power.

The «Pre–Dynastic town», the proto–town —to be exact— which was a transition form from chiefdom to state, played the role of administrative, economic, cultural and political centre which regulated the life of Hierakonpolis’ communities. Social élite tombs of necropolises provide also evi4

Triger, B.G.: Early Civilizations: Ancient Egyptian Context, Cairo 1993: 8-10; Triger, B. G.: «The Rise of Egyptian Civilization», Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Trigger, B.G., Kemp, B.J. et al., eds), Cambrige 1994: 44-45; Adams, B. & Ciałowicz, K. M.: Protodynastic Egypt, London, 1997: 57-58. 5 Hoffman, M.A., Adams, B., Berger, M., Nabil ’el-Had di, M., Harlan, J.F., Hamroush, H.A., Lupton. C., McArdle, J., McHugh, W., Allen, R.O., Rogers, M.S.: The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An Interim Report, Cairo (Egyptian Studies Association. Publication, 1), 1982. 6 Friedman, R.: «The Ceremonial Centre at Hierakonpolis Locality HK 29A», AEE, 16-35.




In Egypt, during the rst dynasties, there existed several early towns with temples dedicated to gods whose emblems are represented in artifacts of the Proto–Dynastic Period. That was a society with towns located in the nomes of Upper and Lower Egypt. In some cases they were surrounded by walls and had temples and buildings8. In the time of N‘armer, the town of Nekhen became the centre of Hierakonpolis. It was founded in the Nile Valley where a temple dedicated to Horus and the cult of the king was erected. A Great Deposit of the ceremonial objects belonging to the time of the rst kings found near the central platform of the temple is indicative in this respect9. The represented gurative motifs allow us to reconstruct the rituals where the sacred king played the main role and possessed supernatural power. 





Similar deposits of votive objects were found in Abydos10, in temples of Elephantine11 bordering on Nubia and in Tell Ibrah m Aw d12, in the Lower Egypt near the  border of Egypt. These new facts con rm that as far back as in the time of N‘armer, who traditionally refers to the «Dynasty 0» Egypt, was an early territorial state stretching from the Delta up to the rst Nile cataract. So, according to the numerous sources, the independent state in the Lower Egypt could not exist. 





The reproduction of life of the social organism, the presservation of its principles formed the main basis of ancient societies and played a leading role in its religious–mythological tradition. Following the traditions provided the stability. The succes7 Hoffman, M.A.: A Preliminary Report on the 1979 Season at Hierakonpolis (The Manuscript), Nov. 1, 1979, 11; Hoffman, M.A.: «A Regional Perspective of the Predynastic Cemeteries of Hierakonpolis», The Fort Cemetery at Hierakonpolis (Excavated by John Garstang) (Adams, B., ed.), London & New York 1987, 192; Hoffman, M.A, Adams, B. et al.: op. cit., 38; Adams, B.: The Fort Cemetery at Hierakonpolis (Excavated by John Garstang), London, New York, 1987; Adams, B.: «Elite Tombs at Hierakonpolis», AEE, 1-15; Ciałowicz, K.M.: «Once More the Hierakonpolis Wall Painting», Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambrige, 3-9 September 1995 (Eyre, C.J., ed.), Leuven 1998, 273-79; Seidlmayer, S.: «Egypt’s Path to Advanced Civilization», Egypt: the World of the Pharaohs, Köln 1998, 23; Uphill, E.: «The Egyptian Sed–Festival Rites», JNES, 4, 1965, 373. 8 Wilson, J.A.: «Three Comments on Orthogenetic and Heterogenetic Urban Environments: Cities in Ancient Egypt», Economic Development and Cultural Change, III/74, 1954-1955, passim; Kemp, B.J.: «The Early Development of Towns in Egypt», Antiquity, LI, 1977, passim; Saveljeva .N.: « charactere rannich gorodov v Drevnem Egipte», VIII Vsesouznaja konferentsija po Drevnemu Vostoku, posvjaschonnaja pamjati akademika V.V. Struve. Tesisi dokladov, Moskva, 6 – 9 fevralja 1979 goda, Moskva 1979: 79-80. 9 Quibell, J.E.: «Slate Palette from Hierakonpolis», ZÄS, Berlin, XXXVI, 1898, 81-86; Quibell, J.E., Green, F.W.: «Hierakonpolis II», London (Egypt Research Account, V) 1902, 3; Hoffman, M. A.: «The City of the Hawk: Seat of Egyptian’s Ancient Civilization», Expedition, 183, 1976, passim. 10 Petrie, W.M.F.: Abydos, II, London 1903, 7-8. 11 Dreyer, G.: «Ein frühdynastisches Königsfürchen aus Elephantine», MDAIK, 37, 1981, 148-52; Dreyer, G.: «Elephantine VIII: Der Temple der Satet», AVDAIK, 39, 1986, 11 ff, 59 ff. 12 Belova, G.A. & Sherkova, T.A. (eds): Ancient Egyptian Temple at Tell Ibrah m Aw d: Excavations and Discoveries in the Nile Delta, oskva (Aletheia) 2002.





2







Tatjana A. Sherkova: Egypt on its Way to an Early State: The Nile Delta and the Valley

sion of generations, that favoured the preservation of cultural wealth, passed on from father to son.

Period. Scenes with anthropomorphic, zoomorpic and combined images represented on vessels allow us to reconstruct mythological notions, which were re ected in important rituals, and where initially the chief and then the king played the leading role. According to the material culture of Pre–Dynastic Egypt, the Egyptians perceived the Sun as the heavenly eye, which was re ected in the ritual lining of the eyes with «malachite green». The mythological image of the celestial eye was associated with the goddess who during the Early Pre–Dynastic Period was viewed as a bird, a heavenly cow, a woman with the features of these animals.

While time in mytho–poetical consciousness was measured by the stream of events, space was perceived through the diversity of material–sensible world in its projection to the society. Cosmos was conceived in its movement and the impulse was given to it in the process of its creation by the rst mythological ancestors with whom people connected their descent. 

In many archaic myths the natural and social world was being modeled in correspondence with the routes of traveling of the rst ancestors and mythological personages. The space arranged like this and limited by the roads of ancestors, the rulers of the earth, is a virtual cosmos by itself. 

III. Early Towns and Shrines Like in other archaic cultures, the world of artifacts and monuments —as the forms of social communication— played an important role in the Pre–Dynastic Egyptian society embodying a number of images in which the world model was perceived. Images were also taken from natural phenomena. One of the most ancient images of the Egyptian culture was the image of the primeval hill embodied in building. The central model of the arranged space was reected in a round layout of settlements and early reed constructions which began to be built, beginning at least from the VIth-Vth Millennium BCE. In the hieroglyphic writing the circle with interperpendicular lines became
 , the determinative in the phonetic stem of the word which designated a settlement or a town. This taxogram demonstrated the structural division of a town or a settlement in the centre of which was a sacral structure, i.e.: a sanctuary or a temple. This layout was re ected in the form of early sanctuaries of the Upper Egypt     . A round platform which covered the embankment of pure sand in the temple of Horus in Nekhen, the capital of Upper Egypt, is one of the brightist examples of the primeval hill conception.



During the Proto– and Early–Dynastic Periods this image became of secondary importance and the male deity in the image of a bull personifying solar notions took its place. In the nal stages of the Pre–Dynastic Period there prevailed images connected with bodily force and power so characteristic of a male. Representations of bulls, lions and beasts of prey including fantastic ones played the major role. 

IV. Epilogue: Horus of Royalty and the Eye of Horus The poly–semantic meaning of a symbol gives reasons for studying it in the broader context of the ancient Egyptian culture. The prevalence of religious–mythological traditions in a society leads to explaining all phenomena in the world by transcendental forces in the system of mythological imagination. That is why the reconstruction of social development of Egypt during the Pre–Dynastic Period, during the end of which was formed the rst state (the turn IVth-IIIrd Millennium BCE), is connected with the analysis of the most important images in religious mythology, hence the image of the of the Eye of Horus (    ) which symbolized some basic ideas of ancient Egyptian culture. 



The notions about the primeval hill in a form of round closed space were combined with its perception as a multi–part structure, and the layout of the settlement with two crossing streets is indicative in this respect. From the Amratian phase of the Naq da culture the idea of a four– part division of the cosmos in its horizontal length was reected in rectangular constructions (oriented to the parts/ corners of the world) and buildings surrounded by a wall. This image of a closed cosmos was shown in the most ancient sanctuary of the Lower Egypt     . Sacral constructions re ected the image of the world in its horizontal and vertical length. The architectonics of early sanctuaries served as a model of the world: a dome–shaped roof symbolized the sky and the walls were personifying the suopposed four quarters of the world. Placed on mud brick platforms the shrines rose above other structures symbolizing the very centre of the Universe. 



Figure 1: A representation of the Eye of Horus (as a particularly big amulet made of faience and dating from the Roman Period). © Copyright Pelizäus Museum, Hildesheim & CCER/U–CCER, 2005.



The representation of a falcon symbolizing the god Horus from Hierakonpolis —which headed the uni cation of Egypt— was becoming more and more popular. This deity was represented on such artifacts as ceremonial palettes, ritual maces, seals, & c. In multi– gured compositions the beasts of prey chasing after herbivorous animals, scenes of shooting and battles with fragments of a myth or ritual ceremony became predominant. 



Painted pottery provides rich information concerning the world model and the rst ancestors in the Pre–Dynastic 

3

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

Large ceremonial palettes13 are the most important sources for studying the image of the heavenly eye during the Late Pre–Dynastic Period. Reliefs on the ceremonial artifacts belonging to social leaders attest to the existence of the myth about the Eye of Horus, the ritualized form of which is re ected through hunting and battle scenes symbolizing a sacri cial offering.



The image of the Eye of Horus was formed on the basis of notions about an ancient solar goddess, the ritual of slaughter of the sacri cial bull, the dismemberment of the bodies of the dead, and other beliefs and rituals characteristic of the primeval societies at various stages of their development. This is the reason for the existence of archaisms and many versions of texts about the Eye of Horus. We have good grounds to believe that the ritual of the «Opening of Lips and Eyes»14 can be traced back to the Pre–Dynastic Period15. 

ring the Pre–Dynastic Period. Representations of the Eye of Ho rus symbolizing a sacri cial offering and posthumous resurrection are not known until the IIIrd Dynasty. At the same time this image preserved the notions about the ancient solar goddess ( 

) who though became part of god Horus, namely the eye on his forehead, nevertheless, was his essence, i.e.: the complete and the sound Eye of Horus, the condition of his existence. The mythological reconstruction of the whole Eye of Horus was reproduced in the ritual lining of the eyes with «malachite green» symbolizing the renovation of life. The myth of the Eye of Horus came into being at the time of the late chiefdoms re ecting the origins of the king’s power and thus marking the very beginning of the early state in Egypt. The culture of Pre–Dynastic Egypt had a style based on the conceptions of integrity and ascent into eternity, inherited by a further course of development of the ancient Egyptian state and society*.

Abbreviations AEE = Aspects of Early Egypt (Spencer, J., ed.) London 1996. AVDAIK = Archäologische Veröffentlichungen der Deutsches Ar-

chäologisches Institut, Mainz am Rhein. JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago IL. MDAIK = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäeologischen Instituts Ab-

teilung Kairo, Mainz am Rhein. OED = Origin and Early Development of Food–Producing Cultures in

North–Eastern Africa (Krzyzaniak, L., ed.) Posnan 1984. OAPD = Origins of African Plant Domestication, The Hague 1976. ZÄS = Zeitschrift fur Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Leipzig–Berlin.

Figure 2: The famous Mykerinos’ triad, a characteristic Old Kingdom example of the conceptualization of the State’s theocracy and the geographical division of Egypt in nomes. © Copyright Egyptian Museum, Cairo, 2005.

The complicated nature of the image of the Eye of Horus is re ected in its various embodiments, which existed du

13 Petrie, W.M.F.: Ceremonial Slate Palettes with Reliefs Corpus of Proto–Dynastic Pottery, London 1953. 14 Matie, .: «Drevneegipetskij obrjad otverzania ust i ochej», Voprosi istorii, peligii i ateizma, 5, oskva & ST Petersburg 1958, 349-51. 15 Roth, A.V.: «Fingers, Stars, and the «Opening of the Mouth: The Na
 –Blades», Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, ture and Function of the 79, 1993, 59 & 63.



* Editor’s Note: On the notion of the primeval hill, see Buck, A. de: De egyptische Voorstellingen bettrefende den Oerheuvel, Leiden 1922 [for a detailed summary in English, cf. Hall, H.R. in JEA, 10, 1924, 185-87]. On the Orphic ideas about the  mophagia, the conception of the Sun as a celestial eye and the four pillars of the world (in comparison with the Egyptian similar ones), see Maravelia, A.–A.: Les astres dans les textes religieux en Égypte antique et dans les Hymnes Orphiques, Oxford (BAR International Series) 2006, 326-28, 351 & n. 181 / 354 & n. 194, 384 & n. 29 (respectively), in press.

4

Galina A. Belova: Ancient Memphis and the Helleno–Roman World: A Short Note

Ancient Memphis and the Helleno–Roman World: A Short Note* Galina A. Belova

geophysical studies, Memphis at this period was stretching along the western river bank which was higher and thus safer during the Nile  oods6. But until now the attempts to locate the district of the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom capitals failed. During the Middle Kingdom, when the Delta was invaded by the Hyks s, in spite of the fact that Theban kings stimulated the indignation of the Hyks s, they were accepted at Memphis7. This means that Memphis played a particular part in the political history of this period, which should be brought to light. During the New Kingdom Memphis becomes a capital again and the state administration is transferred there. In favour of a higher importance of the city evidences the fact that the royal of cials chose the Saqq  ra necropolis as the place for their burials but not the necropolis of Thebes8. Starting from the XXVIth Dynasty (664-610 BCE) Memphis became a hot spot in the political history of Egypt. On the territory which now is called Kom Tum n, Apries, one of the rulers of the Saite Dynasty, built a palace which was contained within a large enclosure, very probably a military camp. The site was excavated by the English Egyptologist W.M.F. Petrie at the beginning of the XXth century9. Pharaoh Amasis II, Apries’ successor, transferred the king’s guard of Ionian and Karian mercenaries to Memphis10. The mercenaries were accommodated in special blocks separated by walls from each other11. It is very likely that the mercenaries’ settlement was situated on the territory of Kom Tum n, to the south of the palace complex of Apries. In all probability it was there the forti ed military camp. According to the classical authors, it is called Leukon Teichos (= White Wall)12. In 525 BCE Egypt was conquered by the troops of the Persian King Kambys s. After a long siege Memphis fell. Thousands of its dwellers were executed as well as Psamm tichos III, the very last pharaoh of the th 13 XXVI Dynasty . There is a probability that the Persian military garrison was accommodated at Memphis on the territory of the palace of Apries. In the nearby territories there were found numerous bronze objects which could be the armament of the Persian army14. Memphis maintained its position as the second capital after Egypt was conquered by the troops of Alexander the Great and when the economic, political and commercial centre of the state was transferred to Alexandria. During the times of the Lagid Dynasty the city occupied a territory of 50 km2. About 6 km2 were within

Abstract In November 2001 the Centre for Egyptological Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences started its work at the site of Mit Rah na (Kom Tum n, Tell Aziz a and Kom Dawb bi), which was continued in December 2002. The results of the rst season and the analysis of surface material were very promising. The second season at Kom Tum n was concentrated again on topographical, geological and geophysical surveys, which combined several interdisciplinary methods. The geophysical survey has detected the existence of subterranean structures resembling the plans of palace structures, and living quarters. Numerous accumulations as well as separate architectural fragments, spread all over Kom Tum n, Tell Aziz a and Kom Dawb bi, were examined and described. Different kinds of ceramics dating from the Helleno–Roman Period were found there: amphorae, jugs, pots, lids of vessels, several fragments of faience, black–varnished and red–polished pottery. Without any doubts local ceramics and faience production workshops existed at this region. There were also found numerous samples of pottery from Chios, Phasos, & c. There are all grounds to be convinced for the tight links between Ancient Memphis and the Helleno–Roman world.


















KEY WORDS: Ancient Memphis, Ancient Hellas, Helleno–Roman







World, Kom Tum n, Tell Aziz a, Kom Dawb bi, Saite Period, Late Period, Ptolemaic Period.

Memphis and the Helleno–Roman World in Context Bounding the Upper and Lower Egypt as well as trade routes across the Eastern and Western deserts Memphis was the city of great political, economic and religious importance throughout the ancient history. Foreigners often associated Memphis with the whole Egypt, and the name of the main Memphite temple  

   1 was transformed by the Hell nes to Aigyptos that became the name for the entire country. Memphis was founded in the Delta apex by the  rst legendary King M n s according to H rodotos2. Most likely M n s3 was not the  rst who realized the geographical importance of this place: the location of Memphis at the junction of two parts of the country allowed controlling trade between Upper Egypt and the Mediterranean world through the Delta. It was also an important strategic point that blocked up the entry to the Valley. The settlements at this region existed as far back as in the Pre –Dynastic Period4. The toponyme   (= White Walls) was mentioned in the tombs of the  rst dynasties5 and was the name of the  rst fortress at the place. But the glorious history of Memphis starts from the moment when both lands, the Valley and the Delta, were uni ed under the domination of Memphite kings. By the IVth Dynasty Memphis was already of a great economical importance. According to the results of

6

See Jeffreys, D. & Tavares A. «The Historical Landscape of Early Dynastic Memphis», MDAIK, 50, 1994, 159. 7 See Redford, D.B. (ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, III, 2001, 373. 8 See Martin, G.T.: The Hidden Tombs of Memphis: New Discoveries from the Time of Tutankhamun and Ramses the Great, London 1993, 26-27. 9 See Petrie, W.M.F.: The Palace of Apries, II, London 1909, 1. 10 See de Meulenaere, H.J., art. «Amasis», LÄ, I, 181-82. 11 See Thompson, D.J.: Memphis under the Ptolemies, Princeton 1988, 83. 12 Cf. Redford: op. cit., 374. 13 See Trigger, B.G., Kemp, B.J., O’Connor, D. & Lloyd, A.B.: Ancient Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge 1998, 286. 14 Cf. Petrie: op. cit., 11.

* The author is grateful to Dr Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia for making her English more idiomatic. She also thanks Dr Alexej Krol. 1

See Aufrère, S. & Golvin, J.–C.: L’Egypte restituée, III, Paris 1997, 65-67. See Herodotos: II, 99. 3 See Midant–Reynes, B.: The Prehistory of Egypt, Oxford 2000, 248-49. 4 Cf. op. cit., 232; Wilkinson, T.A.H.: Early Dynastic Egypt, NY 11999, 339. 5 See Helck, W.: Die Altägyptischen Gaue, Wiesbaden 1974, 147. 2

5

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

the main forti ed walls. At this period the population of Memphis numbered from 50,000 to 200,000 inhabitants15. According to some present studies, the palaces of the Ptolemies should be situated near the palace of Apries (perhaps in the western part of the present Kom Tum n). There is a possibility that it is here where the Ptolemaic kings stayed during their visits to Memphis on the occasion of coronation ceremonies, which —beginning at least from the reign of Ptolemaios V Epiphan s— was performed in the temple of Ptah16, situated southward of Kom Tum n. At that time, as it was shown by an underwater survey at Abuq r, the trade routes linked Memphis with the Mediterranean world via H rakle n, which was situated at the mouth of the Canopic branch of the Nile. Kom Tum n at that time was surrounded with living quarters, including settlements of foreigners (Hellen s, Persians, Syrians, Phœnicians, & c.), who had their own shrines and their civil infrastructure.

In 1900-1901 A. Daninos Pasha made a test cut in the North part of the ruin eld at a site which can not be any more exactly determined; probably near the palace of Apries. He uncovered a mud–brick building and a pit with a cache of bronze objects dated to 23-26 CE20. G. Daressy in 1902 reported that some small bronze objects were found, which must have come from Thebes, as only Theban deities are represented21. In eight years G. Maspero (1921) stated that the Daninos fragments were parts of the decoration of several palanquins belonging to one of the last kings of the XXVIth Dynasty. It is possible that the palanquins came from Thebes as a part of the bridal equipment of a princess who was married in Memphis 22. According to W.K. Simpson the cache contained a total of 42 objects 23.



















In December 2002 the survey was continued. The result of the previous survey and the analyses of surface material are very promising. The second season at Kom Tum n was concentrated again on topographical, geological and geophysical survey, which combined several methods. A geophysical survey has detected the existence of subterranean structures resembling the plans of palace structures and living quarters. The archaeological work came to the study of surface material at the site on an area of 40 by 40 m. The work was being done at the sites, which were considerably damaged by illegal excavations. Homogeneous archaeological material was found in all squares (A, B, C). Numerous accumulations, as well as separate architectural fragments, spread all over Kom Tum n, Tell Aziz a and Kom Dawb bi were examined and described. 

The ancient traveller and historian Strab n, who visited Egypt at the end of the 1st century BCE, describes Memphis as follows17: «the city of Memphis is big and densely populated, the second after Alexandria, with the population of mixed race, like those who lived together in Alexandria. There are lakes in front of the city and palaces, which have been destroyed and are now deserted. They are built on the hill and reach the lower city foundations; a park and a lake adjoin the city». During the Roman Period Memphis remained a large capital center. The Roman camp was situated on the territory of Kom Tum n. The number of the legionaries was not large and consisted of about 500 soldiers. Close to the camp was built the temple of god Mithras, whose cult was popular in the Roman army. In any case, it is in the territory of Kom Dawb bi where in the early XIXth century were discovered and described the reliefs with representations of Mithraïc scenes18. Not far from the temple of Mithras there was probably a theatre mentioned in one of the Roman Period letters19. During the Byzantine Period the city lost its lustre and its gradual decline started. With the foundation of the forti ed camp at Fust t (the present Cairo) the city lost its importance as the capital. The location of the ancient capital was completely lost in the VIIth century CE. Beginning from the XVIth century some European travellers thought that the city was located in the environs of the village of Mit Rah na. In 1799 Napoleon’s expedition determined once and for all the location of Memphis. Nowadays the site consists of dozens of Tells separated by villages and channels. This was a sketch–history of Memphis. It is obvious that there were tight links between Memphis and the Mediterranean world. 





The pottery uncovered in the squares is mainly represented by Hellenic specimens and by numerous local imitations, which differ from the Hellenic ones. Different kinds of ceramics were found here, such as: amphorae, jugs, pots, lids of vessels, several fragments of faience and black–varnished and red–polished pottery. Without any doubts local ceramics and faience production workshops existed in this area. Analysis of potsherds from the surface allows us to conclude that the majority of samples dates to the Saite and the Helleno– Roman Period (VIth BCE - IInd CE). The production of such centers as Chios and Phasos is widely represented. As a whole they are vessels for wine. This does not contradict to the words of H rodotos that the Egyptians did not produce wine. Probably the wine production in the Fay m Oasis was not competitive to those leaders of the Antique market. The local ceramic tare was too fragile for transporting any liquid, though useful for storing such sort of things like grain, & c. The collected samples witness that the Memphis élite preferred to consume the import olive oil and wine. The numerous sherds of imported vessels spreading all over the site allow us to conclude that the trade between Egypt and the Helleno–Roman world existed at that time. Therefore, there are all grounds to be convinced of the tight links between Ancient Memphis and the Helleno–Roman world.











In 2001 the Centre for Egyptological Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences started the survey at Mit Rah na (the site of Memphis known currently in Egyptian Archaeology under this name). The Russian concession includes three areas: Kom Tum n, Kom Dawb bi and Tell Aziz a. All of them were parts of ancient Memphis. The territory of the Russian concession is practically not studied. 





20

See Daninos, A.: «Note sur les fouilles de Metrahyneh», ASAE, 5, 1904, 142-43. 21 See Daressy, G.: «Une trouvaille de bronzes à Mit Rahineh», ASAE, 3, 1902, 139-50 & pls I-III. 22 See Maspero, G.: Art in Egypt, London 1921, 288 ff & pls 560-62. 23 Cf. PM, III², 831.

15

Cf. Thompson: op. cit., 35. 16 Schneider, C.: Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus, I, München 1967, 564. 17 See Strab n: XVII, 32. 18 See Cumont, F.: Textes et monuments gurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra, II, Bruxelles 1896, 285 & 407. 19 See Jeffreys, D.G.: The Survey of Memphis, I, London 1985, 15.




6

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

Among the Hidden Treasures of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2* Amanda–Alice Maravelia

LP, Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. IoannC s DC mC triou had donated them to the Hellenic Government in 1884. He acquired ten of these sarcophagi from AkhmD m. They were found in 1884 in the necropolis of Khemmis2. Further information about the discovery of the sarcophagi and the circumstances under which they were found is regrettably missing.

Abstract This is the second part of the project started three years ago and is related to the complete and precise study of 10 anthropoid sarcophagi and their mummies, dating from the Ptolemaic Period and kept at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. The Egyptian Collection of the National Archaeological Museum keeps most of its riches well hidden in the Museum’s storerooms. Among those, we have managed to rediscover some Ptolemaic Period cof ns with their mummies. All these particular anthropoid sarcophagi have been published in the Hellenic language in a rather elementary and concise way (with some erroneous points) more than a century ago by Tasos Neroutsos. That author was a medical doctor who lived in Alexandria. Since then the cof ns have fallen into oblivion, have never been exhibited in the Museum’s showrooms (except one), and nobody else since the late Neroutsos cared to study them accurately. Now after so many years that have elapsed, a new generation of well–quali ed Egyptologists, with the Museum’s collaboration, try to bring into light these forgotten and more or less unknown nds. These cof ns have been discovered in Egypt and were donated to the Hellenic Government during the late 19th century by wealthy patriots who lived there. The purpose of this article is to remind both the Egyptologists and the Egyptophili of the presence of these forgotten mummies and to present a complete and precise study of some of these sarcophagi, dating from the Ptolemaic Period. The remainder ve out of these ten anthropoid cof ns and their hieroglyphic inscriptions are thoroughly examined and presented in this paper. The previous ve were presented in the Thessaloniki EAA 8th Conference, during the egyptological session, and have been already published [see Maravelia & Cladaki–Manoli, 2004]. The third and nal part of this project will include the medical and anatomical examination of the mummies, using modern forensic techniques.

AkhmD m, is an area on the east bank of the Nile opposite modern SohE g. The ancient Egyptians called it Ipu (FHG1I ) or Khent–Min (JKMLHN OPKQI ). To the Copts it was Khmin or Shmin (RTSVU W ), and so the HellC nes called it Khemmis (XZY9[M[#\ ] ) or Panopolis (^Z_a`b c#d ef\ ] ) after the principal god of the city Min, who was identig ed with Pan3 by them. It was once a great centre in Egypt and the capital of the 9th Upper Egyptian Nome (^Z_a`d c#d efh i(j5] ). The ancient necropolis of Akhmk m and its large number of rock–cut tombs that belonged to different dates from the Sixth Dynasty4 until the Ptolemaic Period, particularly at the ’El-Hawawk sh area, to the northeast of Akhmk m and at ’El-Salaml ni, had never been scientifically excavated5. Percy Newberry6 first made an attempt in 1912, but unfortunately most of the findings had been largely plundered during the 1880s. In fact he unearthed several tombs dating from the LP. More recently these tombs were re– examined and recorded by Professor Naguk b Kanawm ti7. It (%$5 3XEOLVKLQJ, S 1052) 2002, 15-29, where relevant bibliography is given. Finally, for the rst part of this project of studying the Ptolemaic mummies at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, see Maravelia, A.–A. & Cladaki–Manoli, E.: «Among the Hidden Treasures of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 1», Europe, Hellas and Egypt: Complementary Antipodes during the Late Antiquity: Papers from a Session, held at the European Association of Archaeologists 8th Annual Meeting in Thessaloniki 2002 (Maravelia, A.–A., ed.), Oxford (%$53XEOLVKLQJ S 1218) 2004, 5-20. n

KEY WORDS: Ancient Egypt: Anthropoid Coffins, Mummy Cases,

Akhm
m (= Panopolis, Khemmis), Ptolemaic Period; Religion: Funerary Practices, Offering Formula; Museums: National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Egyptian Collections.

