Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom: Ritual Forms, Material Display, Historical Development 1789698219, 9781789698213, 9781789698220

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents page
Preface and Acknowledgements
Dedication
Abbreviations
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introducing Animal Worship
1.1 Animal worship and ancient Egyptian religion: articulation of the problem
1.2 Thesis, goals, and limitations of the present study
1.3 History of research and status quaestionis
1.3.1 The memory-horizon: the role of literary tradition
1.3.2 The research-horizon: problems and perspectives
1.3.3 Animal worship: the ‘Standard Model’
Figure 1.1. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the Egyptological ‘Standard Model’ of Egyptian ‘animal worship’.
Table 1.1. ‘Animal worship’ and Egyptian religion according to the ‘Standard Model’.
Figure 1.2. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Standard Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 1.
1.4 Theory and methodology
1.4.1 The problem of a definition and the definition of a problem
1.4.2 The practical dimension: religious practice and ritual
1.4.3 The historical dimension: display and decorum
1.4.4 ‘Animal worship’: designing an Alternative Model
Figure 1.3. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the ‘Alternative Model’.
Figure 1.1. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the Egyptological ‘Standard Model’ of Egyptian ‘animal worship’.
Figure 1.2. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Standard Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 1.
Figure 1.3. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the ‘Alternative Model’.
Part IPresenting the Evidence
Part IPresenting the Evidence
Figure 2.1. Sealing from Tomb 414, Tarkhan (Cairo JE 43798). After Petrie 1913: pl. II.4.
The Early Dynastic
2.1 Royal evidence
Figure 2.1. Sealing from Tomb 414, Tarkhan (Cairo JE 43798). After Petrie 1913: pl. II.4.
Figure 2.2. Inscription on the Michailides Bowl. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Simpson 1957: fig. 2).
Figure 2.3. Wooden label of king Aha from Umm el-Qa‘ab B18/19 (Philadelphia Penn Museum E9396). After Petrie 1901: pl. X.2.
Figure 2.4. Sealing from Tomb 3035, Saqqara. After Emery 1938: fig. 26.
Figure 2.5. Painted limestone ostracon from Tomb 3035, Saqqara (Cairo JE 70149). Photo by A. Colonna.
Figure 2.6. Ivory label of king Den from Umm el-Qa‘ab T. After Petrie 1901: pl. VII.8.
Figure 2.7. Wooden label of king Qaa from Umm el-Qa‘ab Q (Ab K 1440). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.
2.2 Titles and personal names
Table 2.1. Early Dynastic Tiernamen
2.3 The Classical tradition
2.4 Summary
Figure 2.2. Inscription on the Michailides Bowl. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Simpson 1957: fig. 2).
Figure 2.3. Wooden label of king Aha from Umm el-Qa‘ab B18/19 (Philadelphia Penn Museum E9396). After Petrie 1901: pl. X.2.
Figure 2.4. Sealing from Tomb 3035, Saqqara. After Emery 1938: fig. 26.
Figure 2.5. Painted limestone ostracon from Tomb 3035, Saqqara (Cairo JE 70149). Photo by A. Colonna.
Figure 2.6. Ivory label of king Den from Umm el-Qa‘ab T. After Petrie 1901: pl. VII.8.
Figure 2.7. Wooden label of king Qaa from Umm el-Qa‘ab Q (Ab K 1440). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.
The Old Kingdom
3.1 Royal and temple evidence
Figure 3.1a. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fakhry 1961, fig. 96).
Figure 3.1b. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Schott 1972, 32).
Figure 3.2a. Block from the pyramid temple of Sahura, Abusir. After Borchardt 1913, 47.
Figure 3.2b. Fragments from the mortuary temple of Unas, Saqqara. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Ćwiek 2003: fig. 76).
Figure 3.3. Fragments from the solar temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob: a: visit to the chapel of the Apis bull (fr. no. 251); b: procession (fr. no. 252); c: inscription fragment (fr. no. 255). After von Bissing-Kees 1928, pl. 15.
Figure 3.4. Hypothetical sequence of episodes according to Kees’ restoration of fragments 251, 255, 255.
Figure 3.5. ‘Scene of the pelicans’ (Berlin, ÄM 20037) from the so-called ‘Room of the Seasons’, sun-temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.
3.2 Private inscriptions: titles and biographies
Table 3.1. Old Kingdom officials and titles related to individual animals.
Table 3.2. Old Kingdom officials and titles related to multiple animals.
3.2.1 Early Old Kingdom (3rd-4th dynasties)
3.2.2 Late Old Kingdom – Early First Intermediate Period (5th-9th dynasties)
3.3 Personal names
3.4 Funerary domains
Table 3.3. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating Hp (‘Apis’).
Table 3.4. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating Tntt (‘Tjentet-cow[s]).
Table 3.5. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating bA (‘sacred ram’).
Table 3.6. List of domains mentioning individual animal agencies.
3.5 Pyramid Texts
3.6 Architectural evidence
3.7 Summary
Figure 3.1a. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fakhry 1961, fig. 96).
Figure 3.1b. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Schott 1972, 32).
Figure 3.2a. Block from the pyramid temple of Sahura, Abusir. After Borchardt 1913, 47.
Figure 3.2b. Fragments from the mortuary temple of Unas, Saqqara. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Ćwiek 2003: fig. 76).
Figure 3.3. Fragments from the solar temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob: a: visit to the chapel of the Apis bull (fr. no. 251); b: procession (fr. no. 252); c: inscription fragment (fr. no. 255). After von Bissing-Kees 1928, pl. 15.
Figure 3.4. Hypothetical sequence of episodes according to Kees’ restoration of fragments 251, 255, 255.
Figure 3.5. ‘Scene of the pelicans’ (Berlin, ÄM 20037) from the so-called ‘Room of the Seasons’, sun-temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.
From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom
4.1 Titles
4.2 Private inscriptions
4.3 Personal names
4.4 Coffin Texts
4.5 Summary
Figure 4.1. Passage of the biography of Henqu II from Tomb N67, Deir el-Gebrawi. After Davies 1902: pl. XXIV.
Figure 4.2. Relief Relief scene from the funerary chapel (B1) of Senbi, Meir. After Blackman 1914, pl. XI.
Fig. 4.3 Relief scene from the tomb Ukh-hotep son of Senbi (B2), Meir. After Blackman 1915, pl. XV.
The New Kingdom
5.1 The Apis bull at Memphis
5.1.1 The Serapeum during the New Kingdom
Figure 5.3 Wall painting from Tomb D (Horemheb) showing the Apis bull and the four sons of Horus, Saqqara. After Mariette 1857: pl. 3.
Figure 5.4. Wall painting from Tomb G (Ramses II) showing the king and prince Khaemwaset before Apis. After Mariette 1857: pl. 8.
Table 5.1. Conspectus of the New Kingdom burials of the Apis bulls (‘Isolated Tombs’ and ‘Lessere Vaults’).
Table 5.2 Main epithets and forms of predication of the Apis bull attested on the inscribed material from the New Kingdom tombs of the Serapeum.
Figure 5.1. One of the New Kingdom ‘Isolated Tomb’ as shown in Mariette’s reconstruction. After Mariette 1882: 117, fig. 1.
Figure 5.2 Mariettes’s drawing of the Greater Vaults of the Serapeum. After Mariette 1882: 119, fig. 3.
5.1.2 The stelae of the Serapeum
Table 5.3. Conspectus of the Apis stelae from the New Kingdom tombs of the Serapeum.
Figure 5.5. Relief from the Red Chapel of Hatshepsut showing the ‘Running of the Apis bull’. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.
5.1.3 Other attestations
5.2 The Mnevis bull at Heliopolis
5.2.1 The New Kingdom necropolis of the Mnevis bull
Table 5.4. Conspectus of the New Kingdom burials of the Mnevis bull.
Table 5.5. Main epithets and forms of predication of the Mnevis bull attested on the inscribed material from the New Kingdom tombs of Arab el-Tawil.
Figure 5.6. Detail of the donation stela of Thutmosis III (Cairo JE 65830), Heliopolis (?). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1987: abb. 4, taf. 9.4).
Figure 5.7. Stela München ÄS 14000, acquired in Cairo. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1983: abb. 2, taf. VI).
5.2.2 The stelae of the Mnevis bull
Table 5.6. Conspectus of the Mnevis stelae from New Kingdom Heliopolis.
5.2.3 Other attestations
5.3 The ‘Fish-stelae’ from Mendes
Figure 5.8. Fish stela (Field No. F 137+169), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX, CAT#425).
Figure 5.9. Fish stela (Field No. Q 8), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX#450).
5.4 The fish necropolis at Gurob
5.5 The ‘Salakhana Trove’ at Asyut
Figure 5.10. Ramesside stela Berlin 19594, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 2).
Figure 5.12. Ramesside stela Louvre AF 6949, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 1).
Figure 5.11. Ramesside stela BM 1430, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 6).
5.6 Bulls in the Theban region
5.6.1 The Buchis bull at Armant
5.6.2 The ‘White bull’ of the Min festival
5.7 The ‘Crocodile-stelae’ from Sumenu
Figure 5.13. Ramesside stela from Al Mahamid Qibli. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Bakry 1971: taf. XXVIIb).
Figure 5.14. Ramesside stela dedicated to Sobek Lord of Sumenu, unknown provenance. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fazzini 1972: fig. 23).
5.8 The inscribed jar fragment Munich Ä 1383
Figure 5.1. One of the New Kingdom ‘Isolated Tomb’ as shown in Mariette’s reconstruction. After Mariette 1882: 117, fig. 1.
Figure 5.2 Mariettes’s drawing of the Greater Vaults of the Serapeum. After Mariette 1882: 119, fig. 3.
Figure 5.3 Wall painting from Tomb D (Horemheb) showing the Apis bull and the four sons of Horus, Saqqara. After Mariette 1857: pl. 3.
Figure 5.4. Wall painting from Tomb G (Ramses II) showing the king and prince Khaemwaset before Apis. After Mariette 1857: pl. 8.
Figure 5.5. Relief from the Red Chapel of Hatshepsut showing the ‘Running of the Apis bull’. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.
Figure 5.6. Detail of the donation stela of Thutmosis III (Cairo JE 65830), Heliopolis (?). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1987: abb. 4, taf. 9.4).
Figure 5.7. Stela München ÄS 14000, acquired in Cairo. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1983: abb. 2, taf. VI).
Figure 5.8. Fish stela (Field No. F 137+169), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX, CAT#425).
Figure 5.9. Fish stela (Field No. Q 8), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX#450).
Figure 5.10. Ramesside stela Berlin 19594, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 2).
Figure 5.11. Ramesside stela BM 1430, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 6).
Figure 5.12. Ramesside stela Louvre AF 6949, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 1).
Figure 5.13. Ramesside stela from Al Mahamid Qibli. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Bakry 1971: taf. XXVIIb).
Figure 5.14. Ramesside stela dedicated to Sobek Lord of Sumenu, unknown provenance. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fazzini 1972: fig. 23).
Part IISynthesis and Reconstruction
Modelling Animal Worship
6.1 Introduction: etic and emic
Table 6.1. Categorisation of sacralised animals.
6.2 The etic perspective: single and multiple animals
6.3 The emic perspective: Egyptian concepts and modes of predication
6.4 The sacralisation of the animals: a ritual and semantic process
6.5 Reconfiguring ‘animal worship’: practice, display, history
6.5.1 Rethinking ‘animal worship’: conceptual analysis
6.5.1.1 Animals
Table 6.2. The semantic framework of the Egyptian category nTr and its hierarchical structure.
6.5.1.2 Actions
Table 6.3. Contexts of ‘animal worship’ as religious practice.
Table 6.4. ‘Animal worship’ as an integrated arena of religious practice between state and non-state religion.
6.5.1.3 Meaning and interpretation
6.5.2 Reconstructing ‘animal worship’: historical synthesis
Table 6.5. The three macro-phases of ‘animal worship’ and their distinctive material configurations.
Figure 6.1. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Alternative Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 2.
6.6 Conclusions
Figure 6.1. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Alternative Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 2.
Bibliography
Index
Back cover

Citation preview

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom Ritual forms, material display, historical development

Angelo Colonna

Archaeopress Egyptology 36

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom Ritual forms, material display, historical development

Angelo Colonna

Archaeopress Egyptology 36

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-821-3 ISBN 978-1-78969-822-0 (e-Pdf)

© Angelo Colonna and Archaeopress 2021 Cover: John Weguelin 1886, The Obsequies of an Egyptian Cat. Oil on canvas. Mackelvie Trust Collection, Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ iii Abbreviations������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vi

List of Figures���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� vii

List of Tables������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ix Introducing Animal Worship�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 1.1 Animal worship and ancient Egyptian religion: articulation of the problem���������������������������1 1.2 Thesis, goals, and limitations of the present study�����������������������������������������������������������������������2 1.3 History of research and status quaestionis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4 1.3.1 The memory-horizon: the role of literary tradition�������������������������������������������������������������4 1.3.2 The research-horizon: problems and perspectives���������������������������������������������������������������7 1.3.3 Animal worship: the ‘Standard Model’����������������������������������������������������������������������������������15 1.4 Theory and methodology�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18 1.4.1 The problem of a definition and the definition of a problem�������������������������������������������18 1.4.2 The practical dimension: religious practice and ritual������������������������������������������������������22 1.4.3 The historical dimension: display and decorum�����������������������������������������������������������������23 1.4.4 ‘Animal worship’: designing an Alternative Model�������������������������������������������������������������25 Presenting the Evidence

The Early Dynastic��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 2.1 Royal evidence�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������29 2.2 Titles and personal names���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37 2.3 The Classical tradition����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40 2.4 Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 The Old Kingdom������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 44 3.1 Royal and temple evidence��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������44 3.2 Private inscriptions: titles and biographies����������������������������������������������������������������������������������63 3.2.1 Early Old Kingdom (3rd-4th dynasties)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������66 3.2.2 Late Old Kingdom – Early First Intermediate Period (5th-9th dynasties)����������������������69 3.3 Personal names����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73 3.4 Funerary domains�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������77 3.5 Pyramid Texts������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������80 3.6 Architectural evidence���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 3.7 Summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������87 From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom���������������������������������������������������89 4.1 Titles����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������89 4.2 Private inscriptions���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������93 4.3 Personal names��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������103 4.4 Coffin Texts��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������105 4.5 Summary�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������109 The New Kingdom�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111 5.1 The Apis bull at Memphis��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������111 5.1.1 The Serapeum during the New Kingdom���������������������������������������������������������������������������112 5.1.2 The stelae of the Serapeum���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������123 5.1.3 Other attestations�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������126 5.2 The Mnevis bull at Heliopolis��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������128 5.2.1 The New Kingdom necropolis of the Mnevis bull�������������������������������������������������������������129 i

5.2.2 The stelae of the Mnevis bull������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������132 5.2.3 Other attestations�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������135 5.3 The ‘Fish-stelae’ from Mendes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������138 5.4 The fish necropolis at Gurob���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������141 5.5 The ‘Salakhana Trove’ at Asyut�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������143 5.6 Bulls in the Theban region�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������147 5.6.1 The Buchis bull at Armant����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������148 5.6.2 The ‘White bull’ of the Min festival�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������149 5.7 The ‘Crocodile-stelae’ from Sumenu ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������151 5.8 The inscribed jar fragment Munich Ä 1383���������������������������������������������������������������������������������154

Synthesis and Reconstruction

Modelling Animal Worship������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 159 6.1 Introduction: etic and emic�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������159 6.2 The etic perspective: single and multiple animals��������������������������������������������������������������������160 6.3 The emic perspective: Egyptian concepts and modes of predication�������������������������������������161 6.4 The sacralisation of the animals: a ritual and semantic process���������������������������������������������167 6.5 Reconfiguring ‘animal worship’: practice, display, history������������������������������������������������������174 6.5.1 Rethinking ‘animal worship’: conceptual analysis������������������������������������������������������������174 6.5.1.1 Animals����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������175 6.5.1.2 Actions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������178 6.5.1.3 Meaning and interpretation�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������187 6.5.2 Reconstructing ‘animal worship’: historical synthesis����������������������������������������������������195 6.6 Conclusions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������204 Bibliography����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 206 Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 223

ii

Preface and Acknowledgements The present study is a largely revised version of a doctoral thesis in Egyptology defended in September 2014 at Sapienza University of Rome, entitled ‘Panthe(ri)on: costruzione culturale e sviluppo del culto degli animali. Messa in prospettiva di un motivo costante della pratica religiosa egiziana’. The general ideas underlying that work were briefly presented at the 11th International Congress of Egyptologists, held in Florence in 2015 (Colonna 2017). Since then, I have had the opportunity to refine the theoretical framework of the research while, for practical and methodological reasons that will be explained later on, I decided to limit its chronological scope to the period until the New Kingdom. The following analysis, therefore, does not provide a narrowly focused presentation of individual cases of so-called ‘animal worship’ nor a general description of the phenomenon at the peak of its development – the Late and GraecoRoman times – since several such accounts are already available. Instead, it draws on earlier material and comparison with later data to theorise – i.e., to reflect theoretically on – ‘animal worship’, producing a historical-conceptual model that challenges traditional narratives and literary perspectives. The result will be, as with every model, not much a mirror-image as an interpretive framework of patterned data. In brief, the present study can be read and considered as an essay, an attempt to improve the object of its inquiry by defending the thesis that ‘animal worship’ is better understood as a field of religious practice and display with a historically significant range of distinctive configurations. The notion itself of ‘animal worship’ is methodologically problematised as the historical product of our humanistic tradition, which can be maintained as a traditional label – it is regularly and purposely put between quotation marks throughout this study to highlight its conventional use – posited that the definition of its content is refined and its heuristic function as an operative tool is re-established. The research, therefore, has the character of a conceptual design and of historical analysis, the articulation of which includes three main parts. The first one (Chapter 1) formulates the core problem – how we can construct a critical understanding of Egyptian ‘animal worship’ and its evidence –, tracing the origins and changes in the use of the category, reviewing the basic tenets of what is here presented as the ‘Standard Model’ of Egyptological interpretation, and expanding discussion on theoretical and methodological grounds. A second section (Chapters 2-5) is dedicated to collecting and exploring relevant archaeological and textual materials. In seeking to demonstrate the variability and diachronic development of practices of ‘animal worship’ the work of analysis is limited to the sources from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom, which are often neglected or only touched upon as antecedents of later manifestations. The final part (Chapter 6) develops a synthesis that aims at reassessing Egyptian ‘animal worship’ in relation to the three fundamental aspects of religious practice, monumental display and historical change. By combining an etic (analytical) perspective with a focused examination of the emic expressions attested in the sources, the debated topic of the religious status and meaning ascribed to certain animals (both individuals and groups) is addressed. Particular attention is paid to the Egyptian conceptual strategies and responses to that issue. Likewise, considerations of display and decorum – i.e., exploring the modes and times according to which practices of ‘animal worship’ are integrated within the forms of Egyptian ‘monumental discourse’ (sensu Jan Assmann) – provide important caveats in the construction of an ‘Alternative Model’ for interpreting patterns and gaps in the distribution of the evidence, thus producing a more nuanced historical reconstruction. iii

Thinking, imagining, writing a book are part of an individual, lone enterprise and any omissions or mistakes are my full responsibility. At the same time, the creative, material, even emotional process behind it does not occur in a void, profiting instead from a beneficial series of exchanges and opportunities. So, I cannot but acknowledge the generous intellectual and practical help of various people and institutions. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Paola Buzi (Rome) for her positive interest, inexhaustible support, and continuous encouragement in every stage of my research and career. I am also grateful to other friends and colleagues, with whom I had the chance to share some of the problems and ideas this book is about, and who contributed many stimulating suggestions on various formal and informal occasions: John Baines (Oxford), Emanuele Ciampini (Venice), Francesca Iannarilli (Venice), Martin Fitzenreiter (Bonn), Joachim Quack (Heidelberg). Their comments and feedback, as well as their own works and academic interests, have inspired and enriched my research in multiple and sometimes unexpected ways. I owe special thanks to Francesca Iannarilli for the drawing and elaboration of many pictures as well as for the tedious time she spent reading the whole text. Her help was also crucial in writing down the final index. The Library of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and the Sackler Library at the University of Oxford provided the best environment to carry on my research, and their personnel always offered their kind assistance on every matter. I am obliged, of course, to David Davison and the editorial staff at Archaeopress for being extraordinarily patient, diligent, and professional in the production of the final book. The completion and publication of this work would not have been possible without the generous support granted by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (postdoctoral scholarship ‘Raffaele Pettazzoni’ 2016) and the Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica (postdoctoral research scholarship 2017), to which I would like to show my deep appreciation. A wor(l)d of love and personal gratitude is due to my family, for always being present and strong even when I was wandering in the troubling wilderness of my thoughts. After all, ‘Home is where one starts from’. And speaking of home, I would like to make a memory into a wish and offer it to MPI who, I hope, will not stop wondering ‘where do the ducks go when the pond freezes over’.