2

See Neroutsos, T.D.: « o p5qrs turs vxw/y{z=|}/~(€q(q(‚  s vVƒ/„„p5…'(†{‡5ˆq5‰H~(Š5v »™›šxœ žŸ  ¡( Q¢ŽŸ £¤¦¥§f¨H©Qªœ« ¬9™ Athens 1884, cols 171-80 & pl. 12. 3 The god of fertility and master of the deserts between the Nile and the Red Sea. Min was associated with Pan, both being benevolent ithyphallic and/or fertility deities, personifying the male fecundity forces of Nature. See, for instance, BMD, 1996, 187-88: art. «Min». Cf. also Ogdon, J.R.: «Some Notes on the Iconography of Min», BES, 7, 1985-86, 29-41. 4 See Browarski, E.J.: Akhm ­ m in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, Cairo 1985. 5 See, for instance, McNally, S.: «Survival of a City: Excavations at Akhm® m», NARCE, 116, 1981-82, 26-30; cf. also Kuhlman, K.P.: Materialen zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim, Mainz 1983. 6 See Newberry, P.E.: «The Inscribed Tombs of Ekhmim», LAAA, 4, 1912, 101-20. 7 See Kanaw¯ ti, N.: The Rock Tombs of ’El-Hawaw ­ sh: The Cemetery of Akhm ­ m, I-X, Sydney 1980-92. Prof. Kanaw¯ ti (personal communication) believes that these cofn ns perhaps came from ’El-Salam° ni, not far from ’El-Hawaw® sh (which was the cemetery of Akhmim during the OK). In his opinion they are all Ptolemaic. He points out however that the area of Akhm® m contains many sites not yet excavated systematically and accordingly the whereabouts of earlier cemeteries, like the necropolis of the NK, is uncertain. For ’El-Salam° ni and ’El-Hawaw® sh, see also PM, IV: 1720; Kanaw¯ ti, N.: Soh± g in Upper Egypt: A Glorious Story, Guizeh (Prism Archaeological Series, 4) 1999. For Akhm® m, see n nally LÄ, I, 1975, cols 54-55: art. «Achmim»; Clarysse, W.: «A Ptolemaic Tomb from Akhm® m», GM, 206, 2005, 5-6. Possibly the paper by Dr Dr Maya Müller in this volume (cf. pp. 45-46) provides a clue as per the lack of information during ~( z-‹ Œ5Ž…' s …'Š5v‘ ’Ž“ ”• –—w/y(˜ Š5v

I. Introduction The National Archaeological Museum of Athens1 owns a respectable number of anthropoid sarcophagi dated to the TIP, * Special thanks are due to Prof. Dr Nagu b Kanaw ti for some information on the site of Akhm m and for reading the manuscript. Prof. Claude Obsomer, Prof. Willy Clarysse and Dr Mark Depauw, who provided information from Prosopographia Ptolemaica, are warmly acknowledged. Many thanks are also due to the director of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Dr N. Kaltsas, for permitting the study and publication of these sarcophagi; as well as to Mrs H. Papazoglou, in charge of the Prehistoric Collections, Mrs H. Tourna, in charge of the Egyptian Collection and the staff of the Museum. Last, but not least, thanks are due to Dr Helen Cladaki–Manoli —whose many important social obligations did not permit her to participate more actively in this project— for her brief notes on the stylistic analysis of the sarcophagi. Please send offprint requests to the author at: [email protected]. 1

For a concise introduction to the Egyptian Collection at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, see Maravelia, A.–A.:     

  . @45A5?

!#"%$'&()(*+-,/.  10( 23,/45$

6($)5&

798

:4

7

. / ;45?

... Egyptian Collections in Hellenic Museums: A Brief History & Some PiecesB , Ancient Egypt and Antique Europe: Two Parts of the Mediterranean World. Papers from a Session held at the 7th Annual Meeting of the EAA in Esslingen 2001 (Maravelia, A.–A., ed.), Oxford

7

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

seems plausible to suppose that the sarcophagi examined here originated from these very tombs, then dispersed into the antiquities’ market, whereof they were subsequently bought by Ioann s D m triou, who donated them —together with several more items— to the National Archaeological Museum.

the features. A thick black line imitating most probably a beard is drawn from the side of one cheekbone to the other. There was also a false beard attached to the chin but it was lost. Under the chest level there are traces of a vertical band, which bear hieroglyphic inscriptions. Now only some symbols drawn in black colour can be recognized. The rest of the cof n is not decorated; it seems plausible that any of the decorations —if there were any— have been naturally erased. On the pedestal there are remains of two black jackal  gures of Anubis crouching on a shrine–like stand10. A vertical band, bearing a hieroglyphic inscription, now almost lost, starts from the chest (from the pendant11) and runs to the feet.

As was already mentioned, D m triou granted the study of those Akhm m sarcophagi to Tasos Neroutsos, before sending them to Athens. Neroutsos was a medical doctor living in Alexandria. He was most probably very interested in Egyptology and —as was the tendency in those years— he was self–educated on the subject. Some erroneous points in his reading and interpretation of the hieroglyphic inscriptions are discussed in the text. However, his contribution is quite important, since he managed to save the inscriptions on the sarcophagi, for they are partially obliterated nowadays (due to poor preservation). Due to his readings we were able to re– synthesize them to the best of our knowledge. The five anthropoid sarcophagi that we present here are kept in the storerooms of the Museum’s Egyptian Collection accompanying a few more that have been donated to the Hellenic government in the beginning of the 20th century. These coffins have never been exhibited in the past because of the lack of space in the Museum’s premises. The staff of the Egyptian Collection has recently restored the coffins. However the deficient knowledge in the maintenance of these sarcophagi, when they arrived in Hellas before 120 years, resulted in their bad condition and the splintering of some of their depictions. Only one of them is currently on display8 (AIG 3340) in exhibition room # 40. k

The hieroglyphic inscription on the coffin [see Figure 1b] reads as follows:

    "!#$&%(')+*-,.$&%/0)1# 32 546-#798:73; %A@$  B)A*C DEF7  6 % !

This text is translated as: Words to be recited by Osiris, foremost of Amenthis, (the) great god, lord of Abydos: (that he may) give invocation offerings (consisting of): bread (and) beer; oblations (of): beer, oxen, fowl, incense, clothing, wine, milk, (and) every thing, good, pure and sweet, upon which a god lives; every offering, to the Osiris, Lady of the House, Ryri 25, (the) justi` ed, daughter of Pa–ded–hem–Any, (the) justi` ed, born to Ta–en–her–roud, (the) justi` ed!

a =  b G!,m/ B"=.%*&: ;*7

This text is translated as: Words to be recited by Qebeh–senou–ef: 4. Flanking Short Lines, Left Side, Line 1: a =  b 8#%&X 7

This text is translated as: Words to be recited by Imsety: 5. Flanking Short Lines, Left Side, Line 2: a =  b G!RnI-%=  IG: ;*7

This text is translated as: Words to be recited by Doua–mout–ef: NAM, AIG 3349 – D o m o triou Collection. Object & Material: Anthropoid Coffin; Wood, Painted. Owner: Djed–Hor/Nes–Hor(?),son of Lady Mehtet–Asekh (p ). Date: Early to Mid–Ptolemaic Period (304-150 BCE). Place & Date of Provenance: Akhm q m 1884. Dimensions: H = 1.77 m, L = 0.40 m.

A «black–ground» sarcophagus in a very poor condition, hence the surface colour has been destroyed as well as any decoration, if one existed [see Fig. 5a]. The wood has also cracked and split in places. Traces of blue colour can be seen on the Egyptian wig that adorns the head. The face is long and narrow with protruding ears above the wig and is painted yellow. The eyes are almond–shaped and normally drawn. The eyebrows are long and painted with black colour. The nose, which narrows between the eyes, widens at the nostrils. The mouth is small with r eshy protruding lips. The facial characteristics are in good condition. The mummy is still inside the cofs n and has not been removed since it was donated to the Museum. A white band bearing a hieroglyphic inscription with black signs, that was starting around the middle of the cofs n, is now almost invisible. Fortunately Neroutsos saved it, only with one mistake26. The hieroglyphic inscription on the coffin [see Figure 5b] reads as follows: cY = " .=. 6b@ >tuv w8x%y&uvz(vG{L|u*} ~I.€%|u O‚1*ƒ „&…x%~ †Xu‡ €4< u8‰ ~C‹Œ Ž8~9   Ž8~(‘’1|y z u{Ru  z(vG{L “V~4”–•v v''€ t … ˆ ˆŠ ˆ ˆ Š ˆ

27

This text is translated as:

2. Flanking Short Lines, Right Side, Line 1:

a =  b  c  7
hGi j1k j1k l ), see Ranke: op. cit., I, 217: # 4.

26

Actually, the name of the deceased is Djed–Hor (—4˜>™ š(› ), not Tekhen (œN%ž ; Ÿ %¡T¢(£ ), as he claimed (see op. cit., 175). 27 We note that this ž seems superfluous, since a past ¤'¥N¦H§ ž>§¨ form would be completely unlikely, due to the context of the funerary spell, which needs the analogue of the French «subjonctif présent» to be expressed. The peculiar phonetic orthography of the verb © › ( © +› , instead of the typical Gardiner’s D4) has also to be noted.

de'f

10

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

ve (i.e.: make protection for) the Osiris Djed–Hor 28 (Nes– Hor ?), born to the Lady of the House Mehtet–Asekh!

the body and its provision with the anthropoid coffin would allude and magically provoke the acquisition of this very blessed status. On the other hand, the presence of liturgical inscriptions, like the offering formula, or excerpts from the Book of the Dead (and other relevant underworld ritual texts), could be considered as a magical funerary practice, which would be sympathetically capable of virtually creating the necessary afterlife victuals and provisions, thus safeguarding the immortality of the deceased humans, providing continuous sustenance for their spirits (1324 ).

III. Conclusions The large Egyptian Collection at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens features signi cant masterpieces and has a long history. Presumably it is the 4th largest in Europe —comprising about 7000 pieces— out of which only 310 are currently exhibited29. In the present article we examined thoroughly five anthropoid coffins belonging to this collection. A short stylistic analysis was performed and the hieroglyphic inscriptions of the sarcophagi were studied in detail. This is the second part of a project 30, which aims at studying the mummies of the Egyptian Collection. The third part (medical, anatomical and CT–examination of the bodies31 by special forensic scientists) will be published later, and hopefully it will be followed —in due time— by the study of all the sarcophagi and other funerary implements.

Typologically, the sarcophagi studied here belong (more or less) to the Swollen Type of Coffin35, which is typical of the period c. 650 to 150 BCE. This emerged during the beginning of the Saitic Dynasty and remained in use with numerous variations until the middle of the Lagid Dynasty. It was made of either wood or stone. The cof n’s head was often unnaturally placed deeply between the shoulders, and two decorative features, the plinth and the back pillar were practically obligatory. The deceased was depicted wearing a wig, ceremonial cosmetic lines, and frequently a symbolic chin– beard36. Finally, the mummiform body was often decorated with a broad collar, inscriptions37 and images of various divinities38. During the last three centuries BCE, traditional Pharaonic styles of burial were considerably and increasingly in5 uenced by the classical motifs39. The cof ns studied here can be considered as representative of the  nal stages of development of the mid [see for instance NAM: AIG 3349] and higher status [see for instance NAM: AIG 3343 (?), AIG 3344, AIG 3346, AIG 3347] burials of the Pharaonic type, before any serious adoption of foreign (either Hellenic or Roman) elements. The five anthropoid coffins studied here in their component parts (lids, mummies, cartonnages, & c.), as well as in the choice of decoration and inscriptions, constitute an almost purely Egyptian assemblage. They belonged to higher mid– class persons who lived during the swan–song era40 of the ancient Egyptian Empire.

The coffins are characteristic32 of the early–Ptolemaic until late–Ptolemaic Period relatively rich anthropoid sarcophagi, and bear the typical offering formula inscriptions and funerary liturgical spells. Chthonic gods (like Osiris or Osiris– Sokaris–Ptah) are invoked, but also heavenly and solar deities (Horus and Isis33) are praised, in order to offer the spirit of the deceased humans rich libations of beverages and oblations of food. Anthropoid coffins depict the deceased with the face of a living human and the bandaged/embalmed body of a mummy. This hybrid entity, called the
  var.:   , was considered to partake of both the divine and the human hypostases. The
  –status was achieved through a religiously correct burial, where the corpse was mummi ed, and provided with a mummy mask and a special coffin, in order to stride in the territory of the lightland (   ) of the blessed and of incorruptibility34. Additionally, the correct preparation of 28

For this name, see Ranke: op. cit., I, 411: # 12. See nn. 1 and 8, supra. The collection is going to be put again in permanent exhibition, after its storing in the Museum before, during and after the Olympic Games 2004 in Athens (possibly during mid–2006), with the collaboration of the author (after the kind invitation of the Museum). 30 For the  rst part, see Maravelia & Cladaki–Manoli: op. cit. (n. 1, supra). 31 See for instance Cocburn, A. & Cocburn, E.: Mummies, Disease and Ancient Cultures, Cambridge (Cambridge Univeristy Press) 1980. For the radiographs of royal mummies, see Harris, J.R. & Wente, E.F.: An X–Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, Chicago (University of Chicago Press) 1980. See also Germer, R.: «La momification», L’Égypte: Sur les traces de la civilisation pharaonique (Schulz, R. & Seidel, M., eds), Cologne (Könemann) 2000, 465:  g. 69-70, where a mummy from Akhm m, dating from c. 300 BCE and kept in the Provincial Museum at Hanover (LMH 7849) is referred to. Finally, cf. Partridge, R.: Faces of Pharaohs: Royal Mummies and Coffins from Ancient Thebes, London (BMP) 1994; N r ’el-D n, ‘A. ’elH.: The Royal Mummies: The Egyptian Museum, Cairo (SCA) 1994. 32 For some parallels, see Abeidine, A.Z. ’Al: «Note sur un sarcophage ptolémaïque inédit de la nécropole de Shaft ’el-Henna», GM, 201, 2004, 9-16; and Azza, F.: «Ein anthropoider Sarkophagdeckel aus ptolemäischer Zeit», GM, 201, 2004, 33-36. 33 For the cult of these deities in Panopolis and the plausible correctness of de Meulenaere’s assumptions (cf. Meulenaere, H. de: «Prophètes et danseurs Panopolitains à la Basse Époque», BIFAO, 88, 1988, 41-49 & pl. VI, especially 47), see Maravelia & Cladaki–Manoli: op. cit., 6 & n. 12; 9 & n. 42. Let it be noted that the composite Hellenic name  presumably derives from the junction of the names "!#%$'&(*)+,$.-0/ . Isis is invoked as a city–goddess of Khemmis. This seems plausibly quite an indication that de Meulenaere was right about the possible Triad cult of Min, Isis and Horus in Khemmis. 34 See for instance Wb., IV: 52; Faulkner’s, CD, 214-15; Budge’s, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, II, col. 646. For this blessed status, see Schneider, H.D.: 29

Shabtis, Leiden (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden) 1977, 65 ff, passim. The gilded cartonnage mask placed on the face of the deceased, provided an idealistic image of him/her as eternally young and equipped with the golden skin and curled beard characteristic of a divine being. 35 See Jørgensen: op. cit., 18. For a typical example of a limestone cof n originating from Akhm m, see ibid.: 268-69. 36 For these liturgical adornments, see n. 9, supra. 37 See e.g.: the coffin of Petosiris (JE 46.592) at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, bearing elaborate hieroglyphic inscriptions, in Lefebvre, G.: Le tombeau de Petosiris, III, Le Caire 1924, pl. 58; cf also PM, IV, 174. 38 See for instance the deities on the coffin of Nespam‘ai (ÄMB 12/66 A-B), in the catalogue Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, Berlin 1967, # 868; and in Fay, B.: Egyptian Museum Berlin, Berlin (SMPK) 51992, 150: # 75. 39 See Walker, S. & Bierbrier, M.: Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt, London (BMP) 1997, 29. A very elaborate nice cof n, similar to that of Lady Ta–Khered–Min (NAM AIG 3348), studied in Maravelia & Cladaki–Manoli: op. cit., 8-9 (and particularly to NAM, AIG 3347, which is studied here), characteristic of the same transitional period, is that of the priest and dignitary Hornedjitef, dating from c. 250 BCE and coming from Thebes West (‘As 6 s f); for this, see Walker & Bierbrier: op. cit., 29-30 &  g. 1. Various cof ns dating from the Late Ptolemaic and Helleno–Roman Period, found at Akhm m, are kept in the British Museum. For some additional Ptolemaic cof ns, see Berlev, O. & Hodjash, S.: Catalogue of Monuments of the Ancient Egypt, Freibourg (University Press / OBO, 17) 1998, 35-36: # 48-50, 53 & 55. See,  nally, D’Auria, S., Lacovara, P. & Roehrig, C.H.: Mummies and Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt, Boston (Museum of Fine Arts) 1988. 40 For this period, see e.g.: Lloyd, A.B.: «The Ptolemaic Period (332-30 BC)», The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Shaw, I., ed.), Oxford (Oxford University Press) 22002, 395-421.

11

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 1(A): The wooden anthropoid coffin belonging to Tekha (NAM, AIG 3343). © Copyright & Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Hellas, 2004.

12

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

NAM, AIG 3343 Owner: Tekha, son of Djed–Hor ( ). Date: Mid–Ptolemaic to Early Roman Period (150-30 BCE). Place & Date of Provenance: Akhm m 1884. Dimensions: H = 1.67 m, L = 0.40 m. Material: Wood, Painted. 

FIGURE 1(B): The hieroglyphic inscription of the previous anthropoid coffin (NAM, AIG 3343) and its relative position. © Copyright Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia, 2004.

13

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 2(A): The wooden anthropoid coffin belonging to Sekhem (NAM, AIG 3344). © Copyright & Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Hellas, 2004.

14

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

NAM, AIG 3344 Owner: Sekhem, son of Ta–Khor (child, ). Date: Mid–Ptolemaic to Early Roman Period (150-30 BCE). Place & Date of Provenance: Akhm m 1884. Dimensions: H = 1.30 m, L = 0.31 m. Material: Wood, Painted. 

FIGURE 2(B): The hieroglyphic inscription of the previous anthropoid coffin (NAM, AIG 3344) and its relative position. © Copyright Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia, 2004.

15

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 3(A): The wooden anthropoid coffin belonging to Ta–di–thed–Am n (NAM, AIG 3346). © Copyright & Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Hellas, 2004.

16

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

NAM, AIG 3346 Owner: Ta–di– thed–Am n, son of On phris and Lady S‘ankh ( ). Date: Mid–Ptolemaic to Early Roman Period (150-30 BCE). Place & Date of Provenance: Akhm m 1884. Dimensions: H = 1.82 m, L = 0. 44 m. Material: Wood, Painted. 





FIGURE 3(B): The hieroglyphic inscriptions of the previous anthropoid coffin (NAM, AIG 3346) and their relative position. © Copyright Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia, 2004.

17

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 4(A): The wooden anthropoid coffin belonging to Lady Ryri (NAM, AIG 3347). © Copyright & Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Hellas, 2004.

18

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

NAM, AIG 3347 Owner: Ryri, daughter of Pa– ded–hem–Any and Lady Ta–en– her–rud ( ). Date: Early to Mid–Ptolemaic Period (304-150 BCE). Place & Date of Provenance: Akhm m 1884. Dimensions: H = 1.73 m, L = 0.46 m. Material: Wood, Painted. 

FIGURE 4(B): The hieroglyphic inscriptions of the previous anthropoid coffin (NAM, AIG 3347) and their relative position. © Copyright Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia, 2004.

19

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 5(A): The wooden anthropoid coffin belonging to Nes–Hor (NAM, AIG 3349). © Copyright & Courtesy of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Hellas, 2004.

20

Amanda–Alice Maravelia: Searching for Forgotten Mummies, 2

NAM, AIG 3349 Owner: Djed–Hor (Nes–Hor ?), son of the Lady Mehtet–Asekh ( ). Date: Early to Mid–Ptolemaic Period (304-150 BCE). Place & Date of Provenance: Akhm m 1884. Dimensions: H = 1.77 m, L = 0.40 m. Material: Wood, Painted. 

FIGURE 5(B): The hieroglyphic inscription of the previous anthropoid coffin (NAM, AIG 3349) and its relative position. © Copyright Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia, 2004.

21

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

22

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek

ques statuettes, qui n’ont pas été publiées à ce jour, ainsi que quelques ré exions nées de ces diverses études à propos de la sexualité en Égypte ancienne

Abstract The Musée de l’Évêché in Limoges, France, contains an important collection of Egyptian Objects collected by a French industrialist, Mr Périchon–Bey, who lived in Middle Egypt for 20 years in the 20th century. About 2000 objects were given to the Limoges Museum; half of them are terracottas, among which a small quantity represents the so–called «obscene» gurines from the Ptolemaic Period. The present article gives the description of fourteen statuettes, which can be classi ed in this category. The author then tries to work out the meaning of such representations and takes this opportunity to situate them within the general context of the Egyptian Civilization in its dealing with sexuality.



II. Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection du Musée de l’Évêché à Limoges II.1. La Collection Périchon–Bey La ville de Limoges, en Haute–Vienne (France), possède une collection égyptienne au sein de son Musée municipal, sis dans l’ancien Palais épiscopal et portant pour cette raison le nom de «Musée de l’Évêché». Cette collection a été rassemblée par Jean–André Périchon Bey (1860-1929), industriel originaire de la petite ville de Bessines, et qui vécut 20 ans en moyenne Égypte où il dirigeait la sucrerie de Rodah. Il était en contact avec Maspéro et Lefèbure, et parvint à rassembler plusieurs milliers d’objets. À sa mort, une partie de la collection fut acquise probablement, entre autres, par le Musée du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles; quelques objets furent laissés à la ville de Bessines, et près de 2000 objets furent légués en 1931 par Mme Périchon–Bey à la ville de Limoges. En 1939, Mr Jean Delpech–Laborie, diplômé de l’Ecole du Louvre, classa la donation de Limoges et publia une description sommaire de certains objets exposés; ce livret est épuisé4. En 1953, Mme Paule Krieger t un inventaire sommaire de la collection et publia aussi quelques notes d’introduction et quelques notices pour le Guide du Musée, plusieurs fois réédité 5.

MOTS CLÉS: Égypte: Période Tardive, Figurines Érotiques et Ob-

scènes, Sexualité, Fécondité, Culte et Religion Populaire, Concubines des Morts; Musées: Musée de l’Évêché (Musée Municipal) de Limoges.

I. Introduction L’étude de diverses civilisations antiques nous enseigne que les œuvres représentant des exhibitions sexuelles de type érotique, parfois même pornographiques, revêtent souvent un sens philosophique greffé sur l’expression physico–charnelle de la sexualité. Nous faisons allusion à certaines peuplades de l’Asie du sud–est ancienne, particulièrement d’Inde1, ainsi que d’Afrique noire et de Hellas. Ces représentations, qu’il s’agisse de gurines, dessins ou textes, constituent une sorte de glori cation de la pulsion sexuelle, comprise comme la force vitale essentielle et fondamentale qui règle l’harmonie et la survie terrestres; à l’époque contemporaine, la psychologie freudienne a, dans une certaine mesure, abondé dans le même sens, plaçant le désir sexuel au cœur de la vie et de l’identité humaines. D’autres civilisations toutefois ont donné une interprétation différente de la sexualité, l’identi ant comme une force soumise à l’esprit et canalisée par la volonté: c’est le cas de la doctrine chrétienne.










De 1988 à 1990, j’ai effectué à mon tour, avec une petite équipe d’étudiants post–licence, l’étude des objets du fonds égyptien; les textes du sarcophage d’Iret–Hor–erou [Fig. 0] ont ainsi pu être publiés par mes soins, avec leur traduction6.




II.2. Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection: Leur Origine et leur Datation

Qu’en est-il de l’Égypte ancienne? On connaît le haut degré de sophistication et de raf nement de cette civilisation; dans le domaine sexuel, l’idéal conjugal est exprimé avec délicatesse dans le statut du couple égyptien2. Toutefois, une image plus «crue» de la sexualité apparaît également dans certaines représentations. Mes recherches sur la religion populaire3 m’ont ainsi permis de rassembler des textes de malédiction à caractère obscène; de même, l’étude de la collection égyptienne du Musée de l’Évêché à Limoges m’a conduit à me pencher sur quelques statuettes obscènes et à faire des rapprochements. Je me propose donc ici de présenter ces quel


Plus de la moitié de la collection égyptienne du Musée de l’Évêché est composée d’objets en terre cuite. Il s’agit de poteries, lampes à huile, statuettes d’animaux (chiens, chats, coqs, hippopotames, & c.), et de divinités de l’Égypte helléno–romaine: Harpocrat s, Aphrodit , D m t r, Korai et Satyroi, ainsi que des représentations du dieu Bès et de grotesques. Parmi ces statuettes, nous en avons classé une quatorzaine dans la catégorie «obscènes», ce qui recouvre en réalité des statuettes ayant divers sens et fonctions. La plupart de ces statuettes proviennent de la Vallée du Nil, et plus particulièrement de moyenne Égypte: Minya, Assyout, Tounah ’el-Gebel, Ashmoune n; certaines sont été trouvées parmi le 

1

Voir e.g.: Watson, F.: A Concise History of India, London 1978, 92-94. Voir Ebeid, N.I. :Egyptian Medicine, Cairo 1999, 292-99; Sadek, A.: «Aperçu général sur la femme dans l’Égypte ancienne», Le Monde Copte, 16, 1989, 3-20; cf. également, Sadek, A.: «History of Medicine: Some Aspects of Medicine in Pharaonic Egypt», Publié sur l’Internet par The Australian Academy of Medicine & Surgery (http://www.aams.org.au/contents.php? subdir=library/history/& lename=pharonic_egypt#10) Janvier 2001, particulièrement le chapitre «Women». 3 Voir Sadek, A.: Popular Religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom, Hildesheim (Gerstenberg Verlag / HÄB, 27) 1987.











2

4 Voir Delpech–Laborie, J.: Ville de Limoges, Musée Municipal de l’Évêché, Département des Antiquités égyptiennes: Guide–Catalogue Sommaire, Salle Périchon–Bey, Limoges, 1939. 5 Voir Guide du Musée Municipal de l’Évêché, Collection égyptienne.Émaux, Limoges 91986, 24-30. 6 Voir Sadek, A.: «La collection égyptienne du Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, France: le sarcophage de Iret–Hor–erou», GM, 115, 1990, 85-98.



23

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

mobilier funéraire des tombes de ces sites, mais la provenance exacte de chaque objet est rarement certaine. La datation, en revanche, est relativement facile à déterminer: il s’agit — comme l’indique la typologie des personnages— de l’époque tardive, ptolémaïque et hellénistique7.

Description: Harpocrate, coiffé de la mèche de l’enfance, est assis et tient son sexe hypertrophié sur l’épaule gauche et derrière sa nuque. Facture: Médiocre. État de conservation: Mauvais; extrémité du sexe, bras et jambe droits cassés.

II.3. Présentation des Figurines

4. Harpocrate E 812 d N° d’inventaire: E 812 d [voir Fig. 4]. Matériau: Terre cuite émaillée bleue. Datation: Époque ptolémaïque. Mesures [mm]: —— Description: Harpocrate, est assis et tient son sexe hypertrophié sur l’épaule gauche et derrière sa nuque; il a les mains posées sur ses genoux. Facture: Grossière; l’émail est de mauvaise qualité. État de conservation: Moyen; beaucoup d’usure.

Peu de temps après mon arrivée à Limoges, vers 1985, le défunt Maire de la ville, Mr Longequeue, m’avait con é la collection égyptienne et les clichés correspondants, a n d’étudier et d’annoter les objets en vue de publications éventuelles. Cette courtoisie m’a été renouvelée par le présent Maire, Mr Alain Rodet, que je remercie ici, ainsi que Mme Véronique Notin, conservatrice du Musée, qui a bien accepté le travail de notre équipe; je remercie également mes étudiants collaborateurs qui ont participé à la réalisation des ches et dessins publiés ici, ainsi que Mmes Dominique et Michèle Cosson.








5. Harpocrate E 812 e N° d’inventaire: E 812 e [voir Fig. 5]. Matériau: Terre cuite émaillée bleue. Datation: Époque ptolémaïque. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 26 / Épaisseur: 21 / Largeur: 30. Description: Harpocrate, dont le buste seul est conservé, tient son sexe hypertrophié sur l’épaule gauche et derrière sa nuque; il a la main gauche posée sur son sexe. Facture: Grossière; l’émail est de mauvaise qualité. État de conservation: Mauvais; l’extrémité du sexe et la main gauche sont cassées, ainsi que le bas de la statuette.

1. Harpocrate E 812 a N° d’inventaire: E 812 a [voir Fig. 1]. Matériau: Terre cuite émaillée bleue. Datation: Époque ptolémaïque. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 47 / Épaisseur: 23 / Largeur: 29. Description: Harpocrate, coiffé de la mèche de l’enfance, est assis sur un coussin. Il tient son sexe hypertrophié sur l’épaule gauche et derrière sa nuque; il a les mains posées sur ses genoux. Le revers de la statuette représente exactement le même Harpocrate. Facture: Médiocre; l’émail est de mauvaise qualité État de conservation: Mauvais; peu de cassures, mais beaucoup d’usure.

6. Harpocrate E 812 f N° d’inventaire: E 812 d [voir Fig. 6]. Matériau: Terre cuite émaillée bleue. Datation: Époque ptolémaïque. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 46 / Épaisseur: 19 / Largeur: 28. Description: Harpocrate est assis de pro l, la tête de face; il tient à deux mains son sexe hypertrophié devant lui. Facture: Grossière. État de conservation: Mauvais; beaucoup d’usure; éclats sur le front et le sexe.

2. Harpocrate E 812 b N° d’inventaire: E 812 b [voir Fig. 2]. Matériau: Terre cuite émaillée bleue. Datation: Époque ptolémaïque. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 47 / Épaisseur: 30 / Largeur: 18. Description: Harpocrate est assis et tient son sexe hypertrophié sur son épaule gauche et derrière sa nuque. La statuette est double et représente le même sujet au revers. Facture: Grossière. État de conservation: Mauvais; statuette très abîmée; face A, le front, l’extrémité du sexe, les genoux et la base sont cassés; face B, la face, les genoux, l’extrémité du sexe et la base sont cassés.