iv

To those who stand, sleep, and settle near Tiger Tiger, burning bright,  In the forests of the night;  What immortal hand or eye,  Could frame thy fearful symmetry? William Blake, The Tiger (1794)

v

Abbreviations AEIN Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen Ael., NA Aelianus, De Natura Animalium Ael., VH Aelianus, Varia Historia Ael., Fr. Aelianus, Fragments AGÉA Anthroponymes et Généalogies de l’Égypte Ancienne (https://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/agea/noms/) ÄM Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin Arr., Anab. Arrian, Anabasis Ashmolean Ashmolean Museum BD Book of the Dead (after Allen 1974) BM British Museum, London CG Catalogue General, Cairo Egyptian Museum CF Cairo Fragment(s) (after Wilkinson 2000) Cic., Nat. D. Cicero, De natura deorum CT Coffin Texts (after de Buck 1835-1961) Diod. Diodorus Siculus Hdt. Herodotus Juv., Sat. Juvenal, Saturae JE Journel d’entrée, Cairo Egyptian Museum Kelsey Museum Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, Ann Arbor Kestner Museum Museum August Kestner KRI Kitchen, K.A. 1975-1990. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical, 8 vols. Oxford: B.H. Blackwell Louvre Musée du Louvre MFA Museum of Fine Arts, Boston MMA Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York OI Oriental Institute of Chicago Plin., NH Plinius, Naturalis Historia Plut., De Is. et Os. Plutarch, DeIside et Osiride PM Porter, B. and R.L.B. Moss (eds) 1927-2007. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, 8 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press Porph., Abst. Porphyry, De abstinentia PS Palermo Stone (after Wilkinson 2000) PT Pyramid Text (spell) (after Sethe 1908-1922) Pyr. Pyramid Texts (utterance) (after Sethe 1908-1922) Pushkin Museum Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts RMO Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden SMÄK Staatliche Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, Munich Strabo, Geog. Strabo, Geography UCL University College London Urk. Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, 8 vols ed. K. Sethe, H.W. Helck, H. Schäfer, H. Grapow, O. Firchow, 1903-1957 (Leipzig/Berlin) Virg., Aen. Virgil, Aeneis WAM Walter Art Museum, Baltimora Wb. Erman, A. and W. Grapow 1926-1961. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, 7 vols. Leipzig – Berlin.

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the Egyptological ‘Standard Model’ of Egyptian ‘animal worship’.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 Figure 1.2. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Standard Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 1.����������������������������������������������������������������17 Figure 1.3. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the ‘Alternative Model’.��������������25 Figure 2.1. Sealing from Tomb 414, Tarkhan (Cairo JE 43798). After Petrie 1913: pl. II.4.��������������29 Figure 2.2. Inscription on the Michailides Bowl. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Simpson 1957: fig. 2).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 Figure 2.3. Wooden label of king Aha from Umm el-Qa‘ab B18/19 (Philadelphia Penn Museum E9396). After Petrie 1901: pl. X.2.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 Figure 2.4. Sealing from Tomb 3035, Saqqara. After Emery 1938: fig. 26.�����������������������������������������33 Figure 2.5. Painted limestone ostracon from Tomb 3035, Saqqara (Cairo JE 70149). Photo by A. Colonna.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Figure 2.6. Ivory label of king Den from Umm el-Qa‘ab T. After Petrie 1901: pl. VII.8.�������������������35 Figure 2.7. Wooden label of king Qaa from Umm el-Qa‘ab Q (Ab K 1440). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35 Figure 3.1a. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fakhry 1961, fig. 96).���������������������������������������������������46 Figure 3.1b. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Schott 1972, 32).�����������������������������������������������������������46 Figure 3.2a. Block from the pyramid temple of Sahura, Abusir. After Borchardt 1913, 47.�������������51 Figure 3.2b. Fragments from the mortuary temple of Unas, Saqqara. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Ćwiek 2003: fig. 76).�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������51 Figure 3.3. Fragments from the solar temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob: a: visit to the chapel of the Apis bull (fr. no. 251); b: procession (fr. no. 252); c: inscription fragment (fr. no. 255). After von Bissing-Kees 1928, pl. 15.����������������������������������������������������������������������������54 Figure 3.4. Hypothetical sequence of episodes according to Kees’ restoration of fragments 251, 255, 255.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������57 Figure 3.5. ‘Scene of the pelicans’ (Berlin, ÄM 20037) from the so-called ‘Room of the Seasons’, sun-temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.60 Figure 4.1. Passage of the biography of Henqu II from Tomb N67, Deir el-Gebrawi. After Davies 1902: pl. XXIV.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������94 Figure 4.2. Relief Relief scene from the funerary chapel (B1) of Senbi, Meir. After Blackman 1914, pl. XI.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������98 Figure 4.3. Relief scene from the tomb Ukh-hotep son of Senbi (B2), Meir. After Blackman 1915, pl. XV.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������100 Figure 5.1. One of the New Kingdom ‘Isolated Tomb’ as shown in Mariette’s reconstruction. After Mariette 1882: 117, fig. 1.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������112 Figure 5.2. Mariettes’s drawing of the Greater Vaults of the Serapeum. After Mariette 1882: 119, fig. 3.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������112 Figure 5.3. Wall painting from Tomb D (Horemheb) showing the Apis bull and the four sons of Horus, Saqqara. After Mariette 1857: pl. 3.������������������������������������������������������������������114 Figure 5.4. Wall painting from Tomb G (Ramses II) showing the king and prince Khaemwaset before Apis. After Mariette 1857: pl. 8.������������������������������������������������������������������������������114 Figure 5.5. Relief from the Red Chapel of Hatshepsut showing the ‘Running of the Apis bull’. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������126 Figure 5.6. Detail of the donation stela of Thutmosis III (Cairo JE 65830), Heliopolis (?). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1987: abb. 4, taf. 9.4).��������������������132 Figure 5.7. Stela München ÄS 14000, acquired in Cairo. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1983: abb. 2, taf. VI).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������132

vii

Figure 5.8. Fish stela (Field No. F 137+169), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX, CAT#425).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������139 Figure 5.9. Fish stela (Field No. Q 8), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX#450).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������139 Figure 5.10. Ramesside stela Berlin 19594, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 2).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������145 Figure 5.12. Ramesside stela Louvre AF 6949, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 1).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������145 Figure 5.11. Ramesside stela BM 1430, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 6).����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������145 Figure 5.13. Ramesside stela from Al Mahamid Qibli. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Bakry 1971: taf. XXVIIb).�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������153 Figure 5.14. Ramesside stela dedicated to Sobek Lord of Sumenu, unknown provenance. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fazzini 1972: fig. 23).����������������������������������153 Figure 6.1. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Alternative Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 2.��������������������������������������������������������������196

viii

List of Tables

Table 1.1. ‘Animal worship’ and Egyptian religion according to the ‘Standard Model’.��������������������16 Table 2.1. Early Dynastic Tiernamen����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Table 3.1. Old Kingdom officials and titles related to individual animals.�������������������������������������������65 Table 3.2. Old Kingdom officials and titles related to multiple animals.���������������������������������������������65 Table 3.3. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating Hp (‘Apis’).������������������������������������������������������78 Table 3.4. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating Tntt (‘Tjentet-cow[s]).�����������������������������������78 Table 3.5. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating bA (‘sacred ram’).������������������������������������������79 Table 3.6. List of domains mentioning individual animal agencies.�����������������������������������������������������79 Table 4.1. First Intermediate Period/Middle Kingdom officials and titles related to multiple animals.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������92 Table 4.2. Conspectus of the main titles of the ‘overseers of the black cattle’ (imy-rA-kmt).������������92 Table 4.3. Comparative view of the sequence of main titles associated with mdw-Hp.���������������������92 Table 4.4. First Intermediate Period/Middle Kingdom personal names incorporating the name of sacred animals.�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������106 Table 5.1. Conspectus of the New Kingdom burials of the Apis bulls (‘Isolated Tombs’ and ‘Lessere Vaults’).�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������121 Table 5.2 Main epithets and forms of predication of the Apis bull attested on the inscribed material from the New Kingdom tombs of the Serapeum.��������������������������������������������122 Table 5.3. Conspectus of the Apis stelae from the New Kingdom tombs of the Serapeum.������������125 Table 5.4. Conspectus of the New Kingdom burials of the Mnevis bull.��������������������������������������������130 Table 5.5. Main epithets and forms of predication of the Mnevis bull attested on the inscribed material from the New Kingdom tombs of Arab el-Tawil.���������������������������������������������130 Table 5.6. Conspectus of the Mnevis stelae from New Kingdom Heliopolis.�������������������������������������134 Table 6.1. Categorisation of sacralised animals.�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������160 Table 6.2. The semantic framework of the Egyptian category nTr and its hierarchical structure.178 Table 6.3. Contexts of ‘animal worship’ as religious practice.�������������������������������������������������������������180 Table 6.4. ‘Animal worship’ as an integrated arena of religious practice between state and non-state religion.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������183 Table 6.5. The three macro-phases of ‘animal worship’ and their distinctive material configurations.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������195

ix

x

Chapter 1

Introducing Animal Worship In 1886, at the Royal Academy in London, the British painter and illustrator John Reinhard Weguelin showed The Obsequies of an Egyptian Cat. The painting illustrates the funerary rites (‘obsequies’) performed by a priestess for a deceased, mummified cat. The mummy is set, in the guise of an idol, within a shrine placed upon an altar, before which the female celebrant kneels in adoration, burning incense and presenting food offerings that even include a plate of milk. The walls behind the priestess are decorated with delicate Egyptian frescoes, and a large statue of an enthroned lion-goddess Sekhmet stands at the end of a descending staircase and guards the entrance to the room, all elements that create a fitting ceremonial context for the main action of the scene. The work belongs to the well-established genre of the archaeological painting so typical of the Victorian age, for which ancient Egypt represented a primary source of inspiration, stimulating a whole series of Egyptian paintings by some of the leading artists of the time, who engaged with the past and with archaeology ‘as a source of “visual poetry”’.1 In particular, Weguelin’s Obsequies of an Egyptian Cat, in the words of Stephanie Moser, ‘is reminiscent of Alma-Tadema’s and Poynter’s Egyptian pictures of the 1860s and 1870s, where religious rituals took place in small intimate spaces’.2 Literary inspiration likely came from Herodotus, who described the revered status of the Egyptian cats, amongst other sacred animals, and noted the honours and the special attentions they received (in life and death) at his times.3 In addition, the scene combines highly detailed archaeological references – one might only incidentally note precise citations of Egyptian monuments displayed at the British Museum, including a fragment of the wall decoration from the Theban tomb of Nebamun (EA 37978), a New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet (EA 37, 63), and one of the many late cat mummies (like EA 6752) – with imaginative inference, presenting a fascinating interpretation of an ancient Egyptian ceremony. No less significantly, the picture displays a ‘playful mixture of the familiar and the bizarre. The scene reminds viewers of the human fondness for domestic animals that might link us to the ancient  Egyptians, but also of difference: the female figure kneels in worship as she performs the rites due to the cat, regarded as a deity in Egyptian religion’.4 Like other similar compositions,5 it was an educated, picturesque, and ironic statement on ancient rituals, at the same time arousing curiosity toward their decadent exoticism and remarking distance from their trivial character. The central act of venerating a dead animal, overemphasised by the ample gestures of the female figure, surely hit the point. It is noteworthy that, in turning on the religious theme, the significant role of animals was selected as representative of Egyptian paganism and, through the artistic citation, recreated as part of a (once) lived practice that could be enjoyed by the modern spectator in vivid details. 1.1 Animal worship and ancient Egyptian religion: articulation of the problem The brief overview on Weguelin’s painting helps introduce the basic problem of so-called ‘animal worship’ in ancient Egypt. To put it with the words of Martin Fitzenreiter, ‘Die ägyptischen Tierkulte leiden unter einem Paradoxon. Während sie in der Ägyptologie als ein Grenzgebiet religiöser Praxis angesehen und eher gemieden werden, gelten sie im allgemeinen Bewußtsein (nennen Moser 2020: 173. Moser 2020: 258. Hdt. II. 66-67. 4 Trumble 2001: 88. 5 Edwin Long’s Sacred to Pasht (1886) exploits the same ‘feline’ theme while Edward Pointer’s Feeding the Sacred Ibis (1871) focuses on another well-known sacred animal. Moser 2020: 178-181, 258-261. 1 2 3

1

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt wir es mit Aleida und Jan Assman gern das “kulturelle Gedächtnis”) als ein wesentliches Merkmal altägyptischer Religion, ja Altägyptens überhaupt’.6 The point might be articulated differently: the notion that animals played a religiously significant role for the Egyptians is something that predates the birth of Egyptology as a discipline and that has long been acquired as a rock-solid matter of fact. The picture just described captures this aspect with inspired creativity but sits at the extremity – and not even at the farthest end – of a chain of transmission that reaches back to the Classical Antiquity. So, while it is easily recognised that animals are a recurrent presence in the mythical, symbolical, and ritual constructions of ancient societies, providing an effective medium to read and establish connections between the human and the divine worlds, ancient Egypt stands out inasmuch as there the association animal-god produces very distinctive and substantial configurations. It actually concerns, to use the well-known distinction posed by Philippe Derchain, both levels of reél and imaginaire,7 meaning that such a ‘animalité des dieux’8 affects and permeates the religious practice as much as the creation of a sophisticated imagery. In Egyptology, however, while the visual, emblematic, and symbolic value of animals in the characterisation of the figure and role of divine beings represents a well-established focus of study, ‘animal worship’ or ‘die Verehrung des Tieres als Gottes’, according to the influential definition of Sigfried Morenz,9 reveals major shortcomings in terms of methodological approach and historical understanding. Traditionally, discussion proceeds from the perspective of Classical literary narratives or focuses on cases and contexts from the best represented Late Period of Egyptian history. Earlier periods are rarely taken into consideration and theoretical issues are not properly addressed, thus reinforcing the perception of the phenomenon as a late eccentric aspect of the great pharaonic civilisation. In the following analysis, it will be shown that, in what can be labelled as the ‘Standard Model’ of Egyptological interpretation (infra), the commanding influence of the Classical and Biblical tradition and the prevailing textual/discursive orientation of research outline and underpin an interpretive strategy that pushes ‘animal worship’ at the margin (Grenzgebiet) of the general reconstruction of the ancient Egyptian religion, where it can only be brought in a latere, as a symbolic, metaphoric reference (zoomorphism; animal iconicity) to the higher nature of the gods, and as a mark of religious decline (mass animal burials) in the final stage of Egyptian civilisation. 1.2 Thesis, goals, and limitations of the present study The present study investigates forms and configurations of so-called Egyptian ‘animal worship’ from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom (3rd-2nd millennia BC), using the material reviewed from these periods to test and substantiate a theoretical and historiographic model that challenges traditional understanding, reassess the terms of discussion and data analysis, and prospects an alternative line of historical-religious interpretation. The core idea is that ‘animal worship’ should no longer be viewed, simplistically, as a late phenomenon, marking the end of the pharaonic religious tradition at the time of its (alleged) decline – though, of course, it becomes a distinctive phenomenon of Egyptian religion of Late and Graeco-Roman periods. Rather, it must be positively and explicitly reconfigured as a complex and historically articulated domain of religious practice, with a wider range of expressions and a broader chronological scope than usually acknowledged.10 To this end, earlier attestations will be first surveyed and discussed, and then interpreted as referring to larger historical patterns of cultural-religious activity. The driving intention of the research is to theorise Egyptian ‘animal worship’, an endeavour that is here intended as concerned with the definition of a theoretical approach which, drawing on Fitzenreiter 2003a:1. Derchain 1981: 325. 8 Meeks 1986: 171 9 Morenz 1962a: 896. 10 Colonna 2014a; 2017; 2018. 6 7

2

Introducing Animal Worship multiple perspectives and concepts (from History of religions, Anthropology, and Egyptology itself), aims at problematising the subject, and so at reconceptualising the scholarly discourse around it. In brief, this work will design an interpretive (etic) framework within which relevant evidence can be analysed and related to a broader context of religious action and display, and to specific issues of categorisation and historical development, while ancient Egyptian views and attitudes can be assessed against this background to provide it with emic content and meaning. The model will address three main goals that can be summarised as follows: 1. Conceptualisation, which is concerned with (a) the reassessment of the notion of ‘animal worship’ as an effective analytic category, reviewing the history of its formation and use in Egyptology, and identifying practice as a focal point in interpretation; (b) the reappraisal of the critical question about the religious status of the engaged animal agencies, exploring modern classifications and ancient terminology. By contextualising patterns of use of Egyptian predications, and focusing on the strategical manipulation of those animals – what is done to/with them – ritual action is brought at the foreground as a salient defining factor of animals’ sacredness, and accordingly a suitable formal categorisation is established. 2. Periodisation, which focuses on modelling patterns and gaps in the distribution of textual and material sources documenting practices of ‘animal worship’ in order to identify significant configurations that can be (a) discussed synchronically, to expand our understanding of the contexts of practical construction of a meaningful animal presence and of its integration within contemporary society, and (b) arranged diachronically, to chart major continuities and changes over the course of time. 3. Historical interpretation, which has to do with the replacement of traditional linear narratives, too often biased by theological/teleological perspectives, with a historiographic scenario that (a) matches the current situation of our evidence, not ignoring its sparse character and uneven distribution but prospecting a plausible articulated picture for explaining that situation, and (b) relocates ‘animal worship’ as practice within the frame of Egyptian religious tradition and system of decorum. Overall, the study is designed as a research that operates at the macro-level. It is not much concerned with the analysis of specific case studies (individual animal figures or archaeological context) as with proposing a perspective of synthesis that is both conceptual and historical. It argues that practices of ‘animal worship’ can be posited for earlier times, though focus may be different from later periods. Moreover, the evidence appears fragmentary and less clear than it is for later periods and tends to be underrated in scholarship. Accordingly, the work will proceed at a survey of pertinent early material as well as at the construction of a framework within which that material can be evaluated, contrasted, and combined with later evidence into a meaningful reconstruction. Such a reconstruction however is not intended as a univocal description, even less as a full narrative, but rather as an attempt to represent (by formulating hypotheses and modelling the primary sources) an admittedly complex documentary situation, and to restore both religious and historical articulation to a wide arena of practice that was evidently addressed and variously integrated within ancient Egyptian society. While acknowledging the diachronic character of ‘animal worship’, the chronological focus of the study has been restricted to the periods from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom. This restriction, which excludes from the surveyed material both some poorly attested predynastic contexts and the better-known configurations of the Late and Graeco-Roman times, is motivated by practical and methodological reasons. First of all, a full examination of such a vast amount of evidence does not fit the structure and overall intention of the work, as its review would have required a different approach and, most importantly, a coral effort. Secondly, these periods have been (and still are) made the object of detailed studies that provide in-depth insights and valuable discussions. For the Predynastic, the research of Diane Flores on relevant sites with animal burials has reassessed their cultural-religious significance, questioning the traditional assumption that 3