7. Statuette Érotique de Couple E 381 N° d’inventaire: E 381 [voir Fig. 7]. Matériau: Terre cuite rose. Datation: Époque hellénistique. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 118 / Largeur: 72. Description: Partie antérieure d’une statuette représentant une scène licencieuse. Les deux personnages sont accolés, ils ont tous deux la tête inclinée, on ne voit pas leurs bras. La femme penche la tête vers sa droite et présente un drapé compliqué. L’homme pourrait être un soldat car il semble revêtu d’une cuirasse; il présente une virilité hyperphallique et porte sur l’épaule gauche une cruche ou amphore très abîmée. Facture: Assez ne. État de conservation: Moyen dans l’ensemble: il manque la majeure partie de la face arrière, la couleur n’est pas homogène, on note quelques tâches blanches; elle a subi une restauration sur la face avant, car elle était cassée sur toute sa longueur.

3. Harpocrate E 812 c N° d’inventaire: E 812 c [voir Fig. 3]. Matériau: Terre cuite émaillée bleue. Datation: Époque ptolémaïque. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 65 / Épaisseur: 41 / Largeur: 21. 7




Au sujet de ce type d’objets, voir Dunand, F.: Catalogue des terres cuites gréco–romaines d’Égypte: Musée du Louvre, Paris 1990, en particulier 20513 (statuettes de femmes) & 227, 271-273 (hommes). Également, pour comparaisons, cf.: Leynaar–Plaiser, P.G.: Les terres cuites grecques et romaines, Pays Bas 1979; Giorgio, L.: Amuletti Egizi, Milano, Milano (BE–MA) 1988, surtout 82-85 (dieu Min, nain ithyphallique); Bayer–Nimeier, E.: Griechisch –Römische Terrakotten, I, Melsungen (Verlag Gutenberg) 1988, 202-07; Keel, O. & Ühlinger, C.: Altorientalische Miniaturkunst, Marinz am Rhein 1990. Il existe aussi une collection d’amulettes obscènes au British Museum.

24

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

d’offrandes 
 . Cette amulette fait partie d’un ensemble de dix amulettes de Ptah Patèque. Facture: Assez ne. État de conservation: Bon état. Comparaison: Amulette au Musée de Berlin8.

8. Grotesque E 342 N° d’inventaire: E 381 [voir Fig. 8]. Matériau: Terre cuite rose. Datation: Époque hellénistique. Mesures [mm]: —— Description: Grotesque assis, difforme, bras droit ramené sur la poitrine, un panier tressé rond au bras gauche; il porte une coiffure cornue. Facture: Grossière; le dos n’est pas traité. État de conservation: Assez bon, les pieds, la main gauche et une partie du bas du visage sont abîmés.




13. Statuette Masculine E 358 a N° d’inventaire: E 358 a et b [voir Fig. 13]. Matériau: Terre cuite rose. Datation: Époque hellénistique. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 120 / Largeur: 720. État de conservation: mauvais dans l’ensemble; il manque la face arrière du moulage; la partie droite du visage est endommagée.

9. Maternité de Style Naïf E 390 N° d’inventaire: E 390 [voir Fig. 9]. Matériau: Terre cuite rose. Datation: Époque copte. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 151 / Épaisseur: 40 / Largeur: 58. Description: Femme apparemment enceinte portant sur son bras gauche un bébé qui lève son bras entre ses seins; un autre enfant s’accroche à elle du côté droite. Son corps est nu. Facture: assez ne, bien que très naïve. État de conservation: Bon; quelques traces de peintures noire sur le corps. Comparaison: Collection Fouquet et Musée du Louvre; cf. e.g.: Perdrizet: op. cit. (n. 9). Textes, 5-7 et pls vi-vii.

14. Harpocrate E 525 N° d’inventaire: E 525 [voir Fig. 14]. Matériau: Plâtre. Datation: Époque ptolémaïque. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 49 / Épaisseur: 9 / Largeur: 28. Description: Petit bas–relief sur plâtre (seul exemplaire de ce type dans ce groupe d’objets) représentant un Harpocrate coiffé du casque de Mithra (?) ou de la couronne composite des Deux Pays ( 

  /  ); il porte le doigt à la bouche; son sexe nu repose sur sa jambe droite repliée. Facture: Grossière. État de conservation: Passable; usure.




10. Concubine E 316 a N° d’inventaire: E 316a [voir Fig. 10]. Matériau: Terre cuite rose. Datation: Époque hellénistique. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 135 / Épaisseur: 22 / Largeur: 60. Description: Sculpture en haut relief d’une concubine nue, soutenant son sein gauche de la main droite et étendue sur un lit sans pied, à la façon des concubines dynastiques. Facture: Grossière. État de conservation: Assez bon mais les pieds sont cassés.

III. Quelques Remarques Concernant la Place de la Sexualité en Égypte Ancienne III.1. Le Sens des Figurines Obscènes Maintenant, bien sûr, la question se pose: pourquoi ces statuettes obscènes? Quel est leur sens? Quelle fonction pouvaient-elles avoir, Paul Perdrizet portait, en 1921, un véritable jugement sur ces gurines: «Une chose, qu’il faut bien dire, déprécie les terres cuites d’Égypte: un grand nombre sont obscènes, quelques-unes font des gestes dégoûtants, d’autres étalent avec une impudence toute africaine la nudité de la femme, même de la femme défunte et mal faite. Et ces Harpocrates, et ces Eros, ces Pygmées et ces Bès, ces Priapes et ces gladiateurs, qui exhibent l’insistance monotone de leur phallus énorme […] »9. Notre époque plus habituée à normaliser diverses formes d’exhibitionnisme ne porterait plus ce type de jugement qui prête à sourire. Ce qui intéresse l’historien, c’est de bien comprendre à quoi correspond chaque type d’œuvre issue des mains des humains à une époque et dans une civilisation données. «Goût de la luxure» nous dit encore Perdrizet, comme première explication à ce type de production: pourquoi pas, et c’est peut-être à ce goût qu’il faut attribuer des gurines comme nos numéros 6 et 10; mais est-il nécessaire d’associer ce vice à «la race égyptienne», comme il le fait dans la suite de son texte10? Quel peuple peut se vanter d’avoir reçu la chasteté en héritage, sans combat? D’avoir produit une littérature et un art exempt de toute atteinte à la pudeur? On ne peut pas attribuer ce goût à un peuple plus


11. Statuette Érotique de Femme E 772 N° d’inventaire: E 772 [voir Fig. 11]. Matériau: Terre émaillée gris sombre. Datation: Basse Epoque ou époque hellénistique. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 41 / Largeur: 30. Description: Femme en position de «leurette», la tête reposant sur un oreiller. Facture: Assez ne. État de conservation: Mauvais.


12. Ptah Patèque E 644 g N° d’inventaire: E 644 g [voir Fig. 12]. Matériau: Terre cuite émaillée verte. Datation: Basse époque. Mesures [mm]: Hauteur: 58 / Épaisseur: 20 / Largeur: 21. Description: Amulette de Ptah Patèque debout, coiffé de l’atef décoré d’un scarabée sur le devant. Il est adossé à une colonne sur laquelle sont inscrits des signes hiéroglyphiques. Il porte un pectoral qu’on ne distingue pas de sa poitrine. Ses mains sont glissées dans des bretelles et appuyées sur son ventre gon é. Son sexe est nu. Il a le physique d’un nain, et de grandes oreilles décollées Le socle a la forme de la table




8

Voir Keel & Ühlinger: op. cit., 122. Voir Perdrizet, P.: Les terres cuites grecques d’Égypte, I: Texte, Nancy– Paris–Strasbourg (Chez Berger–Levrault) 1921, xxv. 10 Ibid.



9

25

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

qu’à un autre, et la civilisation égyptienne frappe au contraire par son attirance pour la pureté et la noblesse des comportements.

tuette–groupe en pierre calcaire peint du musée de Brooklyn14. Parmi les innombrables papyri de l’Égypte ancienne, un seul peut être considéré comme érotique: il s’agit du papyrus de Turin 550015. Ce papyrus a une connotation plus satirique que simplement pornographique; il n’était pas exposé, on pense que c’était une «plaisanterie de mauvais goût». Toutefois, toutes ces positions d’actes sexuels sont particulières aux humains, quelle que soit la civilisation16. Malgré le caractère licencieux de ce document, on ne trouve nulle part, à notre connaissance, de description de cas de zoophilie, comme cela existe dans d’autres civilisations. En revanche, les caricatures mettant en scènes des animaux ont le plus souvent un but de satire politique ou sociale17. On a également trouvé un exemple —mais un seul— de hiéroglyphe représentant un accouplement humain; il se trouvait dans un texte de la tombe d’un Nomarque de la XIIe Dynastie (Moyen Empire), à Béni Hassan: il représente une chambre nuptiale avec un lit sur lequel s’accouplent un homme et une femme; c’est —à ma connaissance— un cas unique18. La rareté du matériau dans ce domaine montre à quel point ce type de littérature ou de représentations était peu courant.

C’est donc ailleurs qu’il faut chercher l’explication de ce type de représentations, et tout d’abord bien sûr dans l’idée de fécondité; c’est à cette catégorie qu’appartiennent nos Harpocrates [voir Figures 1-6 & 13], en tant que divinités agraires. Sans doute faut-il y voir aussi l’explication de la Figure 13. La statuette n° 9, que nous avons évoquée comme une «maternité naïve», est comparable par son style à diverses statuettes de la collection Fouquet et à une statuette du Louvre, étudiées par Paul Perdrizet (aux pages 6-7 de son ouvrage précité), où il les quali e, à la suite de divers autres auteurs, de «survivances de l’art primitif», et où il s’étend sur leur aspect «barbare»; notre petite statuette n’est pourtant pas sans charme, avec la présence des deux enfants étroitement associés au corps de la mère; la statuette de la concubine [voir Fig. 9], appartient à cette même catégorie, en particulier par le geste de la main soutenant le sein. Les amulettes de Ptah Patèque [voir Fig. 12], bien connues, doivent également être rattachées au thème de la fertilité. Les grotesques [voir Fig. 7], comme le dieu Bès dont nous possédons aussi de nombreux exemplaires, avaient semble-t-il pour fonction de faire peur «même aux forces du mal»; elles pouvaient donc servir de protection contre la stérilité et l’impuissance.


L’importance du dessin du sexe masculin dans l’art égyptien doit son origine au mythe d’Osiris, dont la puissance du mal avait fait perdre son sexe, mais qui fut ensuite retrouvé. Il est systématiquement associé au thème de la fécondité. La représentation de Min ithyphallique n’a rien à voir non plus avec la notion d’ «obscénité». Elle relève bien sûr elle aussi de la symbolique de la fertilité. À partir du Moyen Empire, son image, aussi bien dans les reliefs de la Chapelle Blanche de Sésostris, XIIe Dynastie à Karnak, que dans le temple de Louqsor et dans les temples de Karnak ou tout autre édi ce du Nouvel Empire, est synonyme d’abondance et de fertilité. Le culte égyptien associait la multiplication des forces humaines à celle des richesses matérielles. Le plafond de la tombe de Ramsès IX, dans la Vallée des Rois, représente des hommes en érection: cette scène s’inscrit dans le cadre du culte de Min et du thème de la fertilité qu’il a développé. L’acte de masturbation accompli par les divinités créatrices suprêmes, Atoum ou R ‘, et représenté dans certains documents comme le papyrus du British Museum 10018, revêt, pour sa part, une valeur théologique: il symbolise l’acte créateur absolu. La divinité crée d’autres dieux et des humains à partir d’elle-même, sans aucune autre intervention, sans même la participation d’éléments féminins; ainsi est af rmé le principe créateur (et androgyne ?) unique de la divinité. En ce qui concerne le signe hiéroglyphique du sexe masculin schématisé, il fait partie des consonnes et des déterminatifs hiéroglyphiques, au même titre que les autres parties du corps humain; il revêt des valeurs phonétiques ou idéographiques, pour servir les expressions écrites de la langue égyptienne. Il sert le plus souvent à indiquer la valeur masculine d’un mot ou un traitement médical, parfois encore le sexe lui-même.

Résumons-nous. La plupart de ces gurines sont liées à l’idée de fertilité, aussi bien fertilité humaine qu’agraire. Toutefois, la notion d’obscénité n’est sans doute pas totalement absente de certaines gurations; elle n’était en tout cas pas absente de l’esprit de certains Égyptiens, comme en témoignent les textes que nous allons présenter (toujours dans le même registre)!








III.2. Quelques Exemples d’Autres Documents «Obscènes» Au cours de mes recherches sur la religion populaire, j’ai rencontré quelques textes, parmi les graf ti du temple de Deir ’el-Bahri, entre le Nouvel Empire et la XXIIe Dynastie (TIP). En voici deux exemples/types: (i) «Fais que son membre virile soit puissant sur toutes les femmes»11; (ii) «Qu’un âne le viole et viole sa femme»12. Cette malédiction se retrouve dans divers textes pour punir celui qui se rendrait coupable «d’effacer le nom» de quelqu’un sur une stèle ou sur tout autre document écrit. On trouve quelques textes similaires. C’est à peu près tout. Sur une littérature comprenant des centaines de milliers de documents provenant des trois millénaires de l’époque pharaonique, l’on ne compte même pas une quinzaine de documents de type érotique. Parmi ces spécimens, il faut mentionner l’ostracon de Berlin Est N° 23676; le morceau de cuir de Deir ’el-Bahri au Metropolitan Museum of Arts N° 31.3.98; la peinture de la tombe de Béni Hassan (Moyen Empire); les peintures ou graf ti d’une ruine d’une maison d’Héliopolis (époque hellénistique); ainsi que le graf ti du Wadi Hammam t N° 129(H); le papyrus mythologique du British Museum N° 10008; le graf ti d’une tombe de Deir ’el-Bahri; la scène érotique sur bois de Thèbes; et —en n— l’ostracon du Musée Égyptien du Caire N° 1119813. Citons aussi une sta













14

Voir Eggebrecht, A.: L’Égypte Ancienne, Paris (Bordas) 1986, 158. Publié par Omlin, J.A.: Der Papyrus 55001 (Cat. Del Museo Egizio di Torino, Ser. 1, Vol. 3), Turin 1973. 16 Cf. Frischauer, P.: La sexualité dans l’Antiquité, Marabout Université 1969, en particulier 74-101. 17 Cf. Sadek, A.: «L’utilisation critique de l’animal en Égypte pharaonique», Ridiculosa: Les Animaux pour le dire, Brest 2003, 133-53. 18 Voir Manniche: op. cit.: 35. [Note de l’éditrice: Pas tout à fait! On signale l’existence d’au moins deux signes hiéroglyphiques en plus, avec une connotation érotique incontestable, soit A438 & D280; cf. Grimal, N. et al. (eds): Hieroglyphica: Sign List, Utrecht–Paris (CCER/U–CCER / PIREI, I2) 22000: 1 A-6 & 1 D-3)].

15







11

Voir Sadek: op. cit. (n. 3), 56, 51. Voir op. cit., 244 & 242, n. 3. 13 Voir, pour les documents cités, Manniche, L.: Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt, London (KPI) 1987: 30, 35, 36, 44, 55, 70. Pour la référence du grafti du Wadi Hammam t, cf. Goyon, G.: Nouvelles Inscriptions rupestres du Wadi Hammamat, Paris 1957, 132 & pl. xxxviii. 12






26

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

ture26. En effet, les actes contre nature étaient absolument prohibés dans la morale égyptienne; pourtant, malgré les af rmations gratuites de certains auteurs, nous n’avons pratiquement aucun document pouvant attester de façon dé nitive des pratiques homosexuelles27. La liberté sexuelle était réglementée par un code moral intégré dans les mœurs qui exerçait un contrôle sur les désirs ou convoitises des individus28. De façon générale, les Égyptiens étaient monogames, mis à part un certain nombre de pharaons pour des raisons de rassemblement politique de l’intérieur ou de l’extérieur, ou par abus de droits privé; quelques membres de la grande noblesse ont suivi cet exemple à partir du Nouvel Empire; c’est la raison pour laquelle Diodore de Sicile exagère son rapport sur la polygamie29 d’autant plus qu’il écrivait à la n de l’époque hellénistique, qui avait introduit en Égypte des coutumes étrangères. Le corps humain est représenté partout par l’art égyptien dans une beauté épurée, qui a probablement préparé l’art de l’icône30. Sur les sarcophages et dans les tombes, c’est la dimension spirituelle du défunt qui est exprimée, en particulier à travers le regard et le visage irradié par la contemplation de la splendeur divine. Le corps et le couple, loin d’être niés, atteignent un épanouissement parfait dans une relation qui dépasse la simple satisfaction sexuelle charnelle pour atteindre une communion de toute la personne, aussi bien dans le couple qu’avec la divinité.

III.3 La Place de ces Obscénités dans l’Art et la Littérature Égyptien(ne)s Nous ne prétendons pas, dans ce bref article, avoir fait le tour exhaustif du thème de l’obscénité en Égypte ancienne; nous en avons simplement marqué les quelques ancrages. En réalité, il est bien dif cile de trouver des exemples pour alimenter une étude sur «l’obscénité» en Égypte; on l’a vu en effet, la grande majorité des représentations exhibant le sexe masculin de l’homme ou la nudité de la femme ne relèvent pas, même aux époques tardives, du domaine de l’obscénité mais de formes de glori cation de la fécondité. Malgré le grand intérêt que présente son étude, nous ne suivons pas Mme Lise Manniche dans une interprétation «extensive» de la sexualité appliquée à tous les domaines de la vie quotidienne19. Faut-il vraiment voir, dans le fait de lancer un boomerang pour chasser un oiseau sauvage ou de frapper une corde pour lancer une note de musique, des actes à connotation sexuelle? Peutêtre, mais nous préférons pour notre part garder à la sexualité son sens plus restreint, a n d’éviter d’appliquer arbitrairement une grille de lecture freudienne à l’ensemble de la civilisation égyptienne, ce qui nous semble par trop anachronique et, somme toute, peu utile.



















De nombreux ouvrages de vulgarisation, en particulier des lms et romans, ont développé le thème de la prostitution sacrée dans les temples égyptiens. Or, aucun document ne vient étayer cette thèse20. Au contraire, nous savons par différentes sources qu’il était nécessaire de se puri er après un rapport conjugal avant d’entrer dans le temple, comme l’a précisé H rodotos dès le 5ème siècle BCE21. Strab n, le géographe qui visita l’Égypte vers 25 BCE, raconte que, dans le temple de Zeus, une jeune lle était livrée à la prostitution: on reconnaît une coutume hellénique, même si Strab n a confondu Zeus et Am n22. Diodore de Sicile, au milieu du 1er siècle BCE, rapporte un rite pratiqué par certaines communautés précises du nord de l’Égypte selon lequel les femmes recherchant la fécondité se déshabillaient devant l’animal sacré de Apis, sans toutefois le toucher 23. Plutarque, au 2e siècle CE, con rme que les amulettes et ex–votos obscènes représentant le sexe masculin n’étaient pas de tradition égyptienne mais re étaient des coutumes helléno–romaines24.


IV. Conclusions Nous proposons donc en conclusion de nuancer le terme d’«obscènes» appliqué par les chercheurs du début du 20e siècle de notre ère aux objets dont nous venons de parler. Si l’on dé nit l’obscénité comme une simple «atteinte à la pudeur»31, on peut effectivement appliquer ce terme à nos statuettes, puisque le reste de l’art égyptien prouve que les humains de cette époque et de cette civilisation avaient bien une notion de la pudeur très développée, même si l’habillement était assez sensuel, transparent et moulant, décolleté pour les femmes, torse nu pour les hommes; mais ils étaient habitués depuis l’aube de leur civilisation à se vêtir ainsi. Certains artistes peintres ou sculpteurs ont peut-être un peu exagéré la présentation des décolletés féminins. Il ne faut pas oublier toutefois que l’Égypte était une civilisation africaine, et que sur ce continent la nudité n’est pas incompatible avec la pudeur. Il semble certain cependant que, sous l’in uence hellénique, les atteintes à la pudeur se soient multipliées de façon considérable32. Toutefois, le mot «obscénité» a acquis dans notre langue une connotation péjorative; elle implique sou-

















La civilisation égyptienne se caractérise plutôt, dans le domaine de la sexualité, par une extrême pudeur, un grand respect, une exigence morale importante et beaucoup de raf nement. L’échange de paroles entre les amants recèle des accents et un romantisme très purs, révélés dans les correspondances poétiques entre les amants, cette littérature que l’on a baptisée Chants d’Amour 25. Le chapitre 125 du Livre des Morts proscrit la fornication et les rapports sexuels contre na-






26

Cf. Barguet, P.: Le Livre des Morts, Paris (Cerf) 1967, 157-164; Budge, E.A.W.: The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani: Egyptian Text, Transliteration and Translation, NY (Dover) 21967. 27 Voir Parkinson, R.B.: «“Homosexual” desire and Middle Kingdom Literature», JEA, 81, 1995, 57-76; également, Edwards, C. & Bouchier, I.: Davidson’s Principles and Practice of Medicine, UK (Churchill Livingstone, Longman Group) 161991, 958-59. [Note de l’éditrice: Voir quand même Reeder, G.: «Same–Sex Desire, Conjugal Constructs, and the Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep», World Archaeology, 322, 2000, 193-208; cf. aussi Sweeney, D.: «Gender and Language in the Ramesside Love Songs», BES, 16, 2002, 37 & nn. 73, 76]. 28 Cf. Leca, A.P.: La médecine égyptienne au temps des Pharaons, Paris 1983, 419-24. 29 Cf. Diod  ros Sikeli  t
s: I, 27. 30 Cf. Sadek, A. & Sadek, B.: L’Incarnation de la Lumière, Limoges (Le Monde Copte, 29-31) 2000, 15-28. 31 Voir par exemple le Petit Larousse. 32 Cf. H
rodotos: II, 48.

19

Voir Manniche: op. cit., 39-51. Cf. H
rodotos: I, 182. 21 Voir le papyrus de N (BM EA 10477), ch. 125, dans Budge, E.A.W.: The Book of the Dead: The Chapters of Coming Forth by Day: The Egyptian Text According to the Theban Recension in Hieroglyphic, Edited from Numerous Papyri, with a Translation, Vocabulary, & c., London (Kegan Paul) 1 1898, I: 250-51 & II: 191. Voir également, H
rodotos: II, 64. 22 Cf. Strab  n: XVII, 1, 46. 23 Cf. Diod  ros Sikeli  t
s: I, 85; voir aussi I, 27, 1 & I, 80, 6. Cf. e.g.: Oldfather, C.H.: Diodorus Siculus I: Books I-II.34, Cambridge MA (Harvard University Press / Lœb Classical Library, 279) 51989. 24 Voir la traduction française de J. Amyot (16e siècle CE). 25 Voir Sadek, A.: «La femme … », op. cit., 17-20; Maravelia, A.–A.: «             : Astronomical and Cosmovisional Elements in the Corpus of Ancient Egyptian Love Poems», Lingua Aegyptia, 11, 2004, 79-82. 20

27

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

vent un jugement de valeur qui ne correspond pas, dans la plupart des cas, à l’intention des anciens, puisque, nous l’avons vu, la plupart de ces objets sont conçus comme symboles de fécondité. L’expression gurines de fécondité, utilisée par les historiens pour d’autres civilisations, rendrait donc mieux justice à ces objets. La place des véritables obscénités, à intention dégradante, dans la civilisation égyptienne est trop insigni
ante pour qu’on en fasse toute une catégorie. La conception égyptienne de l’homme, dans son rapport

avec les principes de vie et de fécondité, est tellement élevée et pudique que c’est presque un non–sens de l’étudier par ce qu’elle a de plus minoritaire —ses expressions obscènes— un peu comme si l’on ne présentait une capitale culturelle comme Paris qu’à travers ses quartiers chauds. L’intérêt de cette étude est justement de mettre en relief le caractère «spectaculairement minoritaire» de ces aspects, et, par contraste, l’extrême élévation de cette civilisation.

FIGURE 0: Aspect d’une des salles d’exhibition de la collection égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges. Le sarcophage de Iret–Hor–erou (   ) la domine. © Copyright Dr Amanda–Alice Maravelia, 2001.

28

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

FIGURE 1: Harpocrate (E 812 a). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

29

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 2: Harpocrate (E 812 b). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

30

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

FIGURE 3: Harpocrate (E 812 c). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

31

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 4: Harpocrate (E 812 d). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

32

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

FIGURE 5: Harpocrate (E 812 e). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

33

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 6: Harpocrate (E 812 f). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

34

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

FIGURE 7: Statuette érotique de couple (E 381). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

35

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 8: Grotesque (E 342). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

36

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

FIGURE 9: Maternité de style naïf (E 390). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

37

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 10: Concubine (E 316 a). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

38

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

FIGURE 11: Statuette érotique de femme (E 772). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

39

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 12: Ptah Patèque (E 644 g). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

40

Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek: Les Figurines Obscènes de la Collection Égyptienne du Musée Municipal de Limoges

FIGURE 13: Statuette masculine (E 358 a). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

41

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

FIGURE 14: Harpocrate (E 525). © Copyright Dr Ashraf–Alexandre Sadek & Musée de l’Évêché de Limoges, 2005.

42

Maya Müller: From the History of Archaeology: The Destruction of the Late Antiquity Necropolises in Egypt reconsidered

From the History of Archaeology: The Destruction of the Late Antiquity Necropolises in Egypt reconsidered Maya Müller

Ptolemaic–Roman towns of Middle Egypt and the Fay m oasis, taking in the desert strip between the cultivation area and the mountain at the edge of the Nile valley. These large burial elds often held tens of thousands of mummies. They were virtually unknown until 1882 because they are not visible on the surface, consisting of simple underground burials without superstructures. The actors of the drama were foreign antiquaries and Archaeologists, in collaboration with some local Copts and Arabs. The most important kinds of nds were textiles, chie y clothes found on the mummies, painted mummy cloths, cartonnage masks some of which were gilded, Roman plaster masks and the famous mummy portraits painted on panels, all of them unknown, up to then, on the European art market. All the excavations were hasty raids; there is not the slightest documentation on the tens of thousands of burials uncovered, some summary notes only were published. Since the quasi totality of the tomb elds were destroyed, all the rich historical information they once contained is de nitely lost. Ironically, the excavations were often legal, the legal and the illegal excavators acting exactly the same way. There is one very brief but realistic description only of what had happened there, written by the Swiss antiquary Robert Forrer who excavated at Akhm m in 1894 3: «Before us lies a little mountain range, without any vegetation [...] Everywhere as far as the eye reaches, you percieve black holes in the mountain where tombs had been opened, and other black points turn out when coming nearer to be human bodies or mummies, torn open and robbed of their bandages and robes [...] They are lying there, here a complete body with skin and hair, there a corps without a head, with cracked chest [...] The picture becomes more horrible even when reaching the plateau of the mountain. Everywhere open tombs, the whole eld burrowed through for miles and miles; here a faded skull, there a torn off leg, everywhere corpses beside uncovered tombs. And where they

Abstract



Between c. 1880 and 1914, the late antique cemeteries in the Nile Valley were radically destroyed and the plundered artifacts scattered to the four winds. Targeted were tens of thousands of burials dating from the Roman to the Early Islamic Periods, containing chie y tapestry ornamented clothes, cartonnage or plaster masks and painted mummy portraits. In the present article we want to reconstruct the exact circumstances of the discovery and exploitation of these cemeteries in order to understand their destruction in the context of the history of Egyptian Archaeology. Surprisingly, the late antique necropolises were not found by chance, but at the initiative of an outstanding scholar, an Orientalist and specialist of ancient textiles. His elds and periods of research were quite innovative, because at that time all vestiges of the Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods in Egypt were disdained. All learned interest was focused on Pharaonic times. That is why the exploitation of the burials were abandoned to dealers and commercially working Archaeologists who were just tearing out nds without bothering about methods of excavation, documentation or conservation, which —in fact— did not yet exist. Tragically, the discovery of the late antique necropolises came too early, and those who wanted to open new elds of research caused the destruction of near to all the information contained in them.


















KEY WORDS: Egypt: Antique Necropolises, Ancient Cemeteries, Akhm m, Bul q; Archaeology and History of Archaeology: Egyptology, Excavations, Methods and Documentation, Plundering, Robert Forrer, Albert Gayet, Theodor Graf, Joseph von Karabacek, Gaston Maspero. 







I. Introduction We became interested in the fate of the late antique cemeteries of Egypt when we found, among the collection of archaeological textiles in the Museum of Cultures (Basel), a number of tapestry fragments with a peculiar provenance: They were at the Exposition universelle de 1900 in the Palais du Costume, in Paris. Indeed Paris is always the perfect place when speaking of beautiful clothes, although in the present case, it sounds rather strange. The fragmentary clothes exhibited in Paris were excavated in 1898-99, in four necropolises of Middle and Lower Egypt by Albert Gayet, a French Egyptologist who brought them back to France for the show1.



the local diggers who sold the nds to Cairo and Alexandria; cf. Textiles d’Egypte de la collection Bouvier, Fribourg (Musée d’Art et d’Histoire) 1991, 11. For recent excavations see the end of this article. 3 Forrer, R.: Mein Besuch in ’El-Achmim: Reisebriefe aus Aegypten, Strassburg 1895, 31-32: «Vor uns liegt ein niedriger Gebirgszug, ohne jede Vegetation [...] Überall, so weit das Auge reicht, erkennt man am Berge schwarze Löcher, wo Gräber geöffnet worden sind —und andere schwarze Punkte erweisen sich beim Näherkommen als Menschenleiber— als geöffnete, ihrer Binden und Gewänder entledigte Mumien, die achtlos hier liegen geblieben sind und langsam, überaus langsam nur zerfallen [...] So liegen sie da [...], hier ein kompletter Körper mit Haut und Haar, dort ein Kadaver ohne Kopf, mit aufgesprungener Brust, aus der die weiss gebleichten Rippen grell zu Tage treten. Und das Bild [...] wird noch grausiger, wenn wir das Plateau des Gräberberges erreicht haben. Überall geöffnete Gräber, stundenweit das ganze Feld durchwühlt; hier ein in der Sonne bleichender Schädel, dort ein abgerissenes Bein, überall neben geöffneten Gräbern Leichname. Und wo man diese wieder ins Grab [...] geworfen hat, da sehen wir bald in einem Grabe den Toten senkrecht aus demselben hervorlugen, im anderen Grabe die eingetrockneten Beine gen Himmel streckend. Wahrlich [...] ein Schlachtfeldbild ergreifendster Art». Cf. Schnitzler, B.: Robert Forrer (1866-1947): Archéologue, écrivain et antiquaire, Strasbourg (Société Savante d’Alsace et Musées de Strasbourg) 1999. 

Let us begin with a brief survey of the historical facts. The necropolises of the 1st Millennium CE were exploited and destroyed between 1882 and 1914 2. They are located near the 1 Gayet, A.: Le costume en Egypte du IIIe au XIIIe siècle d’après les fouilles de M r Al. Gayet, Paris (Exposition Universelle de 1900, Palais du Costume) 1900. 2 After 1914, we do not hear any more of excavations with nd shearing done by foreigners, nor of foreign antiquities dealers commissioning digs. The Italian excavation at Antinoopolis included a necropolis containing the famous tomb of Theodosia which is not properly documented neither (Breccia, E. & Donadoni, S.: «Le prime ricerche italiane ad Antinoe (19361938)», Aegyptus: Rivista Italiana di Egittologia e di Papirologia, 18, 1938, 285-318. However, there were enough burial elds to be exploited by 



43

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

pieces to Vienna (to the Erzherzog Rainer collection)6. The next step took place like this: Karabacek, who was also a specialist for oriental decoration and textiles, ancient and recent, posed a clever question: When such important nds come from the ruins of cities and towns, what could be found in the cemeteries? There would certainly also be textiles to be found. Up to that time not one single cemetery of the Roman, Byzantine, Coptic and Early Islamic Periods was known. He contacts Graf and instructs him to try to nd out where such cemeteries might be, although he knows that it is forbidden for foreigners to dig in such places. Graf is very enthusiastic. During the next three years, from 1879 to the beginning of 1882, he collects information on papyri, textiles and burials in Egypt and Syria. He visits a number of Coptic monasteries, knowing that these often date back to Early Christian times and he also tries to get information from his Egyptian trading partners. According to the German antiquarian Franz Bock, Graf has intensive inquiries been made particularly in the Fay m because of the above–mentioned nds of papyri at Crocodilopolis7. Suddenly at the start of 1882 there is great jubilation: A large cemetery is found (in the Fay m) and Graf sends a ne lot of decorated fragments of clothing to Vienna, which he dates from the 3rd to the 9th centuries. Digging is only done most clandestinely in order to keep the site secret. From the correspondence (especially in April-May 1882) between Graf and Karabacek we see that Graf himself is never at the site of the excavations, but rather has the nds brought to Cairo by the Arabs8. The nds are largely textiles, which had been ripped off mummies.

had been thrown back, into the tombs, we see a dead body vertically peeping out, or another one extending his dry legs to the sky». A horror trip indeed!



We suffer under the consequences to this day. The Museums’ people are frustrated because there is, when dating the textiles, an uncertainty margin of 200-300 years, and the textiles are mostly so fragmentary that it is not possible to reconstruct the original garment, to mention two major points only. Egyptologists and Coptologists must always shamefully refer to the lack of documentation, in their publications. Some of them condemn the culprits and think that the few existing «excavation reports» are entirely untrustworthy, even if the impact of their collections for the study of late antique Egypt is acknowledged4. We want to go beyond this stage; we want to know how it all began and what really happened. We want to see how this phenomenon can be understood in the context of the history of Egyptian Archaeology. Today, it is possible to reconstruct the discovery of the late antique necropolises with suf cient certainty, thanks to the publication of relevant documents in 1962 and during these last 10 years5.













II. Chronology of the Discoveries Seemingly, it was a Philologist who rst gave the impetus to seek a Roman–Byzantine cemetery: We speak of an Orientalist from Vienna, Joseph von Karabacek. The whole drama began with the nd of a very important lot of papyri, discovered in Winter 1877-78 in the ruins of Crocodilopolis in the Fay m, by sebbah diggers. They came on the international market and were partly sold to Berlin, the documents covering the 5th to 10th centuries, written in Arabic, Hellenic, Pehlevi and other languages. Karabacek instantly realized the impact of these papyri on the Byzantine–Islamic history of Egypt and he knew that there were many more on the market. He conceived the idea to beg his friend Theodor Graf in Cairo to buy such papyri. Graf was a carpet dealer in Vienna who had branches in Alexandria and Cairo. He spoke uently Arabic and was interested in ancient textiles and in Egyptian and Arabic antiquities and periodically made a tour through Egypt to buy things. This plan worked well, Graf bought an important amount of papyri within a few years and sold about 10,000 







So far the chronology of events as told by Karabacek in 1883, and we think that his report is correct and not a vaticinium ex eventu since there were, in that time, no other scholars interested in these late periods, neither Egyptologists nor classical Archaeologists (see below). The burial eld exploited by Graf’s agents was not given a name in his letters nor even its location in the Fay m mentioned. The site was, however visited by an important German natural scientist and explorer, three years later: Georg Schweinfurth who lived in Cairo since the late seventies undertook, in January 1886 geological explorations and cartographical measurements in the Fay m, including ancient Crocodilopolis (Arsino ). In Spring 1887, he came back to Crocodilopolis in order to make an intensive survey and to draw a plan of the entire city area. Knowing that there was, at the NW border of the ancient city, a burial eld of the Byzantine Period called Kom ’elAdjame and exploited by Graf’s people, he could not resist to open a number of tombs and putting together a textile collection very similar to Graf’s, as he tells us in his report of











4

Cauderlier, P.: Les tissus coptes: Catalogue raisonné du Musée des Beaux–Arts de Dijon, suivi par le catalogue de la collection du Musée d’Histoire Naturelle de Dijon, Dijon 1985, 11-15; Rassart–Debergh, M.: Textiles d’Antinoé (Egypte) en Haute–Alsace, Musée d’Histoire Naturelle de Colmar, 1997, 21-71 (M. Rassart meritoriously worked through the whole sources for Albert Gayet’s work at Antino ); Fluck, C., Linscheid, P. & Merz, S.: Textilien aus Ägypten, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Bestandskataloge Band 1, Teil 1: Textilien aus dem Vorbesitz von Theodor Graf, Wiesbaden (Carl Schmidt und dem Ägyptischen Museum Berlin) 2000, 127. 5 Hunger, H. (ed.): Aus der Vorgeschichte der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Briefe Theodor Grafs, Josef von Karabaceks, Erzherzog Rainers und anderer, Wien (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek) 1962; Doxiadis, E.: The Mysterious Fayum Portraits. Faces from Ancient Egypt, London 1995; Rassart–Debergh op. cit. (n. 4, supra); David, E.: Gaston Maspero 1846-1916. Le gentleman égyptologue, Paris (Watelet) 1999; Urbaniak–Walczak, K.: «Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit», Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses Münster 1996, Band 1, Wiesbaden 1999, 401-409; Fluck et al., op cit., 125-31 (n. 4, supra). The older sources are mentioned below, in the footnotes to the sites.






6

Karabacek, J.: Der Papyrusfund von ’El-Faijum, Wien (Denkschriften der phil. –hist. Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 33) 1882; id.: Die Theodor Graf ’schen Funde in Aegypten, Der Papyrusfund von ’El-Faijum: Die textilen Gräberfunde, Wien (Ein Vortrag gehalten am 27 März 1883 zur Eröffnung der Ausstellung dieser Funde im K.K. Öst. Museum für Kunst und Industrie) 1883; Hunger: op. cit. (n. 5, supra); Ebers, G.: Theodor Graf’s Entdeckung antiker Gewandstoffe, München (Münchner Allg. Zeitung vom 23.08.1883) 1883; reprinted in H. Hunger’s edition of letters (see n. 5, # 24). 7 See Fluck et al., op cit., 129 (n. 4, supra); Theodor Graf lies: «in der Provinz ’El-Fajum, dem berühmten Arsinoe des Alterthums, ausgedehnte Nachforschung nach den Begräbnisstätten der altkoptischen Christen anstellen». 8 See Hunger, op cit., nn. 11-15, 24 (n. 5, supra).

44

Maya Müller: From the History of Archaeology: The Destruction of the Late Antiquity Necropolises in Egypt reconsidered

1887 9. As far as we know today, Graf was the rst person to search speci cally for Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic papyri, textiles and cemeteries, since the Autumn of 1879. In doing this he certainly started something and the word spread like wild re and was probably a subject of attention for the local dealers in antiquities, especially in the regions of the late–antique cities of Middle Egypt and the Fay m. 

The exploitation of the Roman necropolises of Akhm m begins at about the same time as that of the Fay m. Well– dated references can only be found in the letters of Charles Edwin Wilbour, an American traveller who is often on inspection tours on the of cial boat of the Antiquities Service with its chief, Gaston Maspero, in the 1880s. Wilbour writes that in January 1883 they are no longer looking for the large rock–cut tombs of Pharaonic times, but rather wanted to nd «some graves where there are said to be ne mummy cloths». Obviously the native population had been busy and it could be that Graf’s questioning regarding Roman and Byzantine textiles had been heard at Akhm m. Wilbour’s mummy cloths must have been painted Roman ones14. This indicates that the locals had penetrated one of the burial elds lying in the strip between the area of cultivation and the cliffs, near the ancient Coptic monastery ruins. It was in fact the —so–called— Cemetery A near Hawaw sh which was exploited by the Antiquities Service under supervision of a Ra’ s, from 1884 onwards. After a fortnight already, 20 tombs containing about 800 mummies were uncovered. A little later, we hear of 810,000 mummies, but (as Maspero puts it): «most of them worthless. Not even one out of twenty have a cof n or a cartonnage cover». In 1884, Roman tombs are found, in 1885-86 Byzantine and Coptic ones containing textiles15. No sooner had the excavation proved to be successful before there was a rush at the site, «all Akhm m was agog to dig», Wilbour says16. During the following years a number of Archaeologists, amateurs and dealers, foreigners and Egyptians, asked the Antiquities Service for a digging licence and shared the nds with the Museum in Cairo; others, chie y inhabitants of Akhm m, dug illicitly. 











A mysterious document concerning what is probably a Roman cemetery is a letter written to Gaston Maspero by Eugène Allemant in March 188110. Allemant was a French antiquities’ dealer who had already sold lots of Egyptian artifacts in Europe11. Now he discovered «the necropolis of the Ptolemies» as he told Maspero, although he did not mention the location nor the kinds of nds which made him think of the Ptolemies. The young Maspero had just succeeded Mariette as chief of the Antiquities Service and Allemant tries to push him for an excavation permission with division of the nds. «Mark my word, Mr Maspero, we treat this business with delicacy. Otherwise it would be very easy for us to buy the land covering this underground which is on sale for a tri e; then we could break into and destroy the tombs as we wanted to. That would be vandalism, you would say, and I would agree with you; but so many people in this country commit such barbarian acts, and without praising myself, if it were not for me, this would already have happened!». Perhaps Allemant (or more probably his Arabic business partners) had spotted a burial eld, possibly in the Fay m, and found a gilded cartonnage mask or mummy sheeth from a Roman tomb. At least this is the only thing I can think of which may suggest the Ptolemies. If indeed Allemant had found a Helleno–Roman necropolis, it would be the rst one ever mentioned12. Charles Edwin Wilbour relates how Allemant whom he met in Alexandria at the end of 1880, urged him to support an excavation in Lower Egypt which he had in mind13.



































From 1885 onwards, there came from Akhm m an important lot of painted cof ns dating from the TIP to the LP, entering Cairo and the international art market. There is no way, today to know where the cof ns came from. There are hundreds of rock–cut tombs in the cliffs near Akhm m, mostly of dynastic times, described by Klaus Kuhlmann as Cemeteries B and C. Cemetery C, however was rediscovered by Ernesto Schiaparelli in 1885 and was subsequently exploited17. This was perhaps the source of the cof ns, which must have been found in reused ancient tomb chambers. Many of the exported cof ns were negotiated by Emil Brugsch, who was an assistant curator at the Bul q Museum and in charge of export licences and also of selling duplicates, the museum being 







9

Schweinfurth, G.: «Zur Topographie der Ruinenstätte des alten Schet (Krokodilopolis–Arsinoe)», Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, 22, 1887, 54-88; concerning Kom ’el-Adjame, cf. op. cit., 68-72 & pl. II (map of Crocodilopolis); see also op. cit., 96-149 & pl. II; Fluck et al., op cit., 129-30 (n. 4, supra); see also Ägypten. Schätze aus dem Wüstensand, Kunst und Kultur der Christen am Nil, Wiesbaden (Gustav– Lübcke–Museum der Stadt Hamm) 1996, Nr. 417. 10 See David: op. cit., 88 (n. 5, supra): «Remarquez Monsieur Maspéro que si nous ne mettions pas de la délicatesse dans cette affaire, rien ne nous serait plus facile que d’acheter pour très peu de choses les terrains qui surplombent ces souterrains et qui sont à vendre, d’y construire une baraque et de briser et détruire tout à notre aise les tombeaux qui existent: Ce serait du vandalisme direz-vous, moi aussi je raisonne comme vous, mais combien dans ce pays commettent de ces barbaries et sans me atter, sans moi, je ne réponds pas que ce ne serait pas déjà fait». 11 See Egypte Onomwonden: Egyptische Oudheden van het Museum Vleeshuis, Antwerpen o.J. [1995], 49-58: documenting Allemant’s activities up to 1878-79, when Antwerpen bought a collection of Egyptian antiquities from him (now in the Vleeshuis Museum). 12 Schweinfurth: op. cit., 69 (n. 9, supra) 69, mentions —however— that Luigi Vasalli found, in 1862 on the west side of the pyramid of Amenemhat III at Haw ra, a number of burials: «die ausschliesslich der griechischen Epoche angehörten. Särge und Mumien zeigten sich aber derart verwittert, dass keinerlei Schaustücke fürs Museum aufzutreiben waren» (cf. Vasalli, L.: I monumenti istorici Egizi, Milano 1867, 59-69). 13 Capart, J. (ed.), Travels in Egypt: Letters of Charles Edwin Wilbour (1880-1891), NY (Brooklyn Museum) 1936, 7 (Dec. 28, 1880, in Alexandria): «After looking about the shops, hunting [...] M. Allemant, the Paris vendour of Egyptian antiquities, who showed me a very ne bronze cat’s head one of some ve hundred found two or three months ago at Tell







Moukhdam, and who wishes me to make some excavations in Lower Egypt with him when I come down [...] ». 14 See Capart: op. cit., 244 (n. 13, supra): March 30, 1883; see also op. cit., 203: Jan. 31, 1883; a painted mummy cloth from Akhm m, now at the Musée d’Art et d’Histoire (Geneva), sold by Forrer, R.: Voyages en Egypte de l’antiquité au début du 20e siècle, Genève (Musée d’art et d’histoire) 2003, 217 & g. 4. 15 Maspero, G.: «Premier rapport sur les fouilles exécutées en Egypte 1884», Bibliothèque égyptologique, 1, Paris 1893, 66-67: « […] mais la plupart sans valeur. C’est à peine si une sur vingt a un cercueil ou un cartonnage et porte une inscription»); ibid.: 215; Maspero, G.: «Deuxième rapport sur les fouilles et travaux exécutés en Egypte 1885-1886»: op. cit., 233-34 (both reports originally published in Bibliothèque de l’Institut Egyptien, 1885-86). 16 See Capart: op. cit., 300 (n. 13, supra). 17 Kuhlmann, K.: Materialien zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim, Kairo (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut) 1983, 64, 71-86; Schiaparelli, E.: «Chemmis e la sua antica necropoli», Études dédiées à M.C. Leemans, Leiden 1885, 86 [not seen]. 










45

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

allowed to sell all kinds of less important entries in order to cope with the want of nancial support. Foreign dealers, collectors, tourists and museum curators bought at the museum18.

laying between the edge of the Fay m and the Nile Valley somewhat to the SE of Philadelphia. The site is, again, not named or described by Graf (or Karabacek) himself, but by the German engineer P. Stadler who surveyed and mapped the Fay m in August 1889. Stadler explored the site soon after Graf’s agents had exploited it. He bought some remaining mummy portraits from the local Bedouins and had them tell him the story of the discovery23. « [...] While searching for salt, the Bedouins came upon one of these tombs and several gilded sarcophagi which showed a picture of the deceased at the top end of the lid [...] All of the portraits which were found, (including those of mummies which were later discovered), were relinquished as worthless to the lower workers who subsequently sold them to a Hellenic dealer of antiquities. It remains a secret as to where the cof ns, clothes and jewels of the plundered mummies remain. The cof ns and clothes were probably burnt to prevent their discovery on the part of the authorities who would have con scated them». 





Akhm m after a short while looked like a lunar landscape, as we heard from Robert Forrer’s above quoted description, who went there digging himself in 1894. He describes the procedure of opening a tomb as follows: «After taking away the earth and stone cover, we come, at a depth of about 1.5 m across the mummy lying freely in the soil. The earth was dug out all around the mummy showing itself in its linen cover, the mummy itself slightly undercut, and now, with vigorous jerks, slowly set up vertically and pulled and pushed upwards until it appears at the edge of the pit and is deposited on the eld. Immediately after the mummy had been pulled to daylight, all the workmen and my Coptic guides dashed to it in order to tear off the corpse’s covers and to seek its riches»19. News spread out quickly. In 1886, Franz Bock a German dealer went on a tour through Egypt to buy antique textiles, which were his special interest. (Being a clergyman, he was used to buy from the treasuries of impoverished churches in Europe). He put the Early Christian textiles on the European market, particularly those from Akhm m, which he published in 188720. It was through him that Robert Forrer, himself an important dealer in Strasbourg, became acquainted with textiles from Akhm m and had them sent to Strasbourg by agents from Cairo21. Textile nds from the Akhm m tombs were sold by local dealers and by the Museum at Bul q22. Let us come back now to Theodor Graf and the Fay m. Since his rst success in 1882, Graf indefatigably exhorted his agents to search and excavate. In Summer 1887, they brought him for the rst time the (afterwards) famous mummy portraits painted on wooden panels, all from a cemetery called after Rubay t, a little village at the NE edge of the Fay m. Graf’s necropolis is located in the range of hills

Surprisingly, it was already about two years before Stadler’s survey as Doctor Daniel Fouquet sent a letter from Cairo to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles–Lettres in Paris, telling a similar story. Fouquet’s letter, dated from the 21st of April 1887 runs as follows24: « [...] The Arabs and the Hell nes have discovered a cavern containing a large number of burials. The oor was covered with cadavers some of which are mummi ed and others enveloped in several shrouds [...] The walls of the cave were ornamented with a great number of portraits on wood which were mostly in a good state of conservation [...] The vandals who made this important discovery were surprised by darkness and coldness in the cavern. In their stupidity, during three nights they were not impeded in burning the portraits; very few pieces survived this carnage». There were photos of two mummy portraits attached to Fouquet’s letter, which he had purchased for his own collection of antiquities. Fouquet does not name

18 See David: op. cit., 134-35 (n. 5, supra); Erman, A.: Mein Werden und mein Wirken, Leipzig 1929, 219-221; Brech–Neldner, R. & Budde, D.: Der Mumiensarkophag des Nes–ka–pai–schuti, Detmold (Lippisches Landesmuseum Detmold) 1992, 76-79. 19 See Forrer: op. cit., 40-41 (n. 3, supra): «Das Grab hat gewöhnlich ca. 2 m Länge, ca. 80cm Breite und 1.50 m Tiefe. In ca. 20-30 cm Tiefe beginnt, wo solche vorhanden ist, die Ziegelausmauerung der Grabwände, bald drei, bald mehr Lagen hoch. Dann setzt sich die Grabhöhlung ohne Ziegelrahmen in die Tiefe fort und in ca. 1 -1½ m Tiefe stossen wir nach Beseitigung der Erd– und Steindecke auf die frei im Boden liegende Mumie. Sie können sich denken, mit welchem Interesse ich der nun folgenden Hebung der Mumie folgte. Die Erde wurde rings um die in ihrer Leinenhülle sich zeigende Mumie ausgehoben, die Mumie selbst etwas untergraben, und nun mit kräftigen Rucken wird sie in ihrem [...] Schlafe gestört, langsam aufgestellt und nach oben teils geschoben, teils gezogen, bis sie über dem Rand des Schachtes erscheint und, auf das freie Feld niedergelegt, ihrer Auferstehung entgegensieht. Sofort nachdem so die erste Mumie ans Tageslicht gezogen, stürzten sämtliche Arbeiter und meine koptischen Führer herbei, um des Toten Hüllen loszureissen und ihn auf seinen Reichtum zu prüfen». 20 Bock, F.: Katalog frühchristlicher Textilfunde des Jahres 1886, Düsseldorf 1887. 21 Forrer, R.: Die Graeber– und Textilfunde aus Achmim–Panopolis, Strassburg 1891, «Einleitung». 22 See Gerspach, E. (administrateur de la manufacture nationale des gobelins): Les tapisseries coptes, Paris 1890 (reproducing 153 textiles, mostly from the Helleno–Roman cemetery discovered by Maspero in 1884, at Akhm m); Urbaniak–Walczak: op. cit., 404 (n. 5, supra): Graf bought a collection of Coptic textiles from Emil Brugsch; Capart: op. cit., index, art. «Ekhmeem» (n. 13, supra).

23 Cf. Ebers, G.: Antike Portraits. Die hellenistischen Bildnisse aus dem Fajjum, Leipzig 1893, 10-11, with note (Ebers gives no reference as to where he took Stadler’s report from): «Die Beduinen stiessen beim Suchen nach Salz auf eins dieser Gräber und mehrere vergoldete Sarkophage, die am Kopfende des Sargdeckels das Bild des Verstorbenen zeigten. Diese Portraits waren keineswegs auf den Sargdeckel selbst gemalt, sondern eingelassen [...] Alle gefundenen Portraits (auch die von den später entdeckten Mumien) wurden den niederen Arbeitern als werthlos überlassen und von diesen zunächst an einen griechischen Antiquitätenhändler verkauft. Wohin die Särge, Kleider und Schmuckgegenstände der geplünderten Mumien kamen, ist und bleibt ein Geheimniss. Wahrscheinlich sind die Särge und Kleider verbrannt worden, um einer Entdeckung von Seiten der Behörden, denen das Gefundene hätte ausgeliefert werden müssen, vorzubeugen». See also Doxiadis: op. cit., 129-31 & g. 61 (n. 5, supra): Stadler’s map with the «Fundort der Graf’schen Bilder»; cf. also 238 & nn. 4-6 (giving references to further articles by Georg Ebers, 1888-1893). See nally Hunger: op. cit., letter no. 55 of Febr. 14 1888 (n. 5, supra). 24 See Rassart–Debergh: op. cit., 59 (n. 4, supra): « [...] des Arabes et des Grecs [...] ont découvert une caverne contenant un grand nombre de sépultures. Le sol est couvert de cadavres, les uns momi és, les autres seulement enveloppés de plusieurs suaires superposés. Sous la tête de chacun de ces derniers se trouvait une planchette portant une inscription qui indiquait le nom du mort, sa profession et son lieu de naissance [...] Les parois de la grotte étaient ornées d’un très grand nombre de portraits peints sur bois et pour la plupart en bon état de conservation [...] Les vandales qui ont fait cette importante trouvaille, surpris par la nuit et par le froid, n’ont pas craint, dans leur ignorance de brûler pendant trois nuits consécutives les inscriptions et les portraits, dont quelques pièces à peine ont échappé à ce carnage». Original publication in Académie des Inscriptions et Belles–Lettres: Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1887, 15, 1887, 229-230.














































46

Maya Müller: From the History of Archaeology: The Destruction of the Late Antiquity Necropolises in Egypt reconsidered

the location of the «caverne» and I suppose that his informants did not give away the secret, being dealers who showed him their nds in Cairo; if Fouquet had been at the place, he would not have spoken about a «grotte» whose walls were ornamented with painted panels, a con guration which did not exist in ancient Egypt25. We are convinced that Stadler’s and Fouquet’s reports refer to the same discovery (the Rubay t necropolis near Philadelphia), both being based on local rumours abounding with mistakes. The fact that the local Bedouins and dealers regarded the mummy portraits, at rst, as worthless may account for the relatively long time it took them to turn up in the international art market (in spite of Fouquet’s estimation).

took some notes, which he was occasionally publishing. Gayet must had been the rst, who also found and exploited the Byzantine and Early Islamic cemetery of Assy t, located near Drunka in the desert strip at the foot of the cliff, in 1898; in the same Winter, he excavated a burial eld at Sheikh Shata near Damietta in order to get enough decorated garment fragments for the Universal Exhibition in Paris30. 











All three main actors of our exploitation drama, Graf, Forrer and Gayet, were dealers and scholars with an important talent in sales’ promotion. They organized sales’ exhibitions (Graf from 1883 onwards), lectures, popular articles in newspapers and periodicals and popular historical books. Gayet made himself intensely hated by modern Egyptologists because he gave his «parade mummies» famous antique names like Thaïs and Serapi n, inventing romantic legends for them31.



At this point we come across another chronological coincidence: At about the same time, in early 1888 (there are no exact dates available), Flinders Petrie excavated at nearby Haw ra, the pyramid complex of Amenemhet III. «As soon as I went there», so he tells us in 1893, «I observed a cemetery on the north of the pyramid; on digging in it I soon saw that it was all Roman, the remains of brick tomb–chambers; and I was going to give it up as not worth working, when one day a mummy was found, with a painted portrait on a wooden panel placed over its face». After that he had thousands of mummies uncovered, but he only described this exploitation very summarily26. It is probable that Petrie had heard the same rumours as Fouquet and Stadler, or also seen some mummy portraits which had arrived at local dealers or Theodor Graf. At least this would account for his interest in the Roman cemetery of Haw ra and for the total lack of surprise at the sight of the new category of works of art, as described in his publication. 

III. The State of Archaeology up to 1882 We must know the state of Egyptian Archaeology in the 19th century, in order to assess the destruction of the late antique necropolises as a stage of its development. First of all we must realize that the monuments and ruins of antiquity were perceived, in the 19th century in a very different way than we do today. The monuments were there; they were visible, on the ground. They were not hidden in the ground (or in the manner of rock tombs only), there was no need to seek for them laboriously and to remove them layer–by–layer from the soil. Moreover there was, at a very early date already, a quite complete and exact inventory of all important antique sites, thanks to the famous Description de l’Égypte published by the members of the Napoleonic expedition, between 1803 and 1813. Most of the monuments, temples, and tombs, largely buried under rubble and sand, were defaced by later additions such as houses and stalls. They had to be cleared, freed of intrusive elements and cleaned. Since Champollion’s days there had been observations and laments on the terrible destruction of the temples and tombs. Building elements of limestone were used to burn lime. Whole walls and buildings were used as quarries for building new structures. Walls were defaced by graf ti and whole sections of reliefs and frescoes were torn out of the walls. The Sebbah n destroyed mud brick building complexes. Ancient sites were simply ploughed through in the search for statues, stelae, as well as anything that would bring money on the international antiquities market.



In spite of the growing market for antiquities from Roman and Byzantine tombs, the raiders seemingly con ned themselves for a long time to the Fay m and Akhm m, where the largest cemeteries were located. Otherwise, we only found a remark by Maspero on a very small Coptic cemetery at Tod which he brie y exploited in 188427. As to Antino and its Roman and Byzantine burial elds, it appearently was Albert Gayet who rst exploited them, working there from 1896 onwards28. Gayet made a systematic survey of the relatively narrow desert strip between the ancient city and the cliff until he found the tombs. On his rst campaign in 1896-97, he made several soundings in the city, in the cliff with its many rock tombs, and in the desert strip in between, to obtain a general view. In 1897-98 he rst wanted to excavate the rock tombs of the Middle Kingdom, however the Antiquities Service gave him, a licence for the desert strip only29. Although the nds from there were relatively modest, he was able to push them on the European market, using his vivid imagination to promote them. Gayet’s style of excavating was virtually the same as the one of his predecessors, although he 






















It was the duty of Archaeology to clean and conserve the monuments against combating pillaging and vandalism. This task led to the founding of the Antiquities Service and the National Museum, and to the promulgation of laws and regulations regarding excavation and the export of antiquities as well. It was not until the end of the 19th century when archaeological methods were developed for dealing with mud bricks, sherds of ceramics and buried organic materials (such as animal bones and plants), as well as with inhumations in the soil without a real burial chamber. As to documenting an excavation, it was Georg Schweinfurth who postulated, in 1895 that every nd —however small and inconspicuous it



25

About Fouquet’s letter see also Doxiadis: op. cit., 130 (n. 5, supra); Borg, B.: Der zierlichste anblick der Welt: Ägyptische Porträtmumien, Mainz 1998, 12. 26 Flinders Petrie, W.: Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt, 1881-1891, 21976 [11893], 97; id.: Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe, London 1889, 17-21. Cf. Doxiadis: op. cit., 136-38 (n. 5, supra). 27 See Maspero: op. cit., 204 (n. 15, supra); no information is given as on where the cemetery is located or on how it was found. 28 See Rassart–Debergh: op. cit., 29-52 (n. 4, supra). 29 Gayet, A.: Annales du Musée Guimet, 302, 1902, 25-26.