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt they attest ‘a cult of sacred animals or of divine powers in animal forms’.11 On the other hand, animal cults during the Late and Graeco-Roman periods represent an established and prolific field of research, with important works of synthesis that have been produced.12 This set of information, therefore, will be more easily referred to and variously brought into discussion, without needing any preliminary presentation. Instead, and that is the final point, ‘animal worship’ is not usually integrated within the reconstructed religious scenario of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, despite some positive attestations are generally admitted in this regard (e.g., the range of bull figures and cults). The paucity of evidence is usually taken at face value and quickly explained by assuming a linear development according to which archaic forms of religiosity became gradually superseded by higher beliefs and kept at the margin of official religion. Here, it is suggested that the distribution is meaningful and that the apparent gap can be differently interpreted, suggesting a more fitting context for both early evidence and the practices they refer to. The alternative proposed will be developed in the following analysis. It will reveal, to a certain extent, a hypothetical character, yet it has the crucial advantage of not considering the available hints as isolated and disconnected from the living society. Rather, as John Baines aptly remarks, ‘hypotheses provide the context for detailed research’ and ‘[o]dd hints of religious practice may help to illuminate gaps in knowledge and to formulate more general models of the context into which such evidence can be fitted’.13 1.3 History of research and status quaestionis Outlining a history of past scholarship on ‘animal worship’ is not an easy task because, as it has become clear from the foregoing considerations, it has to do with an aspect that is deeply entangled with the cultural-historical process that shaped our Western perception of ancient Egypt, at least until the decipherment of hieroglyphs and the first successful archaeological enterprises of the new-born Egyptology did replace the ‘hot’ link of memory with the ‘cold’ rigour of modern scientific analysis. Jan Assmann has justly noted how Egypt had long ‘formed part of our own past’ but ‘[a]s the newly emergent science of Egyptology gradually discovered ancient Egypt, Egypt itself disappeared from the general culture of the West’.14 In both cases (Egypt as an object of memory and Egypt as an object of study), the Classical and Biblical texts represented the fil rouge that maintained the link with the culture of pharaonic Egypt, and defined the horizon – first of memory then of research – wherein that culture was retrieved and approached. In this perspective, the role of ‘animal worship’ as a recurrent thematic focus within the Classical and Biblical literary tradition, widely exploited for the construction of a rhetorical debate on identity and otherness, can hardly be ignored, at least for the long-lived consequences it generated. 1.3.1 The memory-horizon: the role of literary tradition In the modern approach to ‘animal worship’, as well as to other aspects of the Egyptian culture, Classical sources have always granted Egyptology with a privileged point of view, though, of course, motivated by different interests and purposes. So, those earliest studies, which collected and commented upon Classical and Jewish/Christian texts as primary and valuable support to the understanding of the phenomenon, have been progressively overlapped and superseded by researches that are more concerned with evaluating how such a specific Egyptian religious element was received and perceived by contemporary Greek, Roman, Jewish and early Christian authors, impacting on the conception of Egypt as a whole during Classical and Late Antiquity.15 Hornung 1982a: 101. The work of reference is of course Kessler 1989. A full dissertation on the topic also in Charron 1996a (summarised in Charron 1996b). For an informed overview, with a collection of major case studies, see Ikram 2005. 13 Baines 1987: 79. 14 Assmann 2006: 180, 188. 15 The standard work is Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984, which aims to ‘investigate the conception non-Egyptian had of this part of the Egyptian religion related to their view of Egypt in general’ (Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1855). The two authors especially focus on 11 12

4

Introducing Animal Worship From Herodotus (5th century BC) to Late Antique writers (3th-5th century AD), sacred animals are a regular topos in the contemporary discourses on the ancient Egyptian religion.16 As early as the renowned account of the pater historiae, those positive themes concurring to a characterisation of Egypt as a fabulous land (venerable antiquity; vast knowledge; great religiosity)17 are countered by ‘animal worship’ as a disturbing motive. The numerous and variegated explanations flourishing in ancient literature represent, in a way, the history of such background noise. Modern scholarship usually concludes that, despite the enormous interest they raised, ‘[t]he complexity of Egyptian animal cults escaped the Greco-Roman critics’.18 On the other hand, the remark of Fitzenreiter – ‘die Beobachtungen der antiken Autoren, sofern sie sich auf primäre Quellen stützen (und davon ist in tatsächlich den meisten Fällen auszugehen), durchaus den Wert ethnographischer Primärquellen haben und daher äußerst hilfreich sind, um ein Bild der ägyptischen Religion und Religiosität zu gewinnen’ – invites us to a more balanced assessment of the informative value of these sources.19 Without dwelling on this, it suffices here to highlight two basic and complementary points for discussion. First of all, ancient Greek and Roman authors were more or less contemporaries of the phenomenon they described, and so had the chance to grasp (when they did not have direct experience) some of its vivid expressions (like mummies and burial practices) at the time of its largest proliferation (Late and Graeco-Roman periods).20 Moreover, these first attempts to explain the sacrality of certain animals did not happen in a conceptual vacuum but confronted in some way with the Egyptian speculations. At least since the New Kingdom, the Egyptians themselves had developed a sophisticated interpretation that made use of specific forms of predications (bA, ‘manifestation’; wHm, ‘herald’) to express the status of sacred animals and their relationship to the great gods (infra, Chap. 6). It appears that such notions, with all the possible limits of translation and understanding, found a correspondence with or even inspired certain approaches, like the symbolic explanation of Plutarch and other Neoplatonic authors.21 Secondly, one should not ignore that those authors were indeed outsiders and came from a very different cultural background, so their statements inevitably reflect the categories and beliefs of that context.22 In addition, being literary pieces, the opinions expressed in them were understandably conditioned by the expectations of their homeland’s audience, which of course shared the same values, or by specific ideological purposes. Thus, despite the undeniably positive data that Classical sources provide and the possibility of a confirmation from the Egyptian documentation (both textual and archaeological), the interpretations on ‘animal worship’ they promulgate are however more informative on the mentality and attitude of the Greek and Roman observers than on the actual significance of those practices for the Egyptian actors. strategies of ‘conceptualisation’, intended as a group of ‘generalizations, stereotypes and conceptions to create a degree of order in our perception of reality” (Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1856). Sterotypes ‘belong to an inherited set of cultural norms’(ibid.) and ‘are not the product of purposive thinking, but (…) irrational and non-verifiable opinions which have been adopted by the group because of their tried practicability’ (Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1856). When applied to the interaction between different nations or cultural groups ‘it [conceptualisation] reaffirms a nation’s own identity as a culture by contrasting their conception about themselves with that about other peoples’ (Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1856). 16 Feder 2003: 159–65; Hopfner 1913; Pfeiffer 2008: 363–83; Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1852–2000. See also Colonna 2014. 17 Hdt. II, 2 (antiquity); II, 77, 160 (wisdom); II, 36, 65 (religious devotion). 18 Thompson 2001: 331. Similar considerations are expressed by Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984, 1997: ‘For it is very remarkable that the interest in Egyptian animal worship did not lead to a real understanding of this part of the Egyptian religion’. 19 Fitzenreiter 2003a: 9. 20 Feder 2003: 159. 21 In Plut., De Is. et Os. 20 (359 B), 43 (368 C), for example, the Apis bull is described as ‘image of the soul of Osiris’ and ‘living image of Osiris’, with a meaningful use of the word èidolon. For discussion on Plutarch’s interpretation of ‘animal worship’, cf. Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1961-1965. They also consider that the opinion of Porphiry on sacred animals as well as on the mixed form of the Egyptian gods (especially in Porph., Abst. IV, 9) ‘comes closest to the essence of Egyptian animal worship’; Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1961-1965. 22 A major difference, in this regard, seems to concern the general understanding of the animal realm and of the man-animal relationship. The Egyptian Weltanschauung regard that relationship in terms of Partnerschaft (Hornung 1967: 71; see also Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2002: 19; Te Velde 1980: 77-78; Wiedemann 1889: 311). Conversely, the Classical, Jewish, and Christian world shows, with obvious nuances, a more apparent anthropocentric perspective and a more explicit subordination of the animal to the man; cf. Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1858-1860.

5

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Overall, the appreciation of the Egyptian ‘animal worship’ in the ancient world remained imbued of a fundamental criticism toward the religious practice as barbaric and despicable, while its use as a literary topos was part of a wider discourse that, in the framework of the developments brought by Hellenism and early Christianity, aimed at establishing hierarchical distinctions (‘Us’ versus ‘Them’) between the engaged parties. Even with the more favourable position of Plutarch, and others with him, ‘animal worship’ continued to represent an ambiguous and disconcerting phenomenon, which could only become tolerable and understandable for a Greek or Roman public when interpreted symbolically. As Klaas Smelik and Emily Hemelrijk put it ‘Plutarch makes it clear that he cannot accept animal worship as such and that his interpretation of it is only an effort to present what was in fact unacceptable to himself and to his public, in such a way that it may be valued’.23 A full exploitation of ‘animal worship’ as an argumentum or exemplum within a general thematisation of Egypt as ‘the Other’ recurs abundantly in Latin literature. Cicero, for example, ironically contrasted the ludicrous practice of venerating animal portenta with the traditional image of Egyptian wisdom or criticised the Egyptians’ dementia (‘foolishness’) within a philosophical discussion designed for a systematic refutation of the religious mores of his contemporary society.24 Such portenta were likewise mercilessly mocked by Juvenal in his satire,25 while monstra were evoked by Virgil to celebrate the victory of Octavian over Cleopatra and Marck Antony at Actium.26 In all these instances, the presentation of the phenomenon became instrumental to the political propaganda (Virgil) and especially to the moral criticism of present society (Cicero; Juvenal).27 The polemics against the typically Egyptian ‘animal worship’ as a manifest sign of moral and cultural inferiority of that barbaric civilisation served then as a yardstick for measuring the current religious degeneration. In brief, the genuine historical quality of the phenomenon disappeared before its ideological projection as a value category. The Jewish and early Christian literature pushed this line of interpretation to its furthest consequences. In the works of these authors, whose intellectual efforts were essentially focused on the polarisation between the true monotheism and the false ‘pagan’ polytheisms, the severe criticism against the practice of ‘animal worship’ turned into an unreserved condemnation of what was then seen not just as the lowest form of idolatry but as a true offence against the majesty of the sole god and his laws. In this perspective, the foolish Egyptians were doubly guilty, as they combined the veneration of hollow idols with that of irrational creatures. At the end of this admittedly quick overview, one can draw three main conclusive remarks. First, ancient interpretations show an irreducible opposition between symbolic conceptualisation (positively evaluated) and ritual practice (disdainfully rejected). While ambiguity remains in the process of thematisation of Egyptian ‘otherness’, the balance usually shifts toward the negative end of the spectrum: ‘When interpreted symbolically it can be included in the conception of Egypt as the source of all wisdom. But it does fit better into the conception of Egyptian barbarism and stupidity: ridiculous Egyptians adoring animals as divine beings’.28 Second, such a dichotomy, which Martin Fitzenreiter aptly formulates in terms of ‘Weisheit beim symbolischen Zugang vs Primitivität beim kultischen Zugang’,29 establishes the broad intellectual framework that still (more or less explicitly) underpins much of modern interpretive strategies, lying at the core of that paradoxical situation noted above: ‘animal worship’ appears as a distinctive Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1961. Cic., Nat. D. I 16, 43; I 36, 101; III 19, 47. In general, on Cicero’s rhetorical use of the them ‘animal worship’, see Pfeiffer 2008, 372; Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1955-1957. 25 Juv., Sat. 15. 1-2. Feder 2003, 163; Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1965-1967. 26 Virg., Aen. VIII 698-700. Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1853-1855. 27 Pfeiffer 2008: 377-378 notes how this argument was wisely exploited in the Augustan propaganda to turn a political fight into a ‘clash of civilizations’. 28 Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 2000. 29 Fitzenreiter 2003b: 256. 23 24

6

Introducing Animal Worship product of Egyptian religion but only marginal to its full understanding when compared to other, allegedly more developed aspects (like theology and discourses about the higher gods). Finally, besides any moral preconception or ideological bias, the narratives of the ancient authors should nonetheless be properly contextualised and related not just to the cultural milieu wherein they were produced but also to the historical setting framing the facts they described, namely Late and Graeco-Roman Egypt, meaning that they cannot be so easily projected backwords onto earlier periods and configurations. This is a crucial point that has important methodological implications, as it will be made clear in the following discussion. 1.3.2 The research-horizon: problems and perspectives The beginning of modern scholarship on ‘animal worship’ can be established quite accurately, though symbolically, as it coincides with the greatly publicised discovery of the Serapeum of Saqqara by Auguste Mariette in November 1851.30 Symbolically because, as stated above, the literary tradition served as the principal (but not only) channel31 through which memory of the phenomenon was kept alive in the European mind to the extent that it was a piece of this substantial tradition, in the form of a well-known passage of the Greek geographer Strabo,32 that encouraged the Frenchman to start investigations in North Saqqara.33 Since then, a number of studies have focused on the topic, though the quick development of the discipline around some major themes and privileged areas of interest have assigned ‘animal worship’ a more and more peripheral position both in the general reconstruction of the Egyptian religion and as a specific field of enquiry. In an attempt to outline a periodisation of the research history on this theme, one might roughly identify three major moments, which also help illustrate what orientations, perspectives, and cultural patterns have gradually shaped the current Egyptological notion of ‘animal worship’. A first phase, from the end of the 19th to the mid-20th century, developed in keeping with the earliest efforts to systematically collect and arrange the facts and forms of the Egyptian religion, as they re-emerged from the original documentation, and to set them against both the information coming from the Classical tradition and the models defined by the contemporary evolutionary and positivist theories. Within that intellectual framework operated Alfred Wiedemann and his followers Theodor Hopfner and Hans Zimmermann: the former proposed the first Egyptological dissertation on the phenomenon,34 the latter two produced a meticulous review of all the pertinent literary references.35 Combining the use of the Classical sources with ethnological concepts and ideas of his time (migrationism; totemism; fetishism), Wiedemann’s model established that: (1) ‘animal worship’ is a typical feature of primitive religions but in the case of Egypt it remained popular until the very end of its civilisation; (2) a basic distinction occurred between the two categories of the Inkorporationstier or Tempeltier and sakrosante Tiere, of which he found correspondence in the passage of Strabo mentioning theói and ierói animals;36 (3) the association between animals and high anthropomorphic gods is an artificial construction resulting from the shift of a conquering eastern group over an older ethnic substratum, with related overlapping of religious ideas. No deep relationship there was therefore between them, as the case of the Apis bull and the god Ptah Actually, work started in November 1850, but 12 November 1851 is the date of the discovery of the entrance of the so-called ‘Greater Vaults’, i.e., a section of the underground burial system excavated for the Apis bull (see infra § 5.1). 31 The other on was represented by the thousands of animal mummies looted and variously reused as souvenirs for tourists, fuel for engines, fertiliser in agriculture, and remedy in traditional medicine. See Ikram 2005: 1. 32 Strabo, Geog. XVII 1, 32. 33 The basic account of the discovery is that of Mariette himself (1856; 1882). Today however it is known that he was not the first person to enter the monumental galleries of the Serapeum nor the first scholar to correctly suggest its localisation, though he was certainly the first to undertake a systematic exploration of the site. Dodson 2000; Lauer 1961; Malek 1983; Marković 2015. 34 Wiedemann 1889; 1905; 1912. 35 Hopfner 1913; Zimmermann 1912. 36 Strabo, Geog. XVII 1, 22. A third class of Fetischtiere kept in houses for private cult was also postulated. 30

7

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt would show, but the ancient animal-gods was reinterpreted as the incarnation-specimens of the new anthropomorphic deities, while the sakrosante Tiere were venerated as conspecifics of the single temple-individual. While Wiedemann’s interpretation remained influential in its fundamental distinction of the two classes of sacred animals, other general works more strongly reinforced the view of ‘animal worship’ as a discrete unit within a linear development. It is especially in the work of Gustave Jequier that the animistic and evolutionary ideas promoted by Edward B. Tylor found their best Egyptological formulation.37 Set in a general framework in which religious and social forms match each other according to a precise tripartite scheme (fetishism/nomadism; zoolatry/sedentism; anthropomorphism/urbanism), ‘animal worship’ is reduced to a necessary and temporary stage toward the mature polytheism of urban complex societies, only surviving in full historical times as a secondary and socially peripheral fact. A differently articulated ethnographic perspective on the topic can be recognised in two seminal studies on the Egyptian religion which, though proceeding from different theoretical and methodological bases, refuted and challenged an overall evolutionary understanding. Herman Kees’ Götterglaube im Alten Ägypten 38 produced a valuable accumulation of religious material and a lucid exposition which, following the trend of studies inaugurated by Adolf Erman in Germany,39 avoided the systematisations of animism and totemism and only trusted the first-hand data provided by the Egyptian textual and visual sources. The result was a ‘positivist concentration on the “concrete” (das “Tatsätliche”), on the immediate facts of Egyptian beliefs’,40 with a detailed geographical presentation of all main aspects characterising local cults (animals, plants, cultic items, and full anthropomorphic deities).41 This approach (Kulttopographie) removed ‘animal worship’ from the isolation it was placed in by evolutionary interpretation and made it into a part of a wider religious panorama, which gained its meaning from its deep connection with a precise locality. Likewise, Eberhard Otto focused on bull cults trying to explain their original role as a manifestation of local powers related to ideas of fertility and supremacy and fixed to individual cult places.42 On the other hand, Henri Frankfort took on a strong anthropological orientation and was greatly influenced by the phenomenology of religions. He contended that Kees and his followers assumed ‘a scientist’s rather than a scholar’s attitude’ that brought them to ‘deny – explicitly or by implication – that one can speak of Egyptian religion as such’.43 Instead, he intended to discover the ‘unity in the domain of the spirit’ behind the variety of temporal and geographical expressions , and look for ‘those trends and qualities that seem to have shaped the character of Egyptian religion as a whole’, concluding that ‘[b]efore tracing the history we should establish the identity of Egyptian religion’.44 Departing from the modern logical thought, Frankfort claimed that the ancient Egyptian mythopoeic thought worked according to what he defined as ‘multiplicity of approaches’, thus admitting a combination of different viewpoints that were held simultaneously valid and not mutually exclusive.45 The mechanism was especially productive in the conceptualisation of Jequier 1946: 14-25. Kees 1956 (1941). 39 Erman’s approach, programmatically outlined at the beginning of his exposition on the Egyptian religion (1907: viii), was very influential over the following generation of German Egyptologist: ‘I considered it advisable to present this sketch of Egyptian Religion as it appears to an unprejudiced observer, who knows nothing of the theories of the modern science of religions; the reader will here find nothing of animism, or fetishism, of chthonic deities, nor yet of medicine men. The facts should first be established and without prejudice, before we attempt to fit them into a scientific system’. 40 Hornung 1982: 24. 41 Kees 1956: 1-118. 42 Otto 1964 (1938), especially, pp. 1-11. 43 Frankfort 1948a: vi. 44 Frankfort 1948a: vii, viii. 45 Frankfort 1948a: 3-4. 37 38

8

Introducing Animal Worship religious phenomena and divine agency, and animals played a central role in this regard. As a consequence, animal cults were not a marginal product nor the survival of a primitive stratum but an essential, structural aspect of Egyptian religion. Frankfort explained that ‘animals as such possessed religious significance for the Egyptians’, and, drawing on the phenomenological notion of the numinous as ganz Andere developed by Rudolph Otto,46 identified the key reason behind this peculiar attitude in ‘a religious interpretation of the animals’ otherness’.47 The Egyptian mind would have recognised this otherness in the static mode of life of the animal world participating in the unchangeable fixed order of the whole cosmos, and accordingly interpreted it as a manifestation of their super-human, divine nature.48 In his Kingship and the God, the scholar framed these ideas within a structural perspective, distinguishing three major domains of divine manifestation: the sun (as the power of creation), the earth (as the power of regeneration), and the cattle (as the power of procreation).49 Expanding the latter point through ethnographic comparison with the African ‘cattle complex, the Dutch scholar gave an informed explanation for the outstanding importance of the bull cults in their connection with social institutions (kingship) and theological constructions.50 Despite such valuable premises, marked by a severe rigour in the acquisition of data and by a fruitful collaboration with the anthropological and historical-religious studies, at the mid of the 20th century ‘animal worship’ was quickly set aside as a secondary, marginal phenomenon. Under the leading influence of evolutionism, and informed by a teleological perspective that sees religious development as a progressive route from simple animistic forms to the higher experience of transcendence in monotheistic religions, ‘animal worship’ was more easily understood as a primitive stage in Egyptian religion that only survived in historical times as a practice of lower social classes, and exploded in the Late Period as an indicator of cultural crisis. This line of interpretation is exemplarily illustrated by Hans Bonnet, whose entry ‘Tierkult’ in his Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte summarises and represents the official Egyptological position, focusing on two crucial aspects: (1) the origins and development of the phenomenon and (2) the status of the animals involved.51 Concerning the historical dimension, he notes that theriomorphism ‘vermag doch nur dem primitiven Empfinden, aus dem sie erwachsen ist, zu genügen. Der Ägypter drängte jedenfalls früh über sie hinaus. Das zeigt die Vermenschlichung der Gottesbilder, die um die Wende zur geschichtlichen Zeit anhebt’: on the other hand, ‘[s]o vollzieht sich im Laufe des N.R. allmählich (…) eine Wendung zum T(ierkult), die der Zurückhaltung, die wir die offizielle Rel. üben sahen, zu widersprechen scheint. Sie ist in der Tat nicht von dieser ausgegangen (…) sie gründet im Glauben des Volkes. Dieser trägt ja immer eine starke Kraft des Beharrens in sich und bleibt gern Vorstellungen verhaftet, die einer Frühschicht angehören’.52 As for the religious meaning of the so-called ‘sacred animals’, Bonnet identifies their difference with other cult objects in that ‘haben die heiligen Tiere den sonstigen Kultobjekten gegenüber doch einen eigenen Charakter. Sie tragen Leben und Empfindung in sich’. Yet, it is exactly their nature of living creatures that represents to him a degrading element because ‘[i]n Wirklichkeit ist die Reinheit der Gottesvorstellung gerade durch die Beseeltheit des Kultobjektes bedroht. Denn um ihretwillen kann sich dieses dem schlichten Frommen nur allzu leicht an die Stelle des Gottesbildes selbst schieben, so daß er nicht mehr diesen im Bild des Tieres, sondern das Tier selbst verehrt. Dieses Absinken in einen reinen, das Tier vergottenden T(ierkult) ist unvermeidlich und allen Zeiten zu eigen’. 53 Otto 1917. Frankfort 1948a: 12-13. 48 Frankfort 1948a: 13-14. 49 Frankfort 1948b: 145-147. 50 Frankfort 1948b: 162-168. 51 Bonnet 1952. 52 Bonnet 1952: 812, 816. 53 Bonnet 1952: 813. 46 47