30 31

47

See Gayet: op. cit., 53-79 (n. 1, supra). See Rassart–Debergh: op. cit., 44-46 (n. 4, supra).

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

may seem— must painstakingly be inventorized32.

contained, is lost.

As we have seen, the scienti c world was not prepared for the discovery and archaeological treatment of inhumations without burial chambers, and certainly not for the treatment of textiles from such sites. Both of these tasks were practically unknown quantities at the end of the 19th century. Moreover, nobody was willing to deal with Post–Roman monuments at a time when only Pharaonic ruins were considered interesting.

However, there are investigations of some interesting sites found in recent times in progress now. Roman cemeteries and settlements are excavated, e.g. in the Oasis of Dakhleh33. In the Fay m, the cemetery of the medieval Naql n Monastery revealing tombs with outstanding textiles34, and the Deir ’elBan t project of the Russian Institute for Egyptological Studies in Cairo35 (under the inspired direction of Prof. Dr Galina A. Belova, who also writes in this volume) are good examples of promising new sites.









IV. Conclusions Egyptian Archaeology as practiced since 1798 can only be understood as a process locked in the force– eld between discovery and destruction. Discovery —as is well known— always brings, sooner or later, destruction with it. This is, however, not the place to go into that general theme. Above, we have seen the most signi cant factors in destruction through human stupidity, greed, and vanity. The discovery of the necropolises of the 1st Millennium CE ended extremely badly. It was just the story of the wrong objects found by the wrong people at the wrong time. The bad course was determined chie y by the following factors: * The discoverers were commercially oriented persons: either dealers or Archaeologists under pressure to market the nds. They were gifted salesmen, who pushed their new products without the slightest respect for their original context. * Scienti c excavation methods had not yet been developed. Nobody had yet thought of layers and horizons, much less of the essential statistical/parametric evaluation of sites and nds. * Methods for the conservation of textiles had not yet been developed. * The Egyptology of the day considered Egyptian monuments of the Post–Pharaonic Periods as trash and — regrettably— also treated them as such. 











Having cleared up a dark facet of Egyptian archaeological history, we may state the following. Ironically the start of the late antique necropolises drama was made by a scholar, Joseph Karabacek, who was on the one hand, a far–sighted pioneer, but at the same time unable to foresee the consequences of his actions. Karabacek wished to open a new eld of research, the history of the Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic art and culture in Egypt. His initiative came too early and, therefore, had to end in the destruction of the very objects, which he wished to study. 

V. Postscript The vast necropolises of the late antique cities in Middle Egypt had a unique structure which would have been of invaluable interest for truly professional research. The burials of the Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic or Coptic Periods partly lay one beside another in the horizontal sense, partly they overlapped in the vertical sense, the periods thus changing imperceptibly one into another. All the information, pertaining to cultural changes, which they must have

33

Hope, C.A. & Bowen, G. (eds): Dakhleh Oasis Project: Monograph 11. Preliminary Reports on the 1994-95 to 1998-99 Field Seasons, Oxbow Books, Oxford and Oakville, 2002. 34 Godlewski, W.: «Les textiles issus des fouilles récentes de Naql n», Égypte, la trame de l’histoire: Textiles pharaoniques, coptes et islamiques (Durand, . & Saragoza, F., eds), Paris (Somogy Éditions d’Art) 2002, 100-104. 35 Since 2002; previously excavated by an Egyptian team (since 1982).


32

See Schweinfurth: op. cit. (n. 9, supra); id.: ZÄS, 33, 1895, 32-37.

48

Edward Loring: Knowledge Engineering at the Russian Institute for Egyptology in Cairo and at the CES/RAS, Moscow

Knowledge Engineering at the Russian Institute for Egyptology in Cairo and at the Centre for Egyptological Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Edward Loring

Galina A. Belova and the author of this paper. Other actively participating institutions are the Institute for Egyptology and Coptology of the Westphalian Wilhelms–University, Münster (Prof. Dr Erhart Graefe) and the Museum of Cultures, Basel (Dr Dr Maya Müller).

Abstract The application of Information Sciences in Egyptology has been investigated and developed by the Working Group Informatique et Égyptologie of the International Association of Egyptologists since the advent of the personal computer. Such applications may be roughly divided into two classi cations: pictorial and analytical. The term pictorial speaks for itself in that it presents digitalized photographic and graphic representations of sites and artifacts. The area of Analytical Informatics is less well known. It may be divided into two domains: Ancient Egyptian Linguistics and Lexical Systems for the analysis of Ancient Egyptian sites, artifacts and historical data. The purpose of Loring’s paper is to elucidate the work of the CES/RAS in the lexical/ analyticcal area. Knowledge Engineering is a discipline, in which lexical data are decomposed into normalized building blocks. These can be selectively searched and re–integrated to constitute output, describing all instances in which they occur. As opposed to hypertext databanks —in which words in at texts are simply indexed without concern for their actual meanings—, the project here described is a dynamic multidimensional structure, based on the speci c meanings and nature of terms stored in thesauri. Output is generated at runtime and mutations are possible at any time. Formally the system has the nature of a sparse matrix, providing space for any number of additions at any structural juncture. The system allows analysis of ancient Egyptian texts in the archaeological/historical contexts of their carriers. At present the system can be inverted for input/output in English or German and includes a module for Ancient Egyptian.

Knowledge Engineering tends to be divided into two principal domains: optical images and lexical exposition, although an important goal would be to combine both. One could compare a lm with a book. The optical side has advanced into what is now called Virtual Reality (VR). The lexical side in Egyptology is represented by the post– relational databank management system, GALEXYS, discussed here. Both sides employ the analytical method of reducing data to its smallest parts and re–integrating them under certain rules or algorithms to express both physical objects and historical events. 




II. The GALEXYS Informatized Egyptology System The GALEXYS system is a multi–dimensional sparse matrix consisting of cells containing lexical data and links binding these to form an intelligent and navigable construct. Each cell contains information of some kind which can be linked with other cells in some manner. The basic principle is very much like that of a living organism’s brain, although obviously on a very small scale. An individual cell is the smallest unit in the system and —in the terminology of databases— is called a record. Records can be created, linked and destroyed by the user. The system can contain and manage any number of records and their structures. We employ two classes of records: records containing pieces of pragmatic knowledge and records linking these «facts» together. A unit of knowledge which is not linked is dimensionless and has no practical existence within the system. We speak of data– records and links.

KEY WORDS: Informatized Egyptology: Informatics, Knowledge Engineering, Data Records, GALEXYS, Optical Images, Lexical

Exposition, Virtual Realtity, Databases, Files, Tables; Egyptology and Museology: History, Kings, Museums, Collections, Ancient Sites and Artifacts, Study and Classi cation.

I. Introduction Knowledge Engineering is a newly emerging scienti c discipline. In the application discussed here we shall see how the Exact Sciences are combined with data from the Humanities to provide new analytical methods for the historical and physical legacies of humankind’s most ancient achievements. This synthesis has become possible and is gaining momentum with the rapidly expanding potential of both computer hardware and information technology. The Knowledge Engineering Project of the Centre for Egyptological Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences took form in the mid–1990s as a continuation of the Informatikprojekt der Basler Universitätssammlungen, a project of the Department of Education of the City and Kanton of Basel, Switzerland, and in the project for the computerization of the Altägyptisches Wörterbuch of the Berlin– Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. The experience gained in the analysis of diverse Museum collections in Basel and of Ancient Egyptian lexicography in Berlin was integrated under the motto Text and Context in a new and speci c Russian project, The Databank of Eastern European Egyptology, in 1997 under the general direction of Prof. Dr 

Data records contain factual information, such as: «statue», «1500 BCE», «limestone». We refer to these lexical units as terms. These data can be relativized by links to form a cluster–object: «limestone statue dated –1500». Every record has its own unique address in the system. This address is a numerical value assigned by the system to the record at the time of its creation. The number is generated by the system itself and is invisible to the user. As far as the system is concerned, the record is this number and any other data which the record contains is simply cargo. Every address is unique and is not reused if a record is deleted. You may think of the address as an article (or part number, or an inventory number) used by the system to locate and retrieve information. You can picture the addresses as electrical terminals which can be connected to any number of other terminals to form a complex structure.



49

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

As opposed to data records, a link record does not contain primary information. It consists of two «terminals» containing the addresses of the entities which it links. These may be two data records, or one data record and another link record. As all records it posesses its own unique address or «terminal» for further connections.

Object [Inventory Number, Typology]. The object is said to be instatiated and the artifact represented by the inventory number is an instance of a typological class. When an object is instantiated the result is an ordered pair of data elements from two different tables of data. An element of the inventory number table is linked with an element of the typology table. The link has a unique system address to which other descriptors can be attached. This address is to be regarded as the nucleus of an internal space reserved for the object. It is a logical anchor for a complex relationship of elements from any number of tables. We speak of a cluster object.

All records are stored in ordered groups known as les or tables. A le is a two dimensional array of data in which every record has the same structure. In GALEXYS all les are said to be orthogonal within their respective classes. That means that all data les have the same basic structure and all link les have the same basic structure. This allows one search engine to manage all les and their relationships. In some cases the basic structures of either class are augmented by elds containing specialized data. The chronology le has a numerical eld for Julian years and the word–link le has elds for the page, line and sequence where a word occurs in a text. Records consist of elds. The most important elds in data–records are the system–number, the label or text–cargo and the owner number which establishes the record’s position in a data hierarchy or cascade. The most important elds in link–records are the «right and left» link numbers, the system number and a text–cargo eld which can be used for local commentary on the link. The mechanics of a basic system would function with only these elds. Users see and work with only the lexical terms which are in fact the text–cargo of the system. These terms are displayed in alphabetical lists (vectors), hierarchical structures (cascades) or clusters (tensors) formed at the intersection of two or more cascades. 











Let’s give an example of the cluster nucleus:







Object






[Artifact, Standing Figure]

For the system this means:



Link–Number

[Artifact–Number, Typology–Number]




This nucleus can be elucidated by attaching attributes to the link–number, or to the link–numbers of attached attributes. First let us add the attribute «provenance»:



[Artifact, Standing Figure]



Karnak


Here we have an ordered pair with a binary value on one side and a unitary value on the other. We speak of a sublink. This tells us that an artifact of the type «standing gure» came from Karnak. Now let us add the date of the artifact: 

Data les have the nature of thesauri containing terms grouped together on the basis of selective criteria: typology, iconography, material, toponyms, technology, personal names, & c. These les are all hierarchical within themselves. If a record does not belong to a hierarchy it is disembodied and cannot be found. To be effective, a thesaurus must be hierarchical. This means that every term must have an owner. The term heading the thesaurus is the name of the le and the ultimate owner af all terms therein. Some terms in every thesaurus are headers and exist only as principles for ordering other terms. There is no physical object named «typology», no time–segment named «chronology» and no material named «material». Such terms are the names of parameters which may be used to elucidate an object or a class of objects. Parameter content is selected from the terms owned by these and lower ranking headers. If we are to describe a parametrized object fully, we must have thesauri at our disposal which can react to the interrogativa: what?, where?, when?, how?, & c. 

[(Artifact, Standing Figure), Karnak]

XVIII Dynasty


This tells us that at least one artifact of the type «standing gure» coming from Karnak is dated to the XVIII Dynasty. This information is useful if we are looking for instances of standing gures. As the information on the left side of the link is the owner of the chronological sublink, searching for the attributes of the XVIII Dynasty we will nd that a standing gure from that period came from Karnak. Now let us specify the material of which the artifact is made: 











[((Artifact, Standing Figure), Karnak), XVIII Dynasty] Limestone


and also add the technology used in making it: [(((Artifact, Standing Figure), Karnak), XVIII Dynasty), Limestone] Sculpted


GALEXYS visualizes this as:

Artifact

Let an object be anything which can be described. Everything which can be described can be classi ed. Let a thesaurus named typology be a hierarchical list of artifact classi cations. Let a list of labeled invertory numbers be a collection of artifacts. The parametric description of an artifact begins with its assignment to a typology. The name of the parameter is typology and the parameter content is the element of the typology hierarchy to which the artifact is assigned. An inventory number by itself is dimensionless. Assignment to a typological class creates a basic two dimensional object:




Standing Figure Karnak XVIII Dynasty Limestone Sculpted













Here we see elements from six different tables linked hierarchically to form a cluster object. This manner of linking causes all the linked data to stand in one relation, meaning that they all «know each other». GALEXYS can manage twenty levels of such sublinks. Actually we have here the hierarchical intersection of ve thesauri at a point in the system de ned by the artifact:





50



Edward Loring: Knowledge Engineering at the Russian Institute for Egyptology in Cairo and at the CES/RAS, Moscow

would nd Karnak, Luxor, Thebes West, & c. However, a search for instances of this or any other element could be instructed to nd only speci c links with that element. 

Thing Material Artifact Mobile Stone Art Sedimentary stone Fine Arts Limestone Sculpture in Full Round Figure Figure acording to Form Standing Figure Technology Artifact Mobile Artifact Mobile Art Fine Arts Product Sculpted

Place Africa Egypt Upper Egypt Thebes Karnak





The separation of data into specialized thesauri is an important aspect of knowledge engineering. No one person is qualied to compile all of the thesauri used in GALEXYS. Here we have seen only a very limited selection. We have been considering artifacts. However, other users may be studying materials. The fact that materials have a table of their own allows the materials’ specialist to regard the system as having been made just for him/her. This is also the case with respect to life–forms, chronology, iconography, & c. Each table–thesaurus in GALEXYS is the work of specialists. The method of linking elements from discrete areas of study combines the knowledge of very diverse people and disciplines who may neither know each other at all nor have any founded knowledge of each others’ elds. 

Egyptian Chronology New Kingdom XVIII Dynasty



The system can nd the artifact from any of the speci c parameter contents, or from any higher position in any of the ve illustrated hierarchies. 



Many search and retrieval systems today are implemented in HTML hypertext les. These have the advantage of being very fast and do not require programming. However, they are rigid and any change requires the editing of texts. As opposed to this, GALEXYS is a dynamic database system. Dynamic means that all relations shown are generated at runtime. New data can be added and existing data edited at any time. Any changes are shown at once. This is ideal for research projects which require continuing data additions and mutations. Any element shown in any report can be modi ed, assigned new attributes or linked in a new position with immediate effect. This allows a very precise modeling of the output. Because of the hierarchical nature of both the tables and the reports, a highly complex structure can be compiled in which, in the spirit of the so–called chaos–theory, one mutation may have an effect on the entire system. [Editor’s Note: On this interesting topic, see e.g.: Gleick, J.: Chaos: Making a New Science, UK (Viking Penguin Inc.) 11987].





When entering data in a database the user should always ask him/herself: «What am I going to search for? What will other users want to retrieve?». Because of the cascaded links in the example above, users of the system will be able to retrieve even such information as does not deal speci cally with the artifact. Every link and sublink in GALEXYS is intelligent. This means that the user can jump to the record in the table from which the link/sublink comes and make the entity represented by the link/sublink the logical centre of the system. 



If —for instance— the user is making a study of materials, this object tells him/her that limestone was sculpted to make statues in Karnak in the XVIII Dynasty. Jumping to «limestone» he/she could analyse the entire system for all instances of that material.

The management and analysis of Ancient Egyptian texts is a very important aspect of any knowledge system used in Egyptology. GALEXYS deals with this under the motto of Text and Context. All ancient texts are artifacts consisting of the text–carrier and the text itself. If the standing gure which we have considered above is inscribed, as is very often the case, the inscription is stored in direct connection with the carrier, in this case the gure. When texts are entered it is in the form of transliterations. Hieroglyphs are not used, but hieroglyphic sequences can be entered in a normalized coded form used by all Egyptologists. The words of a text are numbered at entry and classi ed according to their grammatical types and use. Texts can be searched for word types and the grammatical context in which words occur. Of course, it is also possible simply to retrieve all instances of a certain word or word type. The structure is the same as with the standing gure which we have seen. This section of the system is being continuously developed in cooperation with a noted philologist, Prof. Dr Erhart Graefe, Director of the Institute for Egyptology of the University of Münster (Germany). The system includes a dictionary linked with translations.

If we state the above relationship in terms of the tables from which the elements shown are stored, we would have the following: Artifacts / Typology / Toponyms / Chronology / Materials / Technology



These tables are all hierarchical by nature. The table «artifacts» has for example movable and immovable artifacts. «Standing gure» in the typology table–thesaurus has the following hierarchical position:





Thing / Artifact, Mobile / Type of Object / Art (Practice– Product) / Fine Arts (Product) / Sculpture (in Full Round) / Figure Type according to Form / Standing Figure



Thus, the Toponym Karnak would belong to the following hierarchy:



Africa / Egypt / Upper Egypt / Thebes / Karnak / Luxor / Thebes West / Deir ’el-Bahri / ‘As s f / Gurna, & c.


In these and all other thesauri, searching for the instances of any term will retrieve all instances of all terms lower in the hierarchy. Seraching in the toponym–thesaurus for Thebes

When one wants to search for a term in a lexical system it is necessary to know how that term is designated in this system. 51

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

The underlying principle is to create as simple a structure as possible for search and retrieval in a very complex system. This structure must allow users to nd even the remotest relationships of any given term and must allow them to search using familiar synonyms, when possible in their own languages.

This may sound trivial, but it is not. A term is a lexical expression of a concept or of a physical object. The same concept or object may have many correct or generally understood designations within one language, not to mention the equivalents in a selection of languages. The ability to translate all of its terms is an important part of GALEXYS’ philosophy. Actually we speak of establishing a semantic equivalence between terms and languages. We enable this through the use of synonym–thesauri.



Here we have considered the use of a system to describe Museum objects. GALEXYS has further capabilities which time will not allow us deal with. We have mentioned Ancient Egyptian Philology and Linguistics applied to the analysis of ancient texts. In this case the universal structures described above are augmented to number pages, lines and word order. The purpose here is to present a grammatically analysed text in the context of its carrier artifact which may range from a scarab or papyrus to the wall of a temple. A current research project using GALEXYS is in the area of writing history, using a dynamic database.

A basic synonym–thesuarus consists of two data– les and a link– le. We speak of a synonym– le and a master–term– le. Master terms are those used for system output. The synonym– le contains semantic equivalents for the master terms and is used to locate such terms. Any master term can have any number of synonyms in any number of languages. Each master term has a preferred synonym for each language represented in the system. The preferred terms are designated by codes in the link les, joining synonyms with master terms. The preferred terms for a given language are taken over by the master–term– le when the system is inverted for that language. This means that the only permanent terms are in the synonym– le whose preferred terms are transfered to the master–term– le, as desired by the user. 











The use of synonym–thesauri is essential to the construction of a multi–lingual system. Experience has proved that in many cases even experts in a certain eld cannot agree on a universal term. Experts tend to have their own much loved terms for objects and concepts. Any term which points to an entity or entities in a database is a correct term. There are also terms, which —although obviously incorrect in the real world— are valid as a means of search and retrieval in a database. A good example of this can be found under the toponyms, which were transliterated from Arabic in the 19th century without any sort of normalized phonetic values. These terms occur in the literature and are thus valid synonyms for a master term re ecting the accepted phonetic values today. The synonym– thesaurus also has the valuable practical characteristic of allowing individual users to create acronyms to facilitate input. Examples would be: SS1 for Sesostris I, R7 for Ramesses VII and T2 for Tuthmosis II. 

A further important asset offered by this system is the ability to search in one language and obtain output in a second language. At the time of this writing GALEXYS has German and English semantic equivalents for most terms as well as some French. The Russian language has no standard terminology for most egyptological concepts which greatly complicates the de nition of preferred terms with respect to that language. However, let us assume that a German speaker must make a report in English and does not know the English terminology. The system can be inverted for English. The user can — still— search in German. The output will be in English. This can be very time–saving and eliminate terminological misunderstandings due to translation errors. 

III. Epilogue and Conclusions So far, we have had a brief introduction to some of the basic principles of knowledge engineering applied to a database. 52

Leo Depuydt: The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology

The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology Leo Depuydt

Abstract

The chronology of the centuries BCE can be thought of as a complex intellectual structure. In any structure, some elements are logically prior to others. At the origin, one nds the foundations. This paper is concerned with the foundations of the chronology of the years BCE, especially of the rst Millennium BCE. The main purpose of the paper is to describe a shift in the foundations of ancient chronology. How can something so fundamental to a eld as its foundations shift? Whence and whither will they shift? They will shift from Ptolemy’s Royal Canon to a complex set of sources including cuneiform astronomical texts from Babylon, Aramaic papyri from Egypt, and civil–lunar double dates in hieroglyphic Egyptian. This paper’s aim is hardly to accomplish this shift. The task at hand will require many years and much labour.

The aim of this paper is to portray what may well be one of the principal tasks awaiting students of the chronology of the centuries BCE (~ BC): proving and by the same token superseding Ptolemy’s Royal Canon. The result will be a shift in the very foundations of ancient chronology. Quite in general, calendars and chronology demand much more attention from historians of centuries BCE than from historians of centuries CE (~ AD). The reason is the Julian Calendar, instituted by Julius Caesar in 45 BCE. Except for an adjustment decreed by Pope Gregorius XIII in 1582 CE, which turned the Julian calendar into the «Julian– Gregorian» calendar, Caesar’s calendar is basically the calendar we still use today. The Julian Calendar guarantees a type of continuity with the past that makes chronology much less of a concern to the historian of medieval France than of Pharaonic Egypt. The chronology of the centuries BCE can be thought of as a complex intellectual structure. In any structure, some elements are logically prior to others. At the origin, one nds the foundations. This paper is concerned with the foundations of the chronology of the years BCE, especially of the 1st Millennium BCE. The main purpose of it is to describe a shift in the foundations of ancient chronology. How can something so fundamental to a eld as its foundations shift? Whence and whither will they shift? They will shift from Ptolemy’s Royal Canon to a complex set of sources including cuneiform astronomical texts from Babylon, Aramaic papyri from Egypt, and civil–lunar double dates in hieroglyphic Egyptian. This paper’s aim is hardly to accomplish this shift. The task at hand will require many more years and much labour.










Most of what follows revolves around Ptolemy’s Royal Canon. No document has proven more important to ancient chronology and has enjoyed more consensus as to its truthfulness. It is the foundation of the chronology of the rst Millennium BCE. Two remarkable displacements or twists characterize its position in chronology. One shift lies in the past. The other shift lies ahead in the future.


First twist (see IV.3 end below). The Canon rst assumed its dominant role in chronology in the early seventeenth century BCE. But it took a couple of centuries before its importance was widely acknowledged. Just when that stage was reached, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries BCE, new sources became available from Mesopotamia and Egypt that had the potential of assuming priority over the Canon. They include the above– mentioned cuneiform, Aramaic, and Egyptian sources.


WORDS: Archaeoastronomy & Egyptology: Ancient Chronology, Shifting Foundations of Chronology, Ptolemy’s Royal Canon, Calendars, Julian Calendar, Gregorian Calendar, Ancient Egyptian Calendar; Sources of Calendrics & Chronology: Egyptian Civil Lunar Dates, Cuneiform Astronomical Texts, Aramaic Papyri.

KEY

Second twist (see section V below). Evaluating the said sources adequately has taken the better part of the twentieth century BCE. As a result, these sources are now far better understood. The stage is hence set for proving the Canon’s veracity. Such proof has never been delivered. The Canon is written in Hellenic. The earliest preserved form dates to the second century BCE. One cannot therefore be certain beforehand that the Canon transmits ancient Near Eastern History correctly. Proof must be based on native Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources that date as closely as possible to the dates themselves. Such proof can be dismissed only by declaring the ancient sources a fraud. The following twist will result. To the extent that the Canon’s veracity is proven as the foundation of rst Millennium BCE chronology, to that extent the Canon will also become super uous as a foundation. And even more remarkably, to the extent that its veracity is not proven, for those parts it remains fundamental to rst Millennium BCE chronology. This twist involves a principal task, awaiting chronologists

I. Introduction The aim of this paper is to portray what may well be one of the principal tasks awaiting students of the chronology of the centuries BCE (BC): proving and by the same token superseding Ptolemy’s Royal Canon. The result will be a shift in the very foundations of ancient chronology. Quite in general, calendars and chronology demand much more attention from historians of centuries BCE than from historians of centuries BCE (AD). The reason is the Julian calendar, instituted by Julius Caesar in 45 BCE. Except for an adjustment decreed by Pope Gregorius XIII in 1582 BCE, which made the Julian calendar into the Julian– Gregorian calendar, Caesar’s calendar is basically the calendar we still use today. The Julian calendar guarantees a type of continuity with the past that makes chronology much less of a concern to the historian of, say, medieval France than of, say, Pharaonic Egypt.









53

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

The many twists and turns involving the human factor give History, and therefore also chronology, a characteristic type of elusive complexity. This complexity may help explain a certain reluctance on the part of students of Astronomy, both ancient and modern, to address problems of chronology. Yet, such problems always seem within an arm’s reach. In the introduction to his translation of Ptolemy’s Almagest, G. Toomer [cf. 1984: 6] observes: «There are [...] certain topics which Ptolemy does not discuss either because he takes it for granted that they are already known to his readers, or because it seemed super uous to go into details (here I am referring especially to chronological matters)». Along the same lines, Olmstead [1937: 2] writes: «Those who themselves have followed from afar the sure progress of the late Pater Kugler through the mazes of Babylonian Astronomy must always regret that he abandoned his promised third volume of the Sternkunde [Kugler 1907–24], now lost to us forever, to tread the more alluring, but for him less safe, bypath of chronology». The term «less safe» is noteworthy. In a discussion of Ptolemy’s Royal Canon in his History of ancient mathematical Astronomy, O. Neugebauer [1975: 1025] writes that such chronological tables «contain many dif cult historical problems but are fortunately of no concern to us here». The key term is «fortunately». Then again, Neugebauer does recognize the ties that bind Astronomy and chronology as well as the idiosyncratic complexity of chronology when he writes in the same work [1975: 1071], «[H]istorical chronology rests on an interplay of theoretical Astronomy and historical conditions, far more intricate than professional historians usually realize, to the great detriment of their insight into the very foundations of their eld».

in the years ahead: the conjoint act of proving and superseding the Canon.

II. Astronomy and Chronology, Chronology and History Two connections are worth evoking by way of introduction: the one between Astronomy and chronology and the one between chronology and History. In his Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, the great F.X. Kugler [1907–1924, II: 3] called Astronomy the «Mother of Chronology». Studying ancient Astronomy without heeding ancient chronology does seem easier than the inverse. The mother/child analogy, therefore, seems appropriate. Then again, as Kugler [1907–24, II: 11] also notes, chronology served as a major incentive when mathematical Astronomy rst developed in Babylon. Lunar months were a daily fact of life. It is normally not possible to predict whether a lunar month will have 29 days or 30 days. Lack of control over something so obviously apparent must have been a source of inspiration and energy for sky–gazers to chart the uneven course of the Moon.






Astronomy and chronology are related. But they also differ. Chronology’s method is not Astronomy’s. It is in many ways History’s. By contrast, Astronomy’s method is that of Mathematics and Science. Mathematics is typically about the rigorous deduction of one statement from another. Science is typically about making inferences from reproducible facts. The scienti c approach may sometimes invoke, less atteringly, the feeling described as follows by the title character of Tomaso di Lampedusa’s Il Gattopardo:












While Astronomy and chronology are related, the statements above suggest that a step–wise, logical, and coherent line of argument necessitates choosing between Astronomy and chronology. The two differ too much in method. In the present paper, the choice is chronology. If the line of argument occasionally touches on Astronomy, that is logically incidental.

In lui orgoglio e analisi matematica si erano a tal punto associati da dargli l’illusione che gli astri obbedissero ai suoi calcoli (come di fatto sembravano fare).

History, then, is often not about evaluating facts as such, but rather facts reported by human beings. H rodotos, Strab n, and Diod ros provide information on the Egyptian calendar. Evaluating this information concerns not only the statements but also the people who made them. If chronology is Astronomy’s child, the child has been adopted into History’s family.





III. The Foundations of Chronology and Ptolemy’s Canon Ad hanc normam exigenda est Orientis chronologia. John Marsham on the Canon in his Chronicus Canon, London 1672

Much has been written on the historical method. An essay by A.T. Olmstead in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies of 1943 may be singled out because Olmstead was intimately acquainted with the scope and subject matter of the present paper. He describes as the three «handicaps» or «misfortunes» of the historian: «human beings as subjects», «the most complex and most dif cult of all subjects to understand»; «human beings as scholars», owing to «human perversity and man’s ineradicable love of a ght»; and «human beings as authors of the sources through which alone our facts have derived» [p. 3]. Furthermore, he writes: «Without chronology, there can be no History, since History itself is merely a record of human events in time relation. Sad to admit, chronology is the most tricky subject with which the historian must deal» [p. 6].