9

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Overall, in the Egyptological perspective outlined by Bonnet, ‘animal worship’ came to be strictly revised and disregarded both historically, as a degeneration (Entartung) of traditional religion,54 and socially, as a domain of popular religiosity that was excluded from official theology and naively confused the high divine agencies with their animal manifestations.55 A major turn in the approach to the problem has been generated by the work of three German scholars, who have inaugurated a seminal interpretive strategy – one might call it the Abbild-These – that has greatly contributed to the modern understanding of ancient Egyptian religion. They are Siegfried Morenz, Erik Hornung, and Jan Assmann. Siegfried Morenz set ‘animal worship’ against a wider discussion on the essence of Egyptian religion, which was still the core matter of contemporary Egyptological debate. He aimed to ‘see Egyptian religion as the faith of the Egyptian people’ and to grasp, behind the profusion of manifestations ‘man’s relationship with God’, observing ‘the historical tendency to transcendence in all their deities’. In this perspective, theologically motivated and still informed by evolutionary ideas of religious development as an unescapable movement toward a transcendent conception of the divine, ‘animal worship’ with its late peak became something that needed to be fully explained. Accordingly, if ‘animal worship’ (Tierkult) can be intuitively defined as ‘die Verehrung des Tieres als Gottheit’, he noted that ‘[w]o Gott Gestalt annimmt (…) legt sich daher Verkörperung im T.(ier) nahe, weil hier zugleich Gestalt und numinose Andersartigkeit gegeben sind’. The key notions of his argument are Verkörperung (‘incarnation’) e Gestalt (‘form’): it is the incarnation of the divine power that allows the relationship between man and god and, on the other hand, this embodiment only concerns the exterior form of a deity, not his/her essential nature, while the animal appearance only provides one amongst various possibilities. In this regard, Morenz is explicit in remarking that ‘es sich stets um eine Verehrung der Gottheit handelte, die im T.(ier), offenbar als der angemessen lebendigen und zugleich fremdartig-numinosen Form begegnet’. The animal form, just like a cult image, served as a representation, an effective sign referring to a distinct divine person that deserved full devotion, while theological expressions like wHm and bA articulated the relationship between the tangible animal and the invisible superior entity addressed. For Morenz, therefore, Egyptian ‘animal worship’ had to be properly understood as the adoration of a high god through a living medium: ‘die Ägypter haben nicht Bilder und Tiere, sondern Götter verehrt!’ is the position defended in a brief contribution and reaffirmed in his study on the transcendence. The German scholar established a semiotic approach to the phenomenon in which the distinction between the (animal) sign and the (divine) object that the former represents (in the double meaning of ‘being in place of ’ and ‘making present’) allowed to reconcile it with his crucial idea of an irreducible historical tendency to transcendence. Erik Hornung took over and expanded this line of interpretation. His influential synthesis on Egyptian religion (1983 [1971]) questioned earlier theologically-driven studies and focused on Egyptian gods as ‘necessary objects of an inquiry that does not ask about their existence, their essence, or their value, but about their appearance and their meaning for believers (…)’.56 Image is the key to interpret the multiform world of the gods and their representations. In this perspective, zoomorphism, hybridism, and anthropomorphism are all different but complementary modes of illustrating and making visible the divine to mankind, though the mixed form emerged as the privileged type. Nonetheless, all such representations should not be interpreted as ‘illustrations or descriptions of appearances, but rather as allusions to essential parts of the nature and function of deities’, in brief as ‘pictorial signs that convey meaning in a metalanguage’.57 A deity could be

Bonnet 1952: 820-821: ‘So zieht das Aufblühen des T(ierkult) zugleich eine Entartung nach sich’. Bonnet 1952: 813, 816. 56 Hornung 1983: 31. 57 Hornung 1983: 114, 117. Cf Frankfort 1948a: 12. 54 55

10

Introducing Animal Worship present in any of these signs, whether animate or inanimate (animals, plants, objects), but his/her true essence remained hidden.58 Like Morenz, Hornung explained the relationship between living animals and gods in the light of the New Kingdom/Late Period theology, according to which the former acted as the physical support and manifestation of the latter. Moreover, he distinguished the worship of a single specimen (like the Apis bull) from that of a whole species, for which one could properly speak of ‘animal cults’. He considered them in keeping with the typical Egyptian tendency to multiply visible images in order to make a god closer to and more accessible for the believers, noting however that as such ‘[a]nimal cults are therefore part of a popular piety, and (…) their logical extension, which was not put into practice before the late period, teaches us a misunderstanding rather than a genuine comprehension of the Egyptian conception of god. (…) For simple worshippers image and deity may merge, (…) but the theology of the priests always distinguishes carefully, in formulations that vary from period to period, between animal and deity’.59 As a symbolic sign, the sacred animal participated in a sophisticated priestly discourse, but religious practice rested upon popular false impressions. In a second brief essay specifically focused on the meaning of the animal form (1992 [1985]), Hornung insisted on the extensive exploitation of animals in Egyptian religion, both as living creatures and images, to inform about the nature and roles of the gods. The late ‘animal cults’ perfectly exemplify such a tendency, with whole species acting as intermediaries with the divine realms, especially through the widespread practice of mummification. The striking number of animal mummies has, for the scholar, the same value as the many votive bronzes of the time, since both were intended to materialise divine presence and proximity. In this perspective, animals showed an extraordinary religious intensity with a vast range of realisations: in the elaborate theological speculations, in the rich works of art, in the dramatic reality of the burials, they continuously referred to the higher sphere of the gods, thus expanding the possibilities to imagine and approach what they really are and do. Finally, Jan Assmann has included some valuable comments on ‘animal worship’ in his general discussion on Egyptian religious thought and history. In a seminal study on theological discourse (2001 [1984]), drawing mainly on late textual sources, he built a polished Theorie des Kultbildes on the critical concept of ‘installation’ or ‘indwelling’ (Einwohnung).60 The notion allows conceptualising that active, performative character of the divine presence within the local cultic dimension of the temple statue which the texts condensed in the idea of bA. Accordingly, ‘[t]he gods do not “dwell” on earth, which would merely be a condition; rather, they “install” themselves there, and specifically, they “install” themselves in their images: this is an event that occurs regularly and repeatedly, but with the collaboration of humankind, on whom the cult is dependent’.61 The distinction god/image, already outlined by Morenz, remains but, in the god’s ability to ‘indwell’ and take on a visible form, Assmann grasps the fundamental theological nexus the Egyptian texts established between the two poles: ‘[t]he statue is not the image of the deity’s body, but the body itself. It does not represent his form, but rather gives him form. The deity takes form in the statue, just as in a sacred animal or a natural phenomenon’.62 Despite introducing the animal form, Assmann does not pursue this point further, but returns on it more diffusely in his monumental Sinngeschichte (2002 [1996]), which explores the net of semantic and mnemonic strategies through which the Egyptians organised and gave meaning to their past. In this perspective, the German scholar sees ‘animal worship’ as a long ‘secondary’ phenomenon of Hornung 1983: 124-125. Hornung 1983: 137. 60 Assmann 2001: 40-47. 61 Assmann 2001: 43. 62 Assmann 2001: 46. 58 59

11

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Egyptian religious panorama that only in Graeco-Roman times, especially thanks to the initiatives promoted by the Ptolemies, acquired a prominent position in the domain of official theology (and stronger visibility in the textual record) becoming, together with temple architecture and divine images, one of the three core areas of royal action.63 Assmann emphasises two basic points: first, he interprets ‘animal worship’ as having a ‘triangular base’ (living incarnation; solar/ cosmic manifestation; transfigured immortalisation) and being structurally akin to the royal cult. Secondly, he resumes and develops the discussion on the earthly manifestations of the divine. This can be realised in two ways, namely as ‘installation’ (Einwohnung) in monumental images (statues, reliefs, and even monumental buildings) and ‘incarnation’ (Inkarnation) in the person of the king or in living animals like the Apis bull or the falcon of Edfu, in which case a god ‘embodied himself in a sacred animal recognizable as such by the priest because of its form and coloring’.64 By means of this double mechanism, Assmann concludes, ‘the divine engaged in a very profound contact with the human world (…) to sustain it. The influx of divine presence takes form of an energy that animates the statues and becomes flesh in the sacred animals’.65 Though explicitly limited to the later stage of Egyptian history, Assmann’s interpretation has the advantage of framing the standard Abbild-These within a context of ritual performance: it is the regular repetition of cult activities that ensures the maintenance of humans’ relationship with a deity and its multiple tangible forms, but such a beneficial exchange is only possible within the secluded and protected space of the temple. The ideas of Morenz, Hornung, and Assmann have thus shaped a powerful intellectual strategy to address the issues of ‘animal worship’: (1) conceptually, it can be aligned with other aspects of Egyptian belief and be related to the official theological discourse which, with the bA-doctrine, ratifies the ontological distinction between the hidden deity and the animal form as a visible and temporary manifestation of that higher power; (2) historically, the phenomenon in its full-fledged form only becomes significant in later times as part of an institutional programme of politicalcultural enhancement carried out through the intensification of symbolic forms and cult practices; (3) socially, the identification of animal and god (i.e., of the sign with its object) and the following popular veneration paid to living creatures represent a misunderstanding of common people, who are not able to make the distinction between the two levels. The impact of this model in the study of Egyptian religion can hardly be overlooked when one considers its quick and effective adoption in scholarly literature, with the result that it has allowed removing or, at best, reducing discussion on ‘animal worship’ in its factual reality.66 One cannot fail to note, in this regard, that ‘animal worship’ does not feature in modern reconstructions as an object of analysis per se, but always – when not completely avoided – as a brief mention within a broader presentation of Egyptian conceptions and representations of the gods. It fits a recurrent pattern according to which, just to give an example, the animal form matters as a divine icon, of which the consistency (‘the bestiary present in the divine iconography was extremely coherent’) and the rationale underlying various visual solutions (‘As for the combination of human and animal into a single figure (…) a double representation of a god under two different species enriched the approach’) are positively emphasised, while practice is only rapidly alluded to (‘The livestock farming that was intensively developed at temples with the last native dynasties presents a borderline situation’).67 These observations do not imply that ‘animal worship’ has not aroused interest and debate within Egyptology. Works and studies have been consecrated to and have greatly expanded our knowledge Assmann 2002: 374-375. Assmann 2002: 407. 65 Assmann 2002: 408. 66 Fitzenreiter 2003: 252-254 with references. 67 Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 17, 19, 21. 63 64