III.1. The Foundations of Chronology Chronology is often done. But no one ever asks what it is. The search is for the foundations of chronology. Does chronology have foundations? In Euclid’s Elements, the point precedes the line, the line precedes the triangle, and so on. It is tempting to assume that chronology has elements that are unique to it and that these elements come in a certain xed order and relate to one another in xed ways: chronology as a perfectly ordered sequence of perfectly de ned concepts. How close can one come to this ideal? The task is to identify and de ne the basic elements of chronology and describe how they relate to one another. The hope is that building chronology up from nothing



















54

Leo Depuydt: The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology

might contribute to a higher level of rigour and clarity. The need is for beginning with the beginning, and nowhere else. This is the rst step in the present line of argument.

imagine it, presumably some time in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. Only in the nineteenth century did mathematicians begin thinking seriously about what it means that each point on a line corresponds to a number. To some extent, the matter is still not settled. Mathematics has this way of being valid without it being clear why that is.




III.2. Theoretical Chronology and Applied Chronology Step two is making a distinction between two sides in the foundations of chronology and choosing to focus on one. The foundations of chronology have a theoretical side and an applied side. This division is comparable to that between theoretical and applied Mathematics. It naturally results from the following simple observation. History has taken a speci c course and the evidence from the past has survived in speci c ways. The theoretical foundations of chronology concern concepts that would be valid whatever course human History had taken. The applied foundations pertain to how the speci c course of History has come to be dated as it is.

III.3. The Four Epochs of World Chronology The present concern is with applied chronology. The question is: How has History come to be dated in the way that it has? Obviously, it is not possible to deal with all of History at once. The third step of this argument involves again a distinction. Four principal periods can be distinguished in the chronology of western civilization. The present focus is on one of them only. Which are the four periods?










The divisions of History are not necessarily those of chronology. The divisions of chronology are dictated by whatever speci c approach the surviving evidence requires. On the most general level, the four major periods in the chronology of western civilization are as follows:

The present concern is with the applied foundations of chronology. Which are the elements of the chronology of History as we know History to have happened and how do these elements relate to one another? Before addressing applied chronology, perspective may be added by brie y considering what kinds of concepts make up the theoretical chronology. This writer still entertains hopes of presenting a detailed account elsewhere. A rst concept is the relation between cardinal and ordinal numbers. It may well be the fundamental problem of chronology (for a case in which the problem presents itself, see L. Depuydt 2000: 176–77). Thus, 2001 in «year 2001» is an ordinal number. It means «two thousand and rst» year. But in «2001 years», 2001 is cardinal. The problem is converting one into the other. A rigorous formulation of this conversion ought to be part of the theoretical foundations of chronology. It is obvious that a meeting lasting from 25 June to 27 June spans three days, even if 27 minus 25 is only two. No simple de nitions of ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers appear in handbooks of Mathematics. The rst serious attempts to de ne the difference seem to date to the nineteenth century and involve such concepts as set theory. In the interpretation of ancient sources, problems involving the relation between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers are omnipresent. Just consider the many statements on the lengths of reigns. It is mostly not clear whether a number is to be understood ordinally or cardinally. Thus, if a king has reigned 45 years, did he die in his 45th full year of reign, having reigned less than 45 years, or did he reign a full 45 years or even more? Also, how can one be certain that an ordinal number was not misunderstood and converted into a cardinal number or vice versa already in Antiquity?




(1) Prehistory; (2) The period of approximate chronology; (3) The national period of exact chronology; (4) The international period of exact chronology.






The lack of written sources in Period 1, prehistory, requires a method all of its own. The other three periods make up History, the period for which we have written sources. History is by now about ve millennia long, 1,800,000 days or so. The key distinction is between approximate chronology and exact chronology. What is here called exact chronology is elsewhere called absolute chronology. But the term absolute serves here rather as the natural opposite of relative. Dating events relatively is dating them in relation to one another. Dating events absolutely is dating them in relation to the present time. Therefore, stating that event A happened before event B is relative dating. Stating that A happened this or that much time ago back from today is absolute dating. Absolute dating can therefore be both approximate, as in stating that event A happened about two weeks ago, and exact, as in stating that A happened 12 days ago.














How exact is exact? For most events of the centuries BCE whose ancient month–and–day dates have been preserved, the exact day cannot be known. Knowing the exact day is therefore normally a fortunate circumstance. For several events, we know the approximate time of day. But to date an event to within minutes, a division of the day into 24 hours of equal length is needed. Only some astronomical texts use such a division. The division became common in daily life only later, with the advent of mechanical clocks in the Middle Ages. The few ancient events that can be dated to within minutes are therefore celestial.

A second theoretical concept is thinking of time in terms of space. The past is behind us and the future is in front of us. In this connection, it is common to think of time as a line. A third concept is the numbered line. We are all used to drawing a line and identifying equidistant points on this line with the integers 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on. The numbered line is in fact a fairly recent acquisition of the common imagination. It appears some time after the rise of Analytic Geometry in the seventeenth century CE. Someone must have been rst in drawing the numbered line as we now all

Period 2 is the period of approximate chronology. It lasted about two millennia, roughly the third Millennium and the second Millennium BCE, until some time in the rst part of the second Millennium BCE. In this period, no event can be dated to the exact day by general consensus, let alone to the





55

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

civil calendar is regular. Other nations typically had lunar calendars. There are two obstacles to dating an ancient lunar month–and–day date to the exact day. First, even if year and season can be inferred from the sources, it is often not certain which exact monthly lunar cycle is meant. Second, even if the exact lunar cycle can be identi ed, Day 1 of the month can mostly not be dated with certainty to within a margin of about two or three days. It is clear that Day 1 as a rule falls close to New Moon. But it is mostly impossible to be sure how close. The remarkable result is that we are fairly well informed about many great events in Hellenic and Roman History, yet can date hardly any of them to the exact day, and mostly not even to the exact lunar cycle.

exact year. Periods 3 and 4 together make up exact chronology. The fourth step in the present argument is again a choice. The focus of what follows will be on Period 3. Periods 3 and 4 differ as follows. Period 3 is national. Period 4 is international. Period 4 may be brie y characterized as follows. The period begins in 45 BCE with Julius Caesar’s reform of the Roman calendar. The year 45 BCE has no unusual signi cance in History. But it is an important milestone in chronology. Period 4 lasts until today and will presumably continue for a long time. Like Period 2, Period 4 is about two millennia long. Period 4 has two main characteristics. First, many nations shared the same calendar. In the early centuries of Period 4 the reason is that these nations were united in the Roman Empire. Second, this common calendar is the one that we still use today.









III.4.2. Year–Exact Chronology

There are widely accepted theories in existence that allow dating an event to the exact year for the period from the early rst Millennium BCE onwards. The beginning of the year differed from nation to nation. In Rome, it began with March, and later with January; in Mesopotamia, around the Spring Equinox; in Athens, around the Summer Solstice. There are proposals for exact year–dating in the second Millennium BCE for both Egypt and Mesopotamia. But no theory has attained consensus. There are no overwhelmingly convincing theories for dating events in the reigns of rulers such as Hammurabi of the early second Millennium BCE, or Ramses II of the late second Millennium BCE to the exact year.

Period 3 is the national period of exact chronology. In this period different nations typically used different calendars. Period 3 is an inviting and natural target for study, wedged as it is between the period when chronology is not yet exact and 45 BCE, when the structure of chronology becomes suddenly much more transparent owing to the Julian calendar.




III.4. The National Period of Exact Chronology (First Millennium BCE) III.4.1. Day–Exact Chronology

Exact chronology, thus, consists of day–exact chronology and year–exact chronology. The ability to date events only to the exact year falls short of a certain desirable standard of precision. But then, the year–exact dating of the rst Millennium BCE ranks far above the chronology of the second Millennium BCE in degree of precision. What is more, the speci c ways in which year–exact dating and day–exact dating are teased out of the sources are completely intertwined. In a comprehensive account of the applied foundations of chronology, year–exact dating and day–exact dating therefore belong together.

Period 3 falls entirely inside the rst Millennium BCE. We know when it ends, in 45 BCE. But when precisely does it begin? In probing the foundations of any eld, sharp de nitions are paramount. When it comes to dating to the exact day, the time and the place are clear. There is now general consensus that day–exact chronology most probably began in the land of Egypt in 690 BCE, even if 691 BCE remains a possibility. To be more speci c, it most probably begins some time in the 365–day Egyptian civil year that lasted from 12 February 690 BCE to 11 February 689 BCE. That was presumably the year in which Taharqa, the Nubian ruler of Egypt, came to the throne. Taharqa’s reign immediately precedes the Saite period or Dynasty 26. This beginning has been obtained by means of a reasoned argument that lends itself to consensus. But it is also somewhat abstract. For instance, we do not know on what day in the afore–mentioned Egyptian year Taharqa presumably became king. We assume it must have been sometime in that year. Nor have any events dated to Year 1 of Taharqa been preserved. The abstract structure of exact chronology can only turn concrete if events dated to the exact day by the ancient calendar survive. A survey of the period of day–exact chronology and its structure by the present writer will appear in a new Handbook of Egyptian Chronology, which is edited by Rolf Krauss and Erik Hornung for the Handbuch der Orientalistik [Depuydt, forthcoming].

















When does year–exact dating begin in the rst Millennium


BCE? Whereas Egypt is rst in day–exact dating, Mesopo


tamia is rst in year–exact dating. The following rough approximations seem possible. In Assyria, year–exact dating begins around 900 BCE, owing to lists of eponymous of cials and various annals and chronicles; in Egypt, around 700 BCE, together with day–exact dating; in Athens and Hellas, around 500 BCE, owing to the interplay of lists of Archontes, contacts with Persia, and the Olympiads. In Rome, around 300 BCE, owing in the rst place to lists of consuls. Detailed statements on each of these rough dates are an integral part of the foundations of chronology and of History itself. But it goes without saying that such statements require a comprehensive listing of all the sources preserved for the periods in question and some notion of the massive amounts of research that have gone into each of these periods over the past ve centuries, beginning with the pioneering work of J.J. Scaliger and D. Petavius in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.











In Period 3, dating to the exact day is typically possible for ancient Egypt only. That is because the 365–day Egyptian 56

Leo Depuydt: The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology

The beginning of year–exact chronology arouses the fascination that comes with contemplating extremes. It may be useful to consider that extreme brie y. It is the limit to which modern scholarship has been able to push back some degree of exactness in the chronology of western civilization. Not a single prior event can at present be assigned to an exact year with widespread consensus. Nothing adds as much sharpness of de nition to a subject as contemplating limits.

we can see now, might well have been avoided by refraining from premature speculations». Schmidtke [1952] surveys much of this «output» in his monograph on Assyrian and Babylonian chronology. Meanwhile, projects such as the State Archives of Assyria project out of Helsinki have much improved the situation since the 1980s. But obtaining a clear view of how precisely the chronological skeleton was put together remains a laborious undertaking exceeding the scope of the present paper.

The beginning of year–exact chronology is based on the Assyrian tradition of naming each year after a certain of cial. This eponymous of cial was called the limmu. Lists of limmus survive in fragmentary form. The pioneering efforts of E. Schrader [1878] and G. Smith [1876[ deserve a mention; Smith died a year after publishing his seminal study, at age 36. A. Ungnad has tabulated the surviving lists in the Reallexikon für Assyriologie (see now also A. Millard 1994). In Ungnad’s table, the earliest exactly dated limmu is placed in 910 BCE [Ungnad 1938: 418]. The Assyrian year began in the Spring. 910 BCE is therefore short for the year lasting from the Spring of 910 BCE to the Spring of 909 BCE. For the rst two decades or so, there is only one witness, and a fragmentary one at that. But from 890/89 BCE onward, the sequence seems more secure because there is more than one witness [Ungnad 1938: 414a]. If 910 BCE is deemed unsuitable as beginning of year–exact chronology because it offends the principle of historical method known as testis unus testis nullus, then perhaps 890 BCE will satisfy. A more detailed calibration remains desirable. The complexity of the problem is illustrated by the fact that Kugler’s dates are a year lower [1907–24, II: 330; cf. pp. 572–76]. Thus, he places Ungnad’s limmu for 890 (890/89) BCE in 889 (889/88) BCE. In later years, the limmu– tradition becomes progressively more solid and at some point suf ciently solid to keep the beginning of year–exact chronology securely within Assyria. E.R. Thiele [1965: 39– 52, 209–15] discussed Assyrian eponyms in relation to the chronology of the Old Testament.

Again, the beginning of year–exact dating is not that of day–exact dating. Events cannot be dated to the exact day before 690 BCE. On the inherent uncertainty of early rst Millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology, Poebel [1942– 43: 289, note 115] writes: «Since our knowledge of the interpolation of the intercalary months before the Persian period is extremely defective, we actually lack the means for any accurate identi cation of dates given according to the Babylonian calendar, not to mention the fact that in case no month is mentioned it is usually utterly impossible to decide in which of the two years of our calendar represented in part by one Babylonian year the event concerned took place».

Handbooks now place the beginning of Adad–Nirari II’s reign in 911 BCE. The reasoning would appear to be as follows. The layout of the earliest relevant limmu–list suggests that its rst line, which is lost, is associated with year 911 BCE [Ungnad 1938: 418]. It is assumed that the list begins with a new reign, which can only be Adad–Nirari II’s. Spring 911 BCE to Spring 910 BCE would therefore be Adad –Nirari II’s Year 1. If the period lasting from the accession to the throne to the rst new year in the Spring was not counted, as was the habit later, then Adad–Nirari II could have come to the throne as early as 912 BCE. A more detailed investigation remains desirable. Explicit re ections on the problem are hard to nd. They require familiarity with all the historical sources for the period. When A.K. Grayson surveyed the History of Assyria in the early rst Millennium BCE, he observed [1982: 239] that: «[m]uch of the source material is, unfortunately, not available in a form useful for the historian». Earlier, A. Poebel [1942–43: 84] had referred to: «the enormous output, in the past, of theories concerning the Assyrian kings and their chronology—by far the greater part of which has proved untenable in light of later discoveries and most of which, as

IV.1. As Foundation of Period 3, National Exact Chronology





















Furthermore, earliest year–exact chronology is abstract, like earliest day–exact chronology. No concrete historical events are known that might be placed in the abstract chronological framework. As for Adad–Nirari II, historians begin to assign speci c events like military campaigns to speci c years with some con dence ten years or so into his reign, that is, from about 900 BCE onwards. This way, 900 BCE is roughly the beginning of the year–exact chronology of recorded History.








In sum, reasoned arguments exist that achieve year–exact dating with some consensus from 910 BCE onwards. Similar theoretical constructs do not exist before 910 BCE




IV. Ptolemy’s Royal Canon

This argument’s focus has been narrowed progressively. It was rst assumed that chronology ought to have foundations. Theoretical foundations, consisting of concepts valid regardless of what course History takes, were then distinguished from applied foundations, which concern the speci c course that History did in fact take. Next, the applied foundations were singled out for further investigation. Four main periods of world History were then delineated by chronological criteria. Finally, Period 3 was singled out. What are the foundations of Period 3, the national period of exact chronology? No doubt, by far the single most important source for the chronology of the rst Millennium BCE is Ptolemy’s Royal Canon. It is absolutely fundamental. In his biography of Scaliger as pioneer of modern chronology, A. Grafton [1993: 116] refers to the Canon as «perhaps the most important single document for establishing the chronology of ancient History». As part of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables, the Canon is a tool of chronology that stands in the service of Astronomy. The Canon lists
























57

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY 9 Assyrian 10 Babylonian 11 Chaldaean 12 Second Kingless Period 13 Assyrian 14 Assyrian 15 Chaldaean? 16 Chaldaean? 17 Chaldaean? 18 Chaldaean? 19 Chaldaean? 20 Chaldaean? 21 Persian? 22 Persian? 23 Persian? 24 Persian? 25 Persian 26 Persian 27 Persian 28 Persian 29 Persian 30 Persian 31 Hellenic 32 Hellenic 33 Hellenic 34 Hellenic–Egyptian 35 Hellenic–Egyptian 36 Hellenic–Egyptian 37 Hellenic–Egyptian 38 Hellenic–Egyptian 39 Hellenic–Egyptian 40 Hellenic–Egyptian 41 Hellenic–Egyptian 42 Hellenic–Egyptian 43 Hellenic–Egyptian [44Roman

both Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings. In fact, the Canon is the result of the combined activities of Mesopotamian and Egyptian Astronomers. Could rst Millennium BCE chronology have been known with the same degree of precision if we had not had the Canon? An answer to this question would seem to be an integral part of a comprehensive insight into the foundations of chronology. Even if the answer turned out to be negative, knowing how close we can come to what we know now without taking into account the Canon would serve the cause of clarity. The task at hand would be to consider many diverse types of sources (but not the Canon!) and see whether a coherent chronology can be concatenated from them. It is dif cult to think of a more dif cult challenge for the ancient historian.








IV.2. Is the Canon True? The chronology of the rst Millennium BCE rests squarely on Ptolemy’s Canon. But there has never been a systematic investigation about whether the Canon is true. Yet, it is good house–keeping in any eld of learning to make explicit how solid its foundations are. Things come in a certain order and the Canon is rst. The result of said investigation may end up being no more than an assessment of just how close we can come to proving that the Canon is true, or which parts of it are and which are not. But at least, such calibrations may invite others to consider the matter in their own right. In ancient History, the quality of the evidence is only rarely such that it would hold up in a court of law, in which one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The equivalent scholarly standard is agnosticism, assuming that a statement is neither true nor false until positively proven either way. By this standard, silence is the preferred option if positive proof is not forthcoming. It seems worthwhile to hold even the most widespread assumptions of ancient History up against the highest standards of evidence. The relentless pursuit of such comparisons can only further the cause of clarity and provide an opportunity for a full analytic grasp of a problem. If a certain assumption is eminently commonsensical yet falls short of a certain high standard, then we ought to know that.








Ashur–nadin–shumi Nergal–ushezib Mushezib–Marduk

6 54 1 55 4 59 8 67 Esarhaddon 13 80 Shamash–shuma–ukin 20 100 Kandalanu 22 122 Nabopolassar 21 143 Nebuchadrezzar 43 186 Amel–Marduk 2 188 Neriglissar 4 192 Nabonidus 17 209 Cyrus 9 218 Cambys s 8 226 Darius I 36 262 Xerx s I 21 283 Artaxerx s I 41 324 Darius II 19 343 Artaxerx s II 46 389 Artaxerx s III 21 410 Ars s 2 412 Darius III 4 416 Alexandros (the Great) 8 424 Philippos Arrhidaios 7 7 Alexandros IV 7 7 Ptolemaios I Sot r 20 39 Ptol.II Philadelphos 38 77 Ptol.III Euerget s 25 102 Ptol.IV Philopat r 17 119 Ptol.V Epiphan s 24 143 Ptol.VI Philom t r 35 178 Ptol.VIII Euerget s II 29 207 Ptol. IX Sot r II 36 243 Ptol. XII Neos Dionysos 29 272 Cleopatra VII Philopat r 22 294 Augustus 43 337]








This writer has attempted elsewhere [Depuydt 1995] to provide an update on the Canon’s place in chronology. An even more detailed survey remains desirable. Two important publications, a thesis and an article by J. Neuffer [1947, 1968], were overlooked in this survey. They are mentioned here for completeness’ sake. By 1995, almost a century had passed since the last survey of the Canon. Presently, the following summary aims to make the present paper self–suf cient. The Canon is a chronological list of rulers of Babylon, Egypt and Rome, found in Ptolemy of Alexandria’s Handy Tables (second century BCE). An adaptation of the Hellenic original’s ancient Near Eastern segment appears in the table above. The Canon’s diminutive size belies its capital importance to rst Millennium BCE chronology. Its contents t on a single modern page. The adapted table provided here has ve columns. The rst two to the left are not part of the original. The original consists of three columns, the names of rulers and two columns containing numbers.


Brief answers to two preliminary questions may appropriately set the stage for probing the veracity of the Canon.




1. What is the Canon? [see IV.3] 2. What have past and current attitudes towards the Canon’s veracity been? [see IV.4]










IV.3. A Brief Description of the Canon CANON OF KINGS: ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN SEGMENT

The rst column with numbers denotes the length of each reign converted into a full number of 365–day Egyptian civil years. The second column adds up the numbers of the rst. Ptolemy designates years both by reign and by counting from the beginning of the Canon. Counting from the beginning is known as Era of Nabonassar. For example, Year 1 of Cambyses (ruler 22) is Year 219 from Nabonassar. As the table shows, 218 years had passed by the end of the reign of Cyrus (ruler 21). In his Handy


Nationality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Babylonian Babylonian Chaldaean; Assyrian Assyrian Chaldaean Assyrian First Kingless Period Babylonian

King’s name

Regnal Years

Nabonassar Nabu–nadin–zeri Mukin–zeri, Pul Ululayu Merodach–baladan Sargon II Bel–ibni

14 2 5 5 12 5 2 3

Total 14 16 21 26 38 43 45 48








58

Leo Depuydt: The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology

a single simple standard of the Egyptian year. Obviously, reigns do not last a full number of Egyptian civil years. A technique to convert actual lengths of reigns into full Egyptian civil years is described elsewhere [Depuydt 1995a & 1995b].

Tables, Ptolemy starts over the count with Philip (ruler 32). In his Almagest, he continues counting from Nabonassar after Alexander’s reign ( 31). The full Canon became known and began to be exploited by historians in the early seventeenth century. But Astronomers had always counted from Nabonassar, following Ptolemy in his Almagest. Thus, Copernicus and Kepler were quite familiar with the Era of Nabonassar. It is after all possible to use the years of the Era independently of the regnal years. 



In modern scholarship, the Canon appears on the scene in the early seventeenth century BCE. Its role in past research exhibits a peculiar mixture of fundamentalness and elusiveness. It will be useful to paint a picture in broad strokes of four centuries of research on this document. A detailed account would require a good amount of antiquarian effort concerning seventeenth and eighteenth century scholarship, mostly written in Latin. Not many libraries hold what is needed for such an investigation.

The Canon’s rst day is 26 February 747 BCE. As an astronomical tool, the Canon begins at noon of that very day. The Egyptian calendar has no leap years. Its 365–day year slowly recedes in relation to the solar year and in relation to our modern calendar extended backwards into the past. This retrogressive movement of the Egyptian year may be illustrated by specifying the length of some Egyptian years, as follows.


Ptolemy’s version of the Canon was extended after him with Roman and Byzantine rulers until after the fall of Constantinople in the fteenth century BCE. About a century later, the Canon ceased being an event of History and became an object of History when manuscripts containing it reached Western Europe. The modern study of the Canon is about four centuries old. The Canon just missed playing a role in the foundational work of modern chronology, J.J. Scaliger’s De Emendatione Temporum [1583]. Only in 1602 did Scaliger rst become acquainted with two versions of it in Syncellus’s chronography, which dates to the early ninth century BCE. But the two versions differ and both contain errors. In that other great foundational work of chronology, D. Petavius’s De Doctrina temporum [1627–1630], the Canon makes a brief appearance in volume 2, at pages 125–26. But in the version quoted there, certain kings before Cyrus receive different lengths of reigns. Thus, Nabonidus has 32, not 17. But the total from Nabonassar adds up to 209 nevertheless, as in the true Canon, but not without making 209 erroneously into the sum of 175 and 32. Obviously, the Canon was dif cult to interpret at the time because there was nothing to compare it with. Just one dif culty was the garbled Akkadian names of Mesopotamian rulers.

Nabonassar Year 1 26 February 747–25 February 746 Nabonassar Year 2 26 February 746–25 February 745 Nabonassar Year 3 26 February 745–24 February 744 Nabonassar Year 4 25 February 744–24 February 743 Nabonassar Year 5 25 February 743–24 February 742 Nabonassar Year 6 25 February 742–24 February 741 Nabonassar Year 7 25 February 741–23 February 740 Nabonassar Year 8 24 February 740–23 February 739 Nabonassar Year 9 24 February 739–23 February 738 Nabonassar Year 10 24 February 738–23 February 737 Nabonassar Year 11 24 February 737–22 February 736 Nabonassar Year 12 23 February 736–22 February 735 Nabonassar Year 13 23 February 735–22 February 734 Nabonassar Year 14 23 February 734–22 February 733 [From here on just Year 1 of each Reign] Nabu–nadin–zeri 23 February 733–21 February 732 Mukin–zeri and Pul 22 February 731–21 February 730 Ululayu 21 February 726–20 February 725 Merodach–baladan 20 February 721–18 February 720 Sargon II 17 February 709–15 February 708, & c.







The History of the Canon began, together with that of mathematical Astronomy, in Babylon in the eighth century BCE. It was around that time that a new and unprecedented tradition of uninterrupted record–keeping of recurring celestial events began in that city. To establish a theoretical Astronomy, it was necessary to know the exact lapses in time between distantly removed instances of a single celestial event. An example is the time that passes between two lunar eclipses occurring far apart from one another. The obvious need was for meticulous observations accumulated over a long time. As the Babylonian database of dated observations grew over the centuries, so did its potential as the empirical foundation of a solid theoretical Astronomy. By the third and second centuries BCE, Babylonian Astronomy had reached its pinnacle. Around that time, some of the Babylonian data somehow became accessible to Hellenic–writing Astronomers such as Hipparchos (second century BCE) and Ptolemy (second century BCE). The calendar they used was the Egyptian one. Its year is uniformly 365 days long and always consisted of 12 months of 30 days plus ve extra days.







From Scaliger and Petavius, one can justi ably skip to L. Ideler’s Untersuchungen [1806] about the astronomical observations of the ancients. By this time, the correct version of Ptolemy’s Canon had made it into the standard books of chronology. In 1825–26, Ideler published his monumental handbook of chronology. But two decades earlier, he had realized exactly where ancient chronology begins. The Canon is part of Ptolemy’s work. A rm understanding of ancient chronology therefore must begin with fully recognizing and grasping all there is to know about how chronology is manipulated in Ptolemy’s work, especially in his Almagest, Antiquity’s greatest work of Astronomy. In his Untersuchungen of 1806, Ideler collected all the chronological material found in Ptolemy and once and for all established its inner coherence and the correctness of its chronology. Part of Ideler’s account [pp. 36–64] deals with the Canon.








Ideler’s Untersuchungen were truly a new departure in the modern study of chronology. It was the rst time that ancient chronology, at least of the rst Millennium BCE, was really begun where it ought to begin, in the second century

In the Canon, celestial observations dated to the reigns of many different kings and to both the Babylonian lunar calendar and the Egyptian non–lunar calendar are reduced to







59

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

Chronologie de l’Histoire Sainte [1738], and the afore– mentioned Semler had suf ciently rebutted any arguments against the Canon’s veracity. The problem at the time was that the Canon would not t certain pre–conceived chronologies based on the Bible. It has long since become accepted that the Bible does not contain suf cient historical information to form the basis of an exact chronology all by itself. Ideler concludes by stating that: «the more insightful chronologists» accept the Canon. A similar remark appears later in his handbook [1825–26, I: 117]. In fact, it is dif cult to nd any explicit re ections on the Canon’s veracity after Ideler. Only two have come to my attention. First, in an article on Assyrian and Babylonian chronology, W.St.Ch. Boscawen [1878: 3] writes: «This canon, founded, as it is, on astronomical observations, has been received by most chronologists as an accurate and authentic canon». Second, in his treatise on the chronology of Ptolemaic Egypt, rst published in 1937 as volume 6 of the journal Mizraim, Th.C. Skeat states that the Canon is: «absolutely accurate —a fact which historians have been curiously unwilling to recognize» [1969: 3]. The term «curiously» is just one more invitation to nally probe the veracity of the Canon in systematic fashion.

BCE with Ptolemy’s work in Astronomy, because that work is the immediate context of the Canon as a historical source. Ideler was not only an accomplished philologist acquainted with all that had been written earlier on chronology —in fact he was a student of Friedrich August Wolf, who is in some sense the founder of philology—, but he was also a professsional Astronomer. In relation to the Canon, he singles out as most signi cant the contributions by Bainbridge, Dodwell, Van der Hagen (an 18th century Dutch author of several thorough anonymous works on chronology whose identity Ideler came to know only later [see Ideler 1825–26, I: 110, note 1]), Des–Vignoles, Semler and Fréret. One might add Calvisius and Behm. The proli c J. Semler is cited [p. 38] for his survey of the editions of the Canon and the manuscripts on which they are based.



















Ideler rst established the proper framework for the study of the Canon. But one key element was still missing: access to contemporary sources. As a result, calibrating the historical veracity of the Canon was impossible. The Canon is most important for its Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings. Some other sources are available to date its Roman emperors. But in Ideler’s time, it was simply impossible to assess the Canon’s veracity. The following ve developments occurred after Ideler’s time: the decipherment of the hieroglyphic script in the early nineteenth century; the decipherment of the cuneiform script around mid century; the rise of Papyrology in the latter part of the century; the decipherment of Babylonian Astronomy at the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century; and the discoveries of Aramaic papyri in Egypt. 1906 is the year in which Ginzel published the last substantial survey of the Canon. 1906 is also the year in which A.H. Sayce and A.E. Cowley published a rst large collection of Aramaic papyri. This coincidence well illustrates the main conclusion from this survey on modern research into the Canon: modern inquiries into the Canon stopped just about when the sources needed for systematic checking began to become easily accessible.
















IV.5. Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and the Era of Nabonassar It will be useful to eliminate one of the three columns of the Canon from further consideration as a central concern in this paper. In calibrating the Canon’s veracity, only the two left columns of the Canon’s three columns are at issue. The third column is the continuous year count known as the Era of Nabonassar, beginning at noon on 26 February 747 BCE. The year count can also begin on 14 November 424 BCE. It is then known as the Era of Philip (or Era from the Death of Alexander). Canon of Kings sometimes by implication denotes the rst two columns only. In that sense, the modern study of the Canon began no earlier than the rst years of the seventeenth century, with Scaliger’s study of the two defective versions of the Canon he discovered in the work of the Byzantine monk Syncellus (ninth century BCE). A fresh start came with the emergence a decade or so later, after Scaliger’s death, of a correct version in a manuscript of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables.










IV.4. Attitudes towards the Veracity of the Canon Is there any chance that the Canon is false? For four centuries now, the Canon has been put through countless contacts with countless individual sources. To my knowledge, no one has ever found any serious reason to suspect that the Canon is not true. A kind of common sense about the Canon’s veracity has therefore grown over the centuries. This common sense guarantees, in my opinion, that the Canon will remain fundamental to ancient chronology.

By contrast, the Era of Nabonassar, or third column of the Canon, had never ceased to be understood. And its veracity had never ceased to be doubted. Ptolemy uses the Era in his Almagest. Many astronomical events discussed in this work are dated by the Era. These dates can all be veri ed by computation on the assumption that each year lasts exactly 365 days, so that the cycle extends back to 26 February 747 BCE. It follows that the Era always appeared incontrovertibly true to Astronomers, as the text of the Almagest made its way through Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages down to Copernicus and Kepler, the latter a contemporary and correspondent of Scaliger’s. The Era was mainly used by Astronomers. But some historians were explicitly aware of its veracity, on the authority of Astronomers. For example, J. Funck in his Chronologia [1554] speaks of: magna Nabonassaris aera, quae a cunctis Ptolemaei sectatoribus cum pro certissima, tum pro antiquissima habetur [as cited by Grafton 1993: 127, n. 39].


Still, on the rare occasions on which the question about the Canon’s veracity has been pushed explicitly, one observes a certain defensiveness that is not likely to inspire con dence and that makes the veracity of the Canon look a little like an article of faith. For example, in his Untersuchungen [1806: 53], Ideler asks whether the fact that the Canon is astronomically true also means that it is historically true. He notes that several chronologists before him had rejected the Canon. But he also notes with satisfaction that A. Des–Vignoles, author of the


60

Leo Depuydt: The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology

entrenched conviction in certain circles that 607 BCE is the year of the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. In general, historians do not doubt that the event occurred twenty years later. However, that consensus by no means renders super uous any efforts to establish once and for all why we think that we can be so certain. It is fair to say that the answer to this seemingly obvious question is not a possession held by many. For many events and many reigns, a nal justi cation still needs to be created. Outside cuneiform texts, two sets of sources that may be mentioned here by way of example are the double dates in Aramaic papyri from Egypt dating to the fth century BCE and lunar dates from the Horus temple at Edfu. Each date poses her own problems of interpretation. For example, it is not always clear whether a given astronomical event was observed or computed. An assessment of this problem requires intimate acquaintance with the History and nature of Babylonian Astronomy.

Then again, there is little that the historian can do with the Era’s naked run of numbers. The Almagest does often give a regnal year alongside the year from Nabonassar. But without a correct version of the full canon of kings, and especially without contemporary sources, such beliefs as the one that Copernicus shared with many, namely that Nabonassar and Salmanassar were the same person, were not easy to verify as positively true or false [Grafton 1993: 124]. Against the said identi cation, Scaliger cleverly pointed out in his De emendatione temporum [1583: 214] that Nabonassar was a Babylonian but Salmanassar an Assyrian [Grafton 1993: 302]. This again goes to show that chronology is related to Astronomy, but is essentially History. What matters here is that the veracity of the Era of Nabonassar was always secure. The third column of the Canon is therefore not a primary focus of this paper.












Among the information worth compiling are also all kinds of synchronisms between Egypt, Hellas, Rome, and Western Asia. The gathering and evaluating of all this information will make proving the Canon a task of considerable proportions. It is not clear whether this task can be achieved by a single individual. As a result of these efforts, the foundation of rst Millennium BCE chronology is and will be shifting. How can something so fundamental to a subject as its starting–point shift? One hardly conceives of the foundations of Mathematics as shifting. Chronology, however, is part of History. History is reconstructed from the extant sources. In the past two centuries, the state of the sources has changed much. And with it has the origin of chronology.

V. Proving the Canon as a Shift in the Foundations of Ancient Chronology In proving the Canon, the reigns of 43 rulers, or 718 full Egyptian years, or 262,070 days, are at stake. A proof of the veracity of the Canon differs from a mathematical proof. First, a mathematical proof is closed. Proving the Canon’s veracity is similar to some extent in that there are a number of observations that do much to establish con dence that the Canon is true in the way that a mathematical proof establishes that a certain proposition is true. But there is also something open–ended about proving the Canon. It is necessary to rewrite a fair portion of History in light of the Canon and making the web of clear connections ever denser. Second, a mathematical proof is meant to produce new insights. But proving the Canon also involves compiling past insights in order to be useful. The aim is to make chronology, History’s backbone, more transparent.







It has also become apparent that the foundation needs to shift from Ptolemy’s Royal Canon to a complex combination of many sources. The following points apply. First, for the time being, the Canon remains indispensable. Second, the Canon has always been accepted by most historians. This acceptance is by now about universal. Third, the Canon has never been positively proven. Fourth, a proof is logically imperative. The Canon is written in Hellenic and dates in its earliest preserved form to the second century BCE. One cannot therefore be certain beforehand without proof that the Canon transmits ancient Near Eastern History correctly. Fifth, a proof must be based on contemporary and native ancient Near Eastern sources that date as closely as possible to the times of the events themselves. Sixth, a complete proof of the Canon’s veracity would make the Canon completely super uous. In other words, the demonstration of the Canon’s indispensability would by the same token annul that very indispensability. Seventh, the desired proof of the Canon would contain two steps: con rmation and replacement. Step one, con rmation, consists itself of non–contradiction and positive con rmation. There has been much non–contradiction of the Canon over the last four centuries, in the sense that nothing new in the sources ever led to lasting suspicions that the Canon is false. But there has been much less positive con rmation. Step two, replacement, would consist in developing a coherent line of reasoning that produces the same results as the Canon, but without relying in any way on the Canon, as if the Canon had never

Among the information that needs to be compiled systematically are rst and foremost the dated astronomical observations found in contemporary sources written in Oriental languages such as Akkadian, Aramaic, and Egyptian. The dates of these contemporary observations need to be compared on a case by case basis with the regnal years of the Canon. One well–known example is an often discussed solar eclipse dated to 763 BCE and mentioned in Assyrian eponymous canons. A second prominent example is in the planetary text on tablet Strassmaier 400, preserved at the British Museum and dating to 523 BCE and Year 7 of Cambyses. As is well–known, this observation is also reported in Ptolemy. The time and nature of the eclipse reported in both sources leaves no doubt that the same eclipse is meant. It is a fortunate circumstance that the only lunar eclipse that we have from both contemporary sources and Ptolemy should be that early. But there is much more information to be gained from astronomical texts in cuneiform, especially from the (so–called) Astronomical Diaries. In this respect, C.O. Jonsson’s efforts [1998] signify an important step in evaluating the cuneiform evidence toward an absolute and nal chronology of the rst Millennium BCE. In this case, the author’s ulterior motive is to positively and absolutely disprove the deeply

























61

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY Theological Seminary) 1947. [I have not yet had access to this work]. Neugebauer, O.: A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, I–III, Berlin–NY (Springer–Verlag, Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences) 1975. Olmstead, A.T.: «Cuneiform Texts and Hellenistic Chronology», Classical Philology, 32, 1937, 1–12. _____: «History, Ancient World, and the Bible: Problems of Attitude and of Method», JNES, 2, 1943, 1–34. Poebel, A.: «The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad», JNES, 1, 1942, 247–306, 460–92, and 2, 1943, 56–90. Sayce, A.H. and A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan, London (A.E. Moring) 1906. Schmidtke, F.: Der Aufbau der babylonischen Chronologie, Münster (Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Münster / Orbis Antiquus, 7) 1952. Schrader, E.: Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung: Ein Beitrag zur monumentalen Geographie, Geschichte und Chronologie der Assyrer, Giessen (J. Ricker) 1878. Skeat, Th.C.: The Reigns of the Ptolemies, (C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Münster (Münstener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 39) 21969. Smith, G.: The Assyrian Eponym Canon; containing Translations of the Documents, and an Account of the Evidence, on the Comparative Chronology of the Assyrian and Jewish Kingdoms, from the Death of Solomon to Nebuchadnezzar, London (S. Bagster & So) 1875. Thiele, E.R.: The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: A Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Grand Rapids, Michigan (William B. Eerdmans) 2 1965. Toomer, G.J.: Ptolemy’s Almagest, Berlin– NY (Springer–Verlag) 1984. Ungnad, A.: art. «Eponymen», Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 2, 1938, 412–57.

existed. The Canon would then be automatically replaced by those other sources as the origin of rst Millennium BCE chronology. Eighth, there are serious prospects of substantially replacing the Canon. It remains to be seen whether the replacement could be complete.


VI. Ginzel’s Dream A brief reference to Ginzel’s dream may serve as an appropriate conclusion to these re ections on a major and laborious shift that needs to be accomplished in ancient chronology in the years ahead. In 1914, in the preface to the third and nal part of his handbook of chronology, the last comprehensive handbook of chronology ever written, Ginzel observes that he cannot let his work go out into the world without one last remark. He observes with regret that chronology is only an auxiliary discipline of History. He feels that chronology, in light of the size of the material and its complexity, deserves to be a discipline in its own right. I have not seen any reference in later work to this last remark in the last comprehensive handbook of chronology. 




References Boscawen, W.St.Ch.: «Babylonian Dated Tablets, and the Canon of Ptolemy», Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 6, 1878, 1–78. [See also id.: «Discussion on the “Babylonian Dated Tablets and the Canon of Ptolemy”» in the Appendix at pp. 79–133]. Depuydt, L.: «“More Valuable than All Gold”: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and Babylonian Chronology», JCS, 47, 1995a, 97–117. _____: «Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt», JEA, 81, 1995b, 151–73. _____: «Sothic Chronology and the Old Kingdom», JARCE, 37, 2000, 167–86. _____: «Foundations of Day–Exact Chronology» and «Saite and Persian Egypt, 664–332 BCE (Dynasties 26–31, Psammetichus I to Alexander’s Conquest of Egypt)» for the Handbook of Egyptian Chronology, Leiden (Brill / Handbuch der Orientalistik) forthcoming. Ginzel, F.K.: Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie: Das Zeitrechnungswesen der Völker, I–III, Leipzig (J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung) 1906, 1911, 1914. Grafton, A.: Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, II, Historical Chronology, Oxford (Clarendon Press) 1993. Grayson, A.K.: «Assyria: Ashur–Dan II to Ashur–Nirari V (934–745 2 B.C.)», The Cambridge Ancient History, III , Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) 1982, 238–81. Ideler, L.: Historische Untersuchungen über die astronomischen Beobachtungen der Alten, Berlin (C. Quien) 1806. _____: Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, aus den Quellen bearbeitet, I–II, Berlin (August Rücker) 1825–26. Jonsson, C.O.: The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology and Christ’s Return, Atlanta (Commentary Press) 31998. Kugler, F.X.: Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, I–II (1 [1907], 2.1 [1909], 2.2.1 [1912], 2.2.2 [1924]), Münster (Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung) 1907–24. [Two supplements appeared in 1913 and 1914; a third, by J. Schaumberger, in 1935. Millard, A.: The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 910–612 BC, Helsinki (State Archives of Assyria Studies, 2) 1994. [I have not been able to access this work]. Neuffer, J.: «The Accession of Artaxerxes I», Andrews University Seminary Studies, 6, 1968, 60–87. _____: A Study of Ptolemy’s Treatment of the Babylonian and Persian Regnal Years, NY (Thesis MA for the Seventh–Day Adventist

62

Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard: Sothic Dates in Egyptian Chronology

Sothic Dates in Egyptian Chronology Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard

piled in a synthetic table [Fig. 1], sorted in chronological order according to the age of the support which carries them. A date of the rising of Sirius is not necessarily contemporary to the monument on which it is xed; it may just as well be a recall or commemoration of an earlier event. The table is also destined to point out the context in which the date appears and to try to determine the reason why the Egyptians noted and recorded that particular heliacal rising, in order to allow a better understanding of the import of the information. The nal column of the table shows a point in the event that a date does not t into the logical ow of the seasons.

Abstract To establish a chronology of the ancient Egyptian History requires contributions from several generations of Egyptologists. It calls for the results of archaeological excavations, for the study of Egyptian texts, and for a parallel comparison with other contemporary civilisations. The fundamental base, according to which these facts are organized, the very backbone of Egyptian chronology, is the corpus of Sothic dates, i.e.: the mention of the rst (heliacal) rising of Sirius within the Egyptian Civil Year. Unfortunately, few such dates are known, and some of them, in addition, seem to be incompatible. Any thorough scienti c approach —however— would forbid to take only some of them into account and to exclude others. We must include all such dates appearing in the Egyptian texts, because their lack of conformability could be merely outwardly apparent and due to erroneous interpretations by some researchers. The purpose of this paper is to review all currently known Sothic dates, to precisely determine the context in which they appear in order to better apprehend the information they provide, and for each of them to carry out a critical analysis of their possible interpretations.









III. The Heliacal Rising of Sirius and Time Reckoning III.1. Sirius in Egyptian Texts and Iconography As early as the Pyramid Texts4, Sirius, heralding the Nile ood, called Sopedet5 by the Egyptians, is set in direct relation to the beginning of the year, whereas the constellation of Orion, which rises just prior to it, is associated with the year’s ending. From the IX Dynasty up to the late periods, the entire Egyptian iconography illustrates this point: «astronomical» pictures, which are invariably mythological, represent Orion as Osiris and Sirius as Isis facing each other6, where Isis–Sirius gives new life by inaugurating the New Year [Fig. 1 & 3].

KEY WORDS: Archaeoastronomy & Egyptology: Egyptian Chro-



nology, Ancient Egyptian Calendar, Sirius, Heliacal Rising of Sirius, S this, Sothic Dates, Corpus of Sothic Dates, Orion, Decans.


I. Introduction It is well known that any mention of the day of re–appearance of Sirius, dated in the civil year of the ancient Egyptians, is of great interest for Archaeologists, Historians and Egyptologists. It would allow establishing an absolute date, giving or taking 4 years, within one of the Great 1460–year Cycles which this rst heliacal rising requires to run through the 365 days of the Egyptian civil year1. This in turn emphasizes the importance of careful study of the documents and monuments that carry such inscriptions. Scienti c rigour excludes selectively taking into account only some and discarding others because they clash, as is currently the case2. Chronological impossibilities can only be apparent, and are bound to be the results of faulty interpretation. It is the purpose of this study to facilitate further chronological research by focussing on certain anomalies in problematic dates, and suggesting possible alternative explanations. New archaeological discoveries or research in comparative chronology, as carried out by E. Loring3, may cast new light on certain interpretations, and possibly re–position these dates within a solved, coherent puzzle of Egyptian chronology.

On the inner parts of cof n lids7 and ceilings of later tombs and temples, all of which represent the celestial dome, we can read the names of the 36 stars which follow Sirius, and whose heliacal rising takes place at 10–day intervals: the decanal stars [Fig. 3]. These have the double function of dividing the year into decanal periods and to determine the night hours8. This division of the year into decades appears to be very ancient, already present in the Old Kingdom practice9. 





4

See Krauss, R.: Astronomische Konzepte und Jenseitsvorstellungen in den Pyramidentexten, Wiesbaden, (O. Harrassowitz / ÄgAbh, 59), 1997, 146 ff. 5 This name has been transmitted to us as S this in Hellenic writings, hence the term of «Sothic» applied to the year reckoned between 2 heliacal risings of that star, as well as the term «Sothic date» for the indication of the moment within the civil year when the rising of that star is mentioned. 6 This face–to–face image is the Egyptian way to represent the end of a cycle and the beginning of the next one; this is equally true for the face–to– face representations of the morning and evening solar barks: Thomas, E.: «Solar Barks Prow to Prow», JEA, 42, 1956, 65-79; on representations of Sirius and Orion, the bodies stand face to face symbolising the passage from one year to the next, whereas the two faces both look in the direction of the apparent movement of the stars. 7 See Neugebauer, O. & Parker, R.A.: EAT, I, 1-22 & pls 1-23; Locher, K.: «Two Further Coffin–Lids with Diagonal Star–Clocks from the Egyptian Middle Kingdom», JHA, 23, 1992, 201-07. For an astronomical study see Leitz, C.: Altägyptische Sternuhren, Louvain 1995, 58-116. 8 The de nition of the decanal stars links the movement of the Earth around the sun to its revolving around its own axis, cf. explanatory drawings in von Bomhard, A.S.: The Egyptian Calendar: A Work for Eternity, London (Periplus) 1999, 64-65; regarding precise astronomical observations see Bruins, E.M.: «Egyptian Astronomy», Janus, 52, 1965, 161-80. 9 Monthly accounts are established in sections of 10 days each in the Abusir temple archives, see Posener–Krieger P.: «Les archives du temple de Néferirkaré–Kakai», HPBM, V, London 1968, as well as BdE, 65, Cairo (IFAO) 1976. 

II. Methodology After studying the relationship between the rst rising of Sirius and time reckoning, the known Sothic dates were com

1



The rst rising of the stars is termed heliacal because it takes place in the East, just before the Sun rises. The lapse of time between 2 consecutive heliacal risings of Sirius is close to 365¼ days, which explains why this heliacal rising is observed 1 day later every 4 years in the Egyptian civil year of 365 days. 2 The Ebers papyrus is taken into account for dating the XVIII Dynasty, but not the Buto stele. 3 See Loring, E.: Galexys (CD-ROM), Basel 2003. 

63

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

The composition of the civil year of 360 days to which are added ve so–called epagomenal days, underscores the calendar’s sidereal character.

IV. The Sothic Dates The table takes only the uncontested Sothic dates into account. Apart from these, there must be mentioned:

Later texts also link the beginning of the year and the rst rising of Sirius. The Decree of Canopus states: « [...] The day when S this re–appears, called the day of opening of the year in the texts of the House of Life […] »10, and in Dendera: « […] the years are counted by its (Sirius’) rising»11.

1) The ivory tablet of king Djer17, formerly interpreted as a connection between the rising of Sirius (the cow) the rst month of the season  and the township of Buto, an interpretation which has since been contested18,







2) An inscription on the reverse side of the Rhind mathematical papyrus19, placing a third and fourth epagomenal day on day 3 (?) of the rst month of  in the 11th year of the reign of an unknown king. The epagomenal days of the Sothic year connected to a day in the wandering year represent the same chronological interest as the day of the heliacal rising. The inscription reads: «In the year 11, 1st month of   , day 3 (?), birth of Seth, it has thundered; birth of Isis, it has rained».

No Egyptian text mentions the state of the Moon as associated in any way with the rising of Sirius in the context of the de nition of New Year’s Day12. The Decree of Canopus, outlining the calendar so far in use as well as the new calendar modus to be instituted, mentions only the rst rising of Sirius, without any reference to the Moon.







III.2. Sirius and Time Reckoning It is well known that the Egyptians have always made use of a civil year of 365 days. Various hypotheses were therefore put forward to propose systems that took into account both the civil year of 365 days and the so–called Sothic year of 365¼ days. Parker proposes a theory which includes the intervention of the Moon13. We believe more simply in the gliding system14 of the rising of Sirius as a method of reckoning the years without having to add an extra day every four years, as we do in our calendar. Whatever the correct hypothesis, it seems that the Egyptians did not add a day every four years15 because the Decree of Canopus has precisely the purpose of introducing this 6th epagomenal day at the end of every fourth year16:

3) The Asw n inscription, interpreted as a Sothic date by Clagett20.

V. Comments to the Table V.1. The Chronological Sequence of the Dates In the last Great Sothic Cycle, the date in the Book of N t must be considered separately, as it gives an ancient day of heliacal rising of Sirius, thereby indicating the possible discrepancy between the time of the heliacal rising proper and the time when it is reported or referred to. All other dates are situated in the last Great Sothic Period21 (between 1322 BCE and 139 CE), appear in perfect sequence and con rm each other by forward and backward reckoning. In addition, they are con rmed by other sources different from Egyptian texts. One is forced to acknowledge the reality of the regular four–yearly progression of the heliacal rising of Sirius in the wandering year, attested by the documents and corroborated by the terms of the Decree of Canopus. This acknowledgement leads to two further remarks (concerning the length of the Sothic cycle) on the one hand and the latitude of observation on the other.

« […] in order to have the seasons follow an absolute rule, and that it may no longer occur that certain solemn Winter feasts are never celebrated in Summer because of the displacement of the rising of S
this by one day every four years […]. Henceforth, a day shall be added […] every four years… to the  ve epagomenal days before New Year’s Day […] ».

The decree is not implemented, however, and the quadriennal additional day is only introduced with the alexandrine calendar in the year 25 BCE. Prior to the alexandrine year, the day of the rst rising of sirius is migrating through the Egyptian civil or wandering year, a fact that provides us with the sothic dates, so precious for chronology. The ancient Egyptian system, however, still continues to co–exist parallel to the alexandrine calendar, as documented by the reminder of the centennial of the beginning of a Great Sothic Period by K nsorinos. 

V.1.1. The Length of the Sothic Cycle

Much has been written concerning the length of the Sothic year, which —increasing with time— could have modi ed the length of the Great Cycle22; however, the most recent one, and thus the one most likely to be affected, does not appear in any way upset. It must therefore be assumed that either the

10

Decree of Canopus,  . 18 of the hieroglyphic text; see n. 11 and Dittenberger, W.: Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, I, Leipzig 1903, 91-110. 11 Brugsch, H.: Thesaurus Inscriptionum Aegyptiacarum, Graz 1968, 100. 12 Krauss, R.: Sothis– und Monddaten: Studien zur Astronomischen Chronologie Altägyptens, Hildesheim (Gerstenberg Verlag / HÄB, 20) 1985. 13 Parker, R.A.: The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, Chicago (University of Chicago / SAOC, 26) 1950. Parker’s hypothesis covers 3 successive calendars that are nevertheless inter–connected: the oldest one is to have determined the beginning of the year both by the rising of Sirius and lunar aspects, the 1st day of the year having been set as the 1st day of invisibility of the Moon following the heliacal rising of the star. There was a supposed addition of a bi–annual or sometimes tri–annual intercalary month (called the month of Thoth). 14 von Bomhard: op. cit., 28-29; id.: «Ägyptische Zeitmessung: Die Theorie des gleitenden Kalendars», ZÄS, 127, 2000, 14-26. 15 Depuydt, L.: «On the consistency of the Wandering Year as Backbone of Egyptian Chronology», JARCE, 32, 1995, 43-58. 16 Decree of Canopus,  . 21-22 of the hieroglyphic text.

17

Petrie, W.: Royal Tombs, II, London 1901, 22. See Godron, G.: «Études sur l’époque archaïque», BIFAO, 57, 1958, 147; Spalinger, A.: Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and their Chronological Implications, Baltimore 1992, 46; Clagett, M., Ancient Egyptian Science, II, Philadelphia 1995, 10-11. 19  See Peet, E.: The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, London 1923; 129-31, 87 and plate Y. 20 See Clagett: op. cit., 331-33. 21 Regarding the beginning of the period according to the annotator of The n, see Rose, L.E.: Sun, Moon, and Sothis: A Study of Calendars and Calendar Reforms in Ancient Egypt, Richmond (Kronos Press / The Osiris Series, II) 1999, 104 ff. 22 See Ingham, M.F.: «The Length of the Sothic Cycle», JEA, 55, 1969, 3640; Schaeffer, B.E.: «The Heliacal Rising of Sirius and Ancient Egyptian Chronology», JHA, 31, 2000, 149-55.

18

64

Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard: Sothic Dates in Egyptian Chronology

Beginning Year …

… Ending Year

New Year …

… Ending Year

Figure1: Sirius and Orion. To the right: The stars in the night sky (from photography): the three belt stars in the constellation of Orion. Sirius is rising to the left over the ground line representing the horizon. To the left: Sirius and Orion represented as Isis and Osiris on a cof n from the Middle Kingdom (EAT, I, 7& pl. 5: cof n 3).


dates23 indicates any site of observation of the rising of the star. This observation further enhances the thesis of the existence of a latitude of reference, and tends further to con rm the notion that the heliacal risings mentioned on the monuments were not really observed but automatically shifted every four years. Here again, the practical consequence is important to historians: a latitude of reference valid for the entire country renders super uous any consideration of the latitude where a monument with a Sothic date was found, since the of cial day of heliacal rising is the same in the North of the country as is in the South. The site of the latitude of reference chosen in the beginning has no further incidence on chronology if the rising moves forward regularly, as in the last Great Sothic Cycle.

lengthening of the Sothic year was too small to provoke any displacement, or that the progression by 1 day every four years stemmed more from a system of reckoning rather than from direct observation of the rising (in the same way that we automatically add a 29th February to years pre–determined by calculation, and not by observation of the Equinox). What matters in the context of chronology is that there seems to be no need to take into account these theoretical astronomical calculations, because in practice, the documents clearly con rm the regular four–yearly progression of the heliacal rising of Sirius throughout the most recent Great Sothic Cycle.









V.1.2. The Latitude of Observation of the Heliacal Rising

The annual re–appearance of Sirius occurs earlier in the South and delays on its northward movement by about a day per degree of latitude. This difference could add up to seven days between the southern and northern tips of the long Egyptian Nile valley. The progression of one day every fourth year in the Egyptian wandering year of 365 days during the last Great Cycle, therefore, implies that the rising must be based on one and the same latitude of observation. When K nsorinos places the beginning of a Great Sothic Period in 139 CE, he indicates no site of observation of the heliacal rising. His use of the term for Egypt is a strong argument indeed in favour of the existence of a latitude of reference valid for the entire country, especially as he discusses the beginning of a Great Cycle.

V.2. The Dates according to the Circumstances of their Appearance V.2.1. Temple Festival Calendars

This group is by far the most important, since it contains ve Sothic dates, counting the Buto stele (date 5)24. In these calendars, the feast of the rising of Sirius, like the other annual feast days, is dated in the wandering year and requires oblations; the reason for the presence of the Sothic dates on this kind of monument is thus perfectly clear. The existence of these great lists of temple feasts is already attested in the Old Kingdom25 and some detailed studies 



Similarly, the Decree of Canopus stipulating that the rising of Sirius is to be maintained as the herald of the New Year, does not indicate any latitude of observation for that rising. In view of the fact that the decree promulgates a most detailed calendar reform, such an omission would appear impossible unless there existed a long–established latitude of reference. Above all, and this point is worth considering in detail, it must be emphasized that from the most ancient to the most recent one, not one of the Sothic



23 With the exception of Djer’s ivory tablet where the mention of Buto could be explained, after all, if that king had xed the latitude of reference at the same time as the calendar itself. 24 See Leclant, J. & Clerc, G.: «Fouilles en Égypte et au Soudan», Orientalia, 58, 1989, 346; Bedier, S.: «Ein Stiftungsdekret Touthmosis’ III aus Buto», Aspekte Spätägyptischer Kultur: Festschrift für Erich Winter zum 65. Geburtstag (Minas, M & Seidler, J., eds), Mayence 1994, 35-50. 25 Kees, H.A.J.: Das Re–Heiligtum des Königs Ne–Woser–Re (Rathures) III, Leipzig 1928, 47-55; Helck, W., «Die “Weihinschrift” aus dem Taltempel des Sonnenheiligtums des Königs Neuserre bei Abu Gurob», SAK, 5, 1977, 47-77 & pls II-III. 

65

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

Monument / Document

Date

Date of Support

Document Context

Reason for Mention of the Date

Break in Flow of Seasons

Middle Kingdom, later than Sesostris II

Celebration of Feasts

Announcement of Rising, Offerings, Procession

16

9

Sothic Date

Illah n Papyrus (Berlin)

1

Papyrus, Temple Archive

Ebers Papyrus (Leipzig)

2

Reverse of Medical Papyrus

XVIII Dynasty Amenophis I

List of Monthly Feasts

?

Karnak Block 320 bis–A1

3

Issued from a Temple Calendar in Karnak

XVIII Dynasty Amenophis I

Calendar of Offerings

Offerings for the Rising of Sirius

Karnak block N° 134–A1

4

Issued from a Temple Calendar in Karnak

XVIII Dynasty Amenophis I

Calendar of Offerings

Offerings for the Rising of Sirius

Buto stele (Bouto)

Stele of instituting Offerings

XVIII Dynasty

5

Calendar of Offerings

Offerings for the Rising of Sirius

Calendar of Offerings

Offerings for the Rising of Sirius

28

Astronomical Observations

?

16







Type of Support

Elephantine Block, Louvre D68-E3910

Book of N t 

Funerary Temple of Ramses III (Medinet Habou)

6

7

Touthmosis III

Issued from a Temple Calendar in Elephantine Ramesside Tombs, Carlsberg Papyrus

XVIII Dynasty

Touthmosis III

XIX & XX Dynasty and 140 CE

● ●

● Beginning of Sothic cycle: –1322

8

Temple Calendar

XX Dynasty

Calendar of Offerings

Offerings for the Rising of Sirius

2

25

Decree of Canopus

9

Stele of the Decree

Ptolemaic, 238 BCE

Calendar Reform

Rising of Sirius maintained to mark the Beginning of the Year

Institution of Alexandrine Calendar

10

Text of Decree

Year 5 of Augustus = 25 BCE

Calendar Reform

Recall of the Date of Rising

Text of K nsorinos

11

Text

——

Indicates Centennial of the Beginning of the Sothic Cycle



Figure 2: Table of the (so far) known Sothic dates.

66

1

End of cycle: -1322 to + 139

Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard: Sothic Dates in Egyptian Chronology

Figure 3: Sirius, Orion and the decanal stars on the ceiling of Senmut’s tomb, XVIII Dynasty Left: Sirius heralding the New Year, Right to left: The names of the 36 decanal stars following each other throughout the year. The constellation of Orion contains several decans

Figure 4: Karnak block

320bis–A1…

… with a detail of the Sothic date

(Photos Dr. A.S. von Bomhard)

Figure 5: Karnak block

134–A1 …

… with a detail of the Sothic date

(Photos A.S. Goddio–von Bomhard)

67

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

would be in line with the date on the Buto stele (1st month of  ), but it would move backwards the beginning of the XVIII Dynasty by three centuries, and it would clash with the established dating of the Ebers papyrus.

of the structure of such calendars have been published26. The most extensive example covers almost the entire south wall of Ramses III’s funerary temple in Medinet Habou27; it contains date 8 of the table. In general, only the month of heliacal rising is indicated in these calendars; the day is not given, which seems understandable in view of the fact that the day changes every 4 years whereas the month remains the same over 120 years. The usual formula is: Going forth of Sirius, according to its

V.2.2. Sothic Dates on Papyrus

(i) The Ebers papyrus (date 2): The presence of the Ebers calendar on the reverse side of the medical papyrus has evoked numerous interpretations32. The reading of the king’s name as 
  "! Aménophis I, [Fig. 8] is open to query. If (Gardiner D36) can be read as #$
, there is, on the sign the other hand, no known example of that reading for the sign (Gardiner D41), which appears very different &% in . As hieratic script, and which would rather be read as
regards Palaeography, it would appear closer to that of the rd Middle rather  than the New Kingdom. The Sothic date (3 month of ) lies at least 2 centuries later than the dates on the Karnak blocks which carry the name of king Amenophis I. Could the heliacal rising mentioned on the Ebers papyrus be, therefore, considerably older indeed, so as to be placed in a different Sothic cycle, and contemporary to the ancient medical writings which were copied on the Ebers document? [Fig. 8]

day ; therefore,
should be restored rather than m in the calendar of Ramses III; that is the for3, 4)28 [see mula found on the 2 blocks of Karnak (dates Fig. 4-5]. The stele found in Buto [Fig. 6] certainly ful lled the same function as the additional calendars which sometimes complete the great calendars of offerings29; it details Touthmosis III’s offerings to Wadjet. The date of heliacal rising  (line 26 with the on the stele) is indicated in the 1st month of formula: according to his [i.e.: to Sirius’] days of crossing 30 . Line 25 of the stele commemorates the coronation feast of Touthmosis III on Day 4 of that same month, a date con rmed through other sources. One may wonder if the king had not chosen the day of the star’s heliacal rising in that year of his coronation to set the day of his investiture.

1). Date 1 appears, in (ii) The Illah' n papyrus (date fact, several times on the Illah' n papyri33:  rst on a list of feasts similar to that of the temple calendars, carrying only the month. On another fragment it appears in a processional context; and on another still, it concerns offerings to be made on the day following the star’s re–appearance. Above all, however, day 16 of the 4th month of
 is clearly indicated in a letter written 20 days before that date, and addressed to a priest (
*)+,.-0/ The announcement of such a clearly foreseeable event may be astonishing, since the rising occurs regularly one day later every four years in the wandering year. Even more surprising is that the letter is directed to a lector–priest, a true scholar who could not possibly ignore these matters. Anyway, we  rmly believe that this very date clearly indicates that the heliacal rising of Sirius/S1 this was forecast, rather than observed, as early as the Middle Kingdom.

In this group of feast calendars, we note one anomaly of presentation as well as some apparently chronological incompatibilities. (i) An Anomaly of Presentation. On the Elephantine stone, which is part of the great calendar in the Khnum temple Touthmosis III built on the island [Fig. 7], the day of the rising is indicated (date 6), which is a unique feature on this kind of monument. This notable exception must retain attention and call to caution: in this particular case, the commemoration of the date of an earlier heliacal rising of Sirius might be evoked (possibly because it had preceded a saving  ood, it remained alive in human memory?). This would imply that the date itself is much older than the monument, and would explain the discrepancy with the date on the Buto stele set up by the same king. (ii) Chronological Implications. The two Karnak blocks were undoubtedly hewn in the time of Amenophis I, so why would they contain two different dates? Should the older of the two dates on this great temple calendar (1st month of
 ) be attributed to homage to the earlier kings, as found on other blocks extracted from the same monument31? If the more recent date (4th month of
 ) is the one from the time of Amenophis I, it

V.2.3. The Sothic Date in the Book of N t 2

The Book of N t decorates the ceiling of the cof n room in the cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos34, as well as the ceiling of hall E of the tomb of Ramses IV in the Valley of the Kings. In addition, it is written down on the Carlsberg papyrus since the beginning of our era35. The text contains two dates of the rising of Sirius. It describes the movements of the Sun and the stars (in a general way), and indicates that the movements 3

4

26

See ’el-Sabban, S., Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt, Liverpool 2000; cf. a commentary in BiOr, 58, 2001, 584-87. 27 See Medinet Habou, III, Chicago 1934, pls 151-52. 28 Blocks extracted in the years 1920-30 from the 3rd pylon in Karnak and exhibited in the Musée en Plein Air; see Spalinger: op. cit., 1-30. 29 See ’el-Sabban: op. cit., 30-31. 30 The word has been read as  , days, but should better be read as  , as an active participle turned into a substantive. The crossing concerned is of course the one, which carries the date through the wandering year at the rate of 1 day per 4 years, and carrying along with it the feast of the rising of Sirius. For  : «crossing time and eternity», see e.g. Medinet Habou, III, pl. 138,  . 43; cf. also Guilmant, F.: Le tombeau de Ramsès IX, Le Caire (IFAO / MIFAO, 15) 1907, pl. 70. 31 See Habachi, L.: «God’s Fathers and the Role they Played in the History of the First Intermediate Period», ASAE, 55, 1958, 185 & pl. IV.

32 See the bibliography in Leitz, C.: Studien zur Ägyptischen Astronomie, Wiesbaden (O. Harrassowitz / ÄgAbh, 49) 11989, 28-34 & nn. 25, 29; cf. also Depuydt, L.: «The Function of the Ebers Calendar Concordance», Orientalia, 65, 1996, 86-88. 33 See Luft, U.: Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun, Vienna 1992, 44-47, 54-58, 123. 34 See Francfort, H.: The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos, London 1933. 35 These texts are published by Neugebauer & Parker: op. cit., 36-126 & pls 30-54; for papyrus Carlsberg, see Lange, H.O. & Neugebauer, O., Papyrus Carlsberg N° 1, Ein hieratisch–demotischer, kosmologischer Text, Copenhagen 1940. The text was previously studied by Brugsch: op. cit., 167-79 and more recently by Hornung, E.: Zwei Ramessidische Königsgräber: Ramses IV und Ramses VII, Mainz (P. von Zabern / Theben, 11) 1990, 91-93; cf. also Clagett: op. cit., 357-403.

68

Anne–Sophie Goddio–von Bomhard: Sothic Dates in Egyptian Chronology

Figure 6: The Great Buto Stele (after Sha a Bedier).

69

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

Figure 7: The Elephantine block, Louvre D 68 – E 3910. (Photo M. & P. Chuzeville).

of the decans: «begin in the sky in the 1st month of 
 , when S  this rises». It continues to indicate in detail the dates of the rising of Sirius and the decanal stars for a particular year, including the dates of disappearance of each of the decanal stars from the visible sky as well as their time of invisibility.

in the very context of time reckoning. The purpose of K nsorinos (date  11) is a reminder of the centennial of the beginning of the Great Sothic Cycle in the year 139 CE.

VI. Conclusions The synthetic table of the Sothic dates emphasises the point that in the last Great Sothic Cycle everything runs smoothly with a regular advance every four years of the day of the heliacal rising of Sirius. Figure 8: The Sothic Date in papyrus Ebers.

Regarding earlier cycles, current interpretations result in contradictions and impossibilities. Monuments of the same period contain discrepancies of several centuries (e.g.: dates  2, 3, and 4, but also dates  5 and 6). Such discrepancies cannot be explained neither by the problems of latitude of reference, nor by the length of the Sothic cycle, nor by the astronomical conditions of observation of the heliacal rising. It is the interpretations themselves, which must be looked for, because (for the purposes of chronology) either all the available dates must be taken into account or none of them.

(Courtesy University of Leipzig).

The rising of Sirius in that year (date  7) is day 16 in the 4th month of   . The time of invisibility of 70 days for Sirius and the decans, as indicated in the Book of N t, would even tie the year of these observations to the Sothic period prior to the one of the Illah n date36. The Rameside tombs date from the beginning of the Sothic cycle of 1322 BCE37, the Carlsberg papyri from the early days of the following cycle, which begins in 139 CE, i.e. 1460 years later. One may well wonder if it is not precisely upon the occasion of these beginnings of Sothic cycles that the texts of the Book of N t were re–copied, relating the astronomical observations of that outstanding year.

Each of these dates is a witness to a reality, which is our own task to comprehend, if we are to allocate its true place to the bit of history it represents within the broader puzzle of Egyptian chronology.

V.2.4. Dates in a Context of Calendar and Time Reckoning

Two Sothic dates are mentioned within the framework of calendar reform: the one in the Decree of Canopus (date  9) in 238 BCE, and another in the creation of the Alexandrine Calendar (date  10) in 25 BCE. The presence of the date of the heliacal rising of Sirius in these two cases illustrates the paramount importance of the  rst rising of that star 36

See Leitz: op. cit., 50-51 (dates according to Leitz: 3324-21 BCE). The beginning of the period would be rather 1322 BCE, because there is no «year 0». This is the beginning of the  ra of Menophres as indicated by The n. Menophr s could be the transcription of the name of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt of Ramses I. 37

70

Sophia Tsourinaki: Looped Pile Weaves at the Benaki Museum: More Observations

Looped Pile Weaves at the Benaki Museum: More Observations on the Classification of Techniques and the Technology of Textiles Sophia Tsourinaki

ve the surface of the textile2, thus producing an effect similar to modern toweling [Fig. 1]. These loops were used for ground fabrics and multi–coloured decoration of furnishing items and hangings, which adorned public and religious buildings [Fig. 2, 4, 5, 9], or gave added thickness and warmth to various kinds of clothing [Fig. 3, 8, 13, 16-17]. In the Eastern Mediterranean, this technique was the culmination of a long and  ourishing tradition but the archaeological evidence is scanty. In Egypt, the earliest attestation comes from the Middle Kingdom. Linen weavers had learned to produce dense and sheer fabrics at will by using the warp–faced tabby and balanced weave on horizontal3 and vertical looms4. However, these two habitual linen weaves

Abstract The collection of Egyptian textiles at the Benaki Museum comprises 21 looped pile textiles dating from the 2nd to the 6th centuries CE, which display a variety in the techniques applied. Of special interest are the remains of a ne tunic with pile on both sides of the textile, illustrating the ancient Hellenic terms
    
  
   and attesting that this rare type of weaving method was executed on a vertical two–beam loom. On the basis of actual experiments of the different looping applications and thorough analysis of the textiles, they will be classi ed into three methods of pile formation and will be subdivided into three technical groups. Moreover, a direct relationship between cloth characteristics and loom types will allow for a detailed insight into the highly developed manufacturing techniques of the Late Antiquity period and will indicate a practical way of interpreting data that is not so well documented.

2

For a thorough discussion on the looped pile techniques, see Bellinger, L.: «Textile Analysis: Pile Techniques in Egypt and the Near East», Workshop Notes, 12, Washington D.C. 1955, 1-5. 3 The earliest type of equipment for cloth making in Egypt is the frameless horizontal ground loom, which was  rst represented on a pre–dynastic pottery dish, originating from a woman’s grave ( 3802) at Badari, 12th Dynasty. The size of the loom was probably the same as the length of the cloth to be woven and the warp was stretched between two beams with four pegs at the corners. Two women, who squat at either side, helped each other in managing the loom, dividing up the tasks of changing the shed, entering the weft, and beating it at place. Three crossing lines in the middle of the warp probably mark the shed rod, heddle rod and sword. This simple wooden apparatus was ideal for nomadic people as the pegs could be pulled out and the weaving rolled up on the beams for transport. The ground loom was used exclusively until the end of the Middle Kingdom and is depicted in various contemporary tomb scenes, such as of Khnum–hotep’s tomb, at Beni Has  n, and wooden models, which are not complete. The Khnum–hotep painting reproduces an interesting detail, namely the row of small loops protruding from the left selvedge of the cloth, which represent a speci c selvedge fringe that occurs along one side of contemporary linen weavings. For a selected bibliography, see Hall, R.: Egyptian Textiles Aylesbury (Shire Egyptology) 1986; and Barber, E.J.W.: Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, Oxford 1991, 145-62. For an extended discussion on the mural in the tomb of Khnum– hotep, see Roth, H.–L.: Ancient Egyptian and Greek Looms, Hallifax 1951. For a study on the craft habits in Egypt in the Middle Kingdom, see Bellinger, L.: «Craft Habits, Part 1: Loom Types suggested by Weaving Details», Workshop Notes, 19, Washington, D.C. 1959, 1-6. 4 Between the 16th and the 14th century the Egyptian weavers began to turn their horizontal looms vertical and propped them against the wall or fastened them into posts. This required two side supports to hold the beams apart but otherwise there was no change needed in the loom construction. The earliest representation of this large loom is a wall painting in Thut– nofer’s tomb, at Thebes, (cont. reign of Amenhotep II or Tuthmosis IV). It was constructed as a rectangular frame and worked by weavers seated comfortably on benches in front of it, as opposed to the old indigenous ground loom, which was worked exclusively by women. While the principle of the warp stretched between the beams was already familiar in Egypt, new factors were the more or less vertical position of the loom, the big size, and that men —not women— were functioning it. A best preserved and most narrative painting from the tomb of Nefer–ren–pet at Thebes, reign of Rameses II, 13th century BCE, shows a weaving workshop with four vertical looms, two warping frames and a doorman chasing children. The origin of the vertical two–beam loom is obscure and still remains a matter of conjecture. It seems plausible that it was invented in Syria or Palestine and introduced to Egypt from SW Asia in the 16th to the 15th century, when Thebes was rapidly becoming the cosmopolitan capital of the great Empire. As gravity now helped to pack the weft easier with a downward motion, this loom appears to have encouraged new techniques, especially tapestry weaving. For a study on the appearance of the vertical two–beam loom and its

KEY WORDS: Late & Hellenistic Antiquity, Proto–Christian & Cop-

tic Antiquity, Textiles, Looped Pile Textiles, Technology of Textiles, Weaving Techniques, Stylistic Analysis, Benaki Museum.

I. Introduction The Benaki Museum was founded in 1930 by Ant n s Benak s (1873-1954) who was born in Alexandria, into a prominent family of the Hellenic diaspora. The Museum is housed in the former home of the Benaki family in Athens, a  ne neoclassical building of the early 20th century and it was the founder himself who converted it into a museum. The Coptic Collection possesses 340 decorated textiles, which belong to the late Roman, Byzantine and early Islamic periods of Egyptian history. A. Benak s was the generous donor of the main part of the collection; the remainder has been acquired from purchases or constitutes gifts of other important donors. Unfortunately, the exact provenance in Egypt of these textiles remains unknown. The attention of this paper will be focused on the looped pile textiles of the collection, which constitute fragments of hangings, domestic furnishings and garments. In a previous related paper, a systematic study of these weavings has been presented1. In this paper, the classi cation of the textiles given in the previous one, is revised, extended and presented anew in Tables 1, 2 and 3 (see infra). The new classi cation scheme will be dealt in more detail and the cases of three unpublished textiles will be discussed. Some personal tentative views concerning the cloth characteristics will be raised and conclusions concerning their production and use will be given. The technique of weft looping is obtained by means of the ground or a supplementary weft thread drawn into loops abo-

1

Tsourinaki, S.: «Looped Pile Weaves at the Benaki Museum: Techniques, Technology and Looms», Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society: Proceedings of the International Conference of Ancient Textiles, Denmark– Sweden 2003, forthcoming.

71

AMANDA–ALICE MARAVELIA (ED.): MODERN TRENDS IN EUROPEAN EGYPTOLOGY

Tar Caves11, Xinjiang12, Berenik 13 and Nubia14. Linen and wool fabrics were found at Palmyra and Berenik , but at Xinjiang, At–Tar Caves, Dura–Europos and Nubia, only wools were uncovered. Moreover, the fragments from Xinjiang and At–Tar Caves display knots with free ends, consequently pointing out to a «true» rug weaving tradition.

were not conducive to pattern weaving, so special methods had to be devised in order to make weft patterns5. Thus, tapestry6 and looped pile techniques7 were used for ground weave and decoration, producing denser and heavier cloths.





When thinking over the matter of «cultural diffusion» and «racial exchange» of craft habits and weaving traditions, it is extremely important to trace up the different weft pile techniques from among the data uncovered at several archaeological sites. Lefkandi, on the island of Euboia, has yielded the earliest (up to date) nd of the technique in Hellas (roughly 700 BCE). It is a relatively complete ankle length tunic of exquisite quality, made of two sheets of linen cloth, the upper part of which is apparently produced by short loops of a linen weft not run through the shed8. Pile textiles were also excavated at the sites of Palmyra9, Dura–Europos10, At–

In Egypt, the nearest nd to a knotted rug, is a thick cut pile carpet preserved in the Metropolitan Museum15. Literary evidence, plus contracts and business agreements written on Byzantine papyri con rm the production of pile textiles and provide valuable information. Alluding to the eece–like texture of looped pile textiles, they refer to as   16,  







11

The wool knotted textiles from the At–Tar caves, dated from the 3rd BCE to the 5th century CE, display ve basic methods of making a pile. Of special interest to this study is the specimen F6 C–04–3, which attests a short cut pile formation in the «U–shaped knot», the origin of which is not clear until now. It deserves attention, however, that the pile yarn is not knotted or wrapped on the warps; it is laid in the shed, pulled forward and cut. For a study of the textiles, see Sakamoto, K.: «Ancient Pile Textiles from the At–Tar Caves in Iraq», Oriental Carpet & Textile Studies, 1, London (Hali OCTS Ltd) 1985, 9-17 & g. 9; Fujii, H., Takagi, Y., Sakamoto, K., Okada, H. & Ichihashi, M.: «Textiles from At–Tar caves, Iraq», ’Al-Ra
d n, III-IV, Tokyo, 1982-83; Fujii, H. & Sakamoto, K.: «Cultural Contacts between the East Mediterranean Coastal Area and Mesopotamia in A.D. 1st-3rd centuries: The Marked Characteristics of the Textiles Unearthed from At–Tar Caves, Iraq», ’Al-Ra
d n, XIII, Tokyo 1992. 12 The wool knotted textiles of Xinjiang were unearthed from archaeological sites or graves dated from the 12th century BCE to the 4th century CE. From fourteen textiles, which were knotted in three different methods, the specimen vi displays Sehna knots and the specimen vii attests pile on both sides in the «U–shaped knot». For a detailed analysis, see Wu, M.: «Study on Some Ancient Wool Fabrics unearthed in Recent Years from Xinjiang of China», ’Al-Ra
d n, XVIII, Tokyo, 1996, 1-28. 13 The periods of known habitation at Berenik  are from the 3rd century until the early 6th century CE. From approximately 1250 textile fragments, of special interest to the present context, are the following fragments: three linen pieces (1290 from BE96–10, 0436 from BE96–12 and 0527 from BE96–10) present a coloured wool pile, one wool piece (1–0034) has paired loops laid in the shed and a wool pile «carpet» (1–0044) displays single rows of Sehna knots (of At–Tar Type B1). For the issue of textiles, see «Berenik  1996», Report of the 1996 Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Eastern Dessert (Sidebotham, S.–E. & Zendrich, W. –Z., eds), The Netherlands (Research School of Asian, African and American Studies, Universiteit Leiden) 1998, 227-28 & g. 10– 5; cf. also «Berenike 1998», Report of the 1998 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Dessert, including Excavations in Wadi Kaladat (Sidebotham, S.–E. & Zendrich, W.–Z., eds) The Netherlands (Research School of Asian, African and American Studies, Universiteit Leiden) 2000, 251-274, g. 11–3. 14 From the six wool pile fabrics dating from the 4th BCE to the 5th century CE, ve display pile in the Sehna knot and one has pile on both sides. According to I. Bergman, the pile most probably consisted of loops, which were sheared intentionally. For the excavated material, see Bergman, I.: «Late Nubian Textiles», The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, 8, Lund 1975. For several pile examples from Qasr Ibr m, see Adams, N.: «Meroitic High Fashions: Examples from Art and Archaeology», Meroitica, 10, 1988, 748-54 & pls VII, IX. 15 The outstanding rug or cover (inv. 89.18.43) is dated to 400 CE and said to be from Antinoopolis. The geometric pattern, which depicts interlaced squares, H rakl s’ knot, swastika meander and vine scrolls, can be directly juxtaposed with a pavement from Missi–Mopsuhestia, in Cilicia, Turkey. For the rug fragment, see Dimand, M.–S.: «Early Cut–Pile Rug from Egypt», Metropolitan Museum Studies, IV2, New York 1933. For the  oor mosaic, see Budde, L.: Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien, 1, Recklinghousen 1969, g. 31. 16 A5 G1H I)JK+!E L"$D1# I)"$EN %'&)M (+O!* $PQS,RT- D1)U).O!/1V+03 @ A5B«C$D1EF EW25X47D1Y)6D185B9:OZ\5[ ; W]D16^_B)8`%'V5)a\;Cbc (+d$8eSB%'%'H')D1f?O, 

relation to tapestry weaving, see Carroll, D.–L.: Looms and Textiles of the Copts: First Millenium Egyptian Textiles in the Carl Austin Rietz, Collection of the California Academy of Science, San Francisco 1986; cf. also Barber: op. cit., 145-62. 5 See Bellinger, L.: «Textile Analysis: Developing Techniques in Egypt and the Near East», Workshop Notes, 16, Washington D.C. 1957, 1-4. 6 Tapestry is considered to be a plain weave with one warp and several wefts composed of different colours, which do not pass from selvedge to selvedge, but are interlaced only with these parts of the warp where particular colours are required to form some designs. In considering the origin of the technique, the roots must be sought in the area of the Near and Middle East. In Pharaonic Egypt, the earliest evidence yet known is a group of linen fragments with tapestry hieroglyphs found in the tomb of Tuthmosis IV, early 15th century (now in the Cairo Museum, 46526, 46527, 46528). Vertical edges of the coloured elds are mostly woven in dovetailed tapestry, but slit tapestry can be seen along the back of a bull hieroglyph of one fragment. It is to be noted, however, that the technique was applied without the regrouping and crossing of the warps. The technique differed radically in its conception from habitual weaves in Egypt before and is historically associated with the introduction of the vertical two–beam loom. It is perhaps relevant that in the annals of the Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, we read of 150 Asian workers, among them some Syrians, serving as artisans in the temple of Am n. They might presumably have instructed the Egyptians in the art of tapestry weaving, which favours richly curved designs. For a discussion on this topic, see Lutz, H.–F.: Textiles and Costumes among the Peoples of the Ancient Near East, Leipzig 1923. For an introduction to the tapestry technique, see Emery, I.: The Primary Structures of Fabrics: An Illustrated Classi
cation. Washington D.C.–New York 1966. See also, Hall: op. cit.; Barber: op. cit. 7 The earliest attestation of the looping technique is associated with the horizontal loom and comes from a burial associated with the 11th Dynasty Pharaoh Monthu–hotep II. It occurs in linen specimens with all–over patterns of looping with weft run into the shed, including one of the many towels drafted as winding sheets to help wrap up and give decent collective burial to sixty of the pharaoh’s soldiers. In one particular piece, the discontinuous weft is doubled and raised in a small loop every ve warps along the row, with the loops in successive rows being staggered. Other nds of the same period are the two looped sheets, excavated at Deir ’el-Bahri. One of these towels (now in the Cairo Museum, JE 56179) has loops raised in the same formation and in a handsome pattern of chevrons, zigzags and bands of different widths. For the excavated material, see Winlock, H.–E.: The Slain Soldiers of Neb– hep t–R , Mentuhotpe, New York 1945, 32 & pl. XXB. The next evidence of the technique are two copious linens among the huge piles of neatly folded household linens, found in the mid–18th Dynasty tomb of Kha‘. These large wraps or blankets are decorated with lotus plants and display a combination of the tapestry technique and Ghiordes knotted pile. See Sciaparelli, E.: La Tomba intatta dell’Architetto Cha: Relazione sui Lavori della Missione archeologica in Egitto 2, Torino 1927, g. 113, 116. 8 My thanks to Petros Kalligas for allowing me to inspect this garment in the laboratory of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. For the excavated material, see Popham, M.–R., Touloupa, E. & Sackett, L.–H.: «The Hero of Lefkandi», Antiquity, 56, 1982, 169-74. 9 Fragments T. 77 and T. 78 display long loops of supplementary yarn run through the shed. See P ster, R.: Textiles de Palmyre, Paris 1934. 10 P ster, R. & Bellinger, L.: The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report IV, Part II: The Textiles, London 1945.























gC$BK+ESh_BK+i C$EOTK+EC$D1j)d'EOTB)kD1clLEd'G mC ~ s , Z € , 74.





72

». See

n

Bd$oV+GpXLY)Oq rFs t_uwvxzy|{ }

Sophia Tsourinaki: Looped Pile Weaves at the Benaki Museum: More Observations







 




ciö c items to be produced it seems that goods were frequently made to order. Of special interest for the textile production are two letters from the archives of Z÷ nø n. The ö rst is sent from a male weaver, who conö rms that rugs or hangings ùúûüýþÿ
Èý with pile on both sides were made to weight27: « ÿ Nú _ú   ü ÿ ‰  þ üý ý ÿ ü ûþ
"!

,   to textiles  ,    18   , 20  with 19 pile on both sides as , ,                                 ! and to the wool pile tunics as " $# " %'& 22( Especially, the wool ) *$+-,.) /'01 kaunak 2 s was mentioned eight times in the archives of Z3 n4 n23. The costliness of the material and the investment in labour may be an explanation24. The Persian style of the garment, references to shipments of items to Alexandria25, plus the use of luxurious hangings, rugs and cushions for the Ptolemaic court, have suggested to scholars that the pile textiles were destined and consumed by the wealthy, upper classes26. From a number of letters requesting spe17

ý  #$%&(' *)+- , / þ .È aü ÿ &10243 56lú 789 ý  : ý  ÿ ü  ! ûþ
dý #;=+.Mýü >.Mý %. ü %.Mý"?;='ûþ
@=ÿ(AÈùB 56+C D< ýü

+E +. û ü .Mý üäù ÿ F Hý Gµ

ù ú û ü ý þ Iÿ  H$KJL MNM. ý 56+& N=43 56M )dý ( ü O PHF*Q R,S %&T=EPE E 5 2=B %þ .. ú UHG 4VWTX $ Y %&TZBSB6  M[)dý ü ý  -\ Hý  $ ù ý  Iÿ ]ý  ù ÿ +C 9P %M. ý ü ; ÿ &^' _=+


7 \+B6`a= ÿ ü .b,S8Ec %. 56 ü ;R C4,S ü  d=+M. ý ü ý 23+C  d
e-ý  : ù ÿ ,S c fü $gB6 %.. @P ÿ  ÿ ChE,SE ‰
ÿ 39 ý F
ú iE,S Ho ý G ù ú û ü ý þ Iÿ  (,S %&aý ’ F ÿ B $ þ ý a ÿ B6 ü .MHý G j%\kl;%mM. ý 
ú n : ú . j ü , B6+C +`$6Y %&1< ý Np_ ú BSB6 RM. "ý il. üäý q+ ù ú û ü ý Iþ ! & ý F 2.M"ý _ ú  + $Tse* C4! ÿ  #+?;= ÿ 85 E,SE 2= ÿ &ý F r # PF *,S % ,S ü  ( t ()+.Mý ü ( -u Hý 9(+v + fü $kwxREyF Hý G ( t ý
-: ý ù Tÿ !

ý  ÿ ü  û
þ "! 9P'%þ . 56 ü ,S %$& ý  q+9B6Èü ÿ  q+$ÿ .- ü '8 bû 56 ü E’ ý H$z{ t j.Èbü  ,S+| ,S %&b=%þ .`E ú j ü AP ú $ý C. Èü ÿ F
e ! ý  \+?$; Hý G¡

ü 
8X ù ú û ü ý þIÿ  -].}.ÈQü ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ  #+a ÿ B6+C #+ %\kS$R$~ ÿ +& M2)EP < ý j ü ,S $ý B68EP?3dý € ü Oÿ ’ =l ú  :;_p ú BSB6E

ù + S39Til. ü =43 568H$‚# +8B6 S7 € M(
e-ý F R,S %& ù
ÿ 3 5 K+{ 
ý F@ +.hIú "ý  ü  H$(ƒ
:-ý „ MK=E +' û
þ ü .} þ .È
ü B C DE  2"(0F $G ,'3H' E00I $  $  J(:05$2  E@ )$@ 2 ) *D: % ) % $2 $# K 0  /7 89: ,; (