12

Introducing Animal Worship of individual cases, specific classes of evidence, and distinctive aspects. Yet, when confronted with historical-religious interpretation, scholars stick to the strategies and opinions so far examined to the extent that discussion is reduced to the symbolic association between the animal form and the divine entity concealed behind it. A full reappraisal of the topic has been carried out by Dieter Kessler since the end of the past century. On the basis of his investigation of the animal necropolis at Tuna el-Gebel, he has been working to revise the Egyptological communis opinio, which he considers flawed and imprecise.68 His research focuses on the established tradition of animal necropolises of the Late and GraecoRoman periods and, as the title of his monumental study makes clear, is especially concerned about the administration supporting the breeding and burial of sacred animals, but also draws important conclusions on the cultic and theological aspects of the phenomenon.69 The central thesis is that the development and multiplication of animal cemeteries, with their related institutions and practices, were carefully planned and controlled by the central state, and were related to the sphere of royal ideology. First of all, Kessler argues against some recurrent Egyptological ideas, namely that: (1) ‘animal worship’ was a form of popular devotion typical of the lower classes; (2) its expansion resulted from the crisis of the official religion and from the experience of foreign political dominations that Egypt went through in the 1st millennium BC, as a form of nationalistic reaction to that pressure; (3) there was an actual distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘divine’ animals as improperly deduced from Classical sources (in primis Strabo, Geog. XVII 1, 22); (4) all sacred animals were understood as permanent bA-manifestations of a god.70 These points are variously addressed in the central part of the study, which discusses the main known funerary contexts (Bubastis, Mendes, Saqqara, Tuna el-Gebel, etc.) in relation to the associated animal figures and on the basis of papyrological and material evidence. In each case, Kessler develops analysis along the two tracks of the administrative and ideological functioning of the cults, emphasising the role of kingship at the expanse of the popular dimension. In the end, Kessler reconfigures late Egyptian ‘animal worship’ as an institution that depended, in terms of both organisation and theology, from the central state and specifically from the funerary royal temple.71 Animal burials and cemeteries belonged to the domain of royal and temple cults and were thus integrated within an official, state-run religious context, serving as sacred places where the cyclical rejuvenation of the high god (Hochgott) was ritually performed during yearly festivals in combination with the renovation of kingship. Administratively, these cults were installed, sponsored, and regulated by the state in a centrally-ordered nomos area, and were maintained by formally recognised and hierarchically structured cultic associations that limited access to sacred spaces and to ritual actions, thus removing personal piety and diffuse popular participation from interpretation. Theologically, sacred animals, both living and dead, were only a temporary bAform of a great god within a cycle of transformations that were ritually enacted at festive events to ensure the continuous process of rebirth of deities and kings.72 Kessler’s attempt to build a different framework for ‘animal worship’ has been differently received in Egyptology, and raises some issues.73 His analysis programmatically revolves around documentary Greek and Demotic sources rather than iconographic or purely religious evidence, thus placing kingship and the state at the centre of discussion. Accordingly, he opposes the view of the phenomenon as bound to the official sphere of cult against the low, ‘popular’ characterisation given in earlier studies. In this, Kessler hits a critical point, though he seems to push it too far and just turn the situation around in terms of social interpretation (from common people to kings Kessler 1986; 1989; 2003; 2017-2018; Kessler and Nur el-Din 2005; von den Driesch et al. 2005. Kessler 1989. Kessler 1986: 3-15. 71 Kessler 1986: 253-255. 72 Kessler 1986: 291-303. 73 For reviews of his work, see Hornung 1993; de Meulenare 1996; Van Rinsveld 1996. 68 69 70

13

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt and priests).74 Hornung, however, warns against such ‘apodiktische Feststellungen’ and remarks how late magical texts (Zaubertexten) and Ramesside ‘animal stelae’ (Tierstelen) invite us to a more balanced understanding.75 Moreover, while questioning traditional categories, the conceptual framework proposed by the author to clarify the religious status and function of the animals involved (especially the crucial terms Festgeschehen and Festzyklus) remains vaguely defined and poorly explained. On the other hand, his focused approach to the archaeological and documentary reality of late Egyptian animal necropolises has restored an extremely vibrant picture of how diffuse and rooted the phenomenon was throughout the country, a fact indicative per se of its historical-religious significance, thus turning attention to the material qualities and practical dimension, not just to the ideological expressions, of ‘animal worship’. In the past decades, the recovery of systematic excavations at strategic sites (North Saqqara; Mendes; Tuna el-Gebel), with the improved publication of texts and materials, the extending of archaeological activities to new, promising sites, the development of wide interdisciplinary research programmes have been marking a strong renewal of scientific interest in ‘animal worship’ in general, and its most apparent aspect, animal cemeteries and burial practices, in particular. Yet, religious discussion and historical reconstruction continue to be largely informed by the interpretive models examined so far or by more intuitive strategies, though with a growing concern for methodological refinement, conceptual framework, and historical perspective. Two recent initiatives stand out in this regard, as especially keen toward these aspects. The monumental Bestiaire des Pharaons compiled by Pascal Vernus and Jean Yoyotte combines the French encyclopedic tradition, with a solid semiotic approach and religious phenomenology in order to map and characterise the full spectrum of animal presences within pharaonic civilisation.76 The unifying viewpoint is that ‘la faune si riche et si variée (…) les anciens Égyptiens l’ont exploitée dans leur immaginaire non seulement avec une capacité d’observation poussée, mas aussi (…) avec le souci impérieux de lui donner sens à l’intèrieur d’une vision d’ensemble du monde’.77 In this perspective, ‘animal worship’ represents one of multiple fields in which the experience of ‘les animeaux dans la religion égyptienne’78 is organised in terms of integration of the animal form within a system of religious signs referring to the divine sphere, as part of a wider process of cultural and symbolic semiotisation (construction of sense) of the animal world.79 Martin Fitzenreiter has devoted great efforts to set the lack of concern for ‘animal worship’ in the traditional presentation of Egyptian religion against a critical assessment of how that area of study has been shaped within Egyptology, identifying three main shortcomings in the methodology.80 A first point concerns the strong influence exerted by the ancient literary tradition, and especially by the biblical model, not just in (de)selecting and (de)valuating certain themes but also in building a cultural grid and a broad narrative strategy for the presentation of Egyptian religion. Secondly, there is the underlying westerner idea – again conditioned by a Jewish-Christian background and rarely discussed in explicit terms – of religion as belief system and discourse about (transcendent) god(s), sometimes joint with a more or less implicit evolutionary and teleological understanding (cf. supra). Accordingly, ancient religion is preferably approached via textual sources, as a privileged way of access to Egyptian ideas and conceptions, with the result that only limited importance is assigned to material culture, and that too often later texts are used to interpret earlier allegedly ‘mute’ evidence, thus assuming a substantial temporal uniformity in religious facts and reiterating the cliché of an ‘immutable Egypt’. See Kessler 1986: 295, 299. Hornung 1993: 22-23. See however Kessler 76 Vernus and Yoyotte 2005. 77 Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 13. 78 Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 20-49. 79 The other large domains in which animal presence is culturally articulated include literature, writing and language. See Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 50-61, 62-75, 76-93. 80 Fitzenreiter 2003a; 2003b; 2004. 74 75

14

Introducing Animal Worship A firmer understanding, according to Fitzenreiter, should be built upon a theoretical approach that looks at ‘practical religion’ rather than at theological speculation and discursive formulations, thus expanding the range of what religion is, and that programmatically integrates archaeology and material evidence in the interpretive process. In this perspective, he has rightly characterised ‘animal worship’ as ‘ein Begleitmotiv ägyptischer religiöser Praxis’81 of which both chronological depth and cultic variability should be properly recognised, emphasising the plurality of cultic forms in which a living or dead animal presence is made religiously significant.82 His recent synthesis on Egyptian animal cults (Tierkulte) develops these points in a broad historical and critical perspective.83 It is – in the words of the author – ‘der Versuch, eine kulturwissenschaftlicharchäologische Perspektive bei der Beschreibung der Religion einer längst vergangenen Gesellschaft einzunehmen’,84 and offers an updated and complete overview of the topic, based on a wider range of sources than just texts, and accordingly aimed at producing a more complex and integrated account on the cultic, historical, and social complexity of the phenomenon. The present study draws on this stimulating perspective – ‘animal worship’ as a field of religious practice (Praxis) – and moves along a similar line of investigation, though with a stronger theoretical concern and a restricted chronological focus. 1.3.3 Animal worship: the ‘Standard Model’ At the end of this review, in the light of the fundamental observations made by Fitzenreiter and summarised above, it becomes possible to appreciate how ‘animal worship’ has been confined to a marginal position (Grenzegebiet) in the scholarly agenda and reconstruction of ancient Egyptian religion. In the dominant Egyptological perspective, (1) literary tradition, (2) textual/philological concerns, and (3) Western conceptual framework design a biased intellectual approach, both in the nomenclature to which most scholars cling with no critical assessment and in the descending assumptions about religious development (and decline) that still restrain many studies. The idea that historical interpretation, especially about broad religious themes, might be informed by assumptions tends to be (consciously or unconsciously) discounted. This becomes apparent when one looks at how the tripartite pattern just mentioned works on the modern understanding of ‘animal worship’ as ‘die Verehrung des Tieres als Gottheit’ – to use Morenz’s words:85 1. Literary tradition > prompt reception and incorporation of the Classical/Biblical idea of the Egyptians honouring animals as gods into the Egyptological definition. One can compare, just to give an example of such a tendency, Morenz’s formulation with Plutarch’s statement about the Egyptians ‘venerating the animals themselves and treating them as gods’ (therapèuontes autà ta zòa kai perièpontes os theoùs).86 2. Textual approach > focused attention on the New Kingdom and later attestations of the bApredication and theology as the only source and frame of explanation. 3. Western categorisation of religion as ‘belief in god(s)’ > discussion restricted to what accidental animal forms can symbolically say about the gods, their roles, and essence. The issue, of course, lies not in the definition itself, which, as it will be shown below, might be as useful as any others, but in how it has been constructed and characterised as well as in how it serves historical analysis. In this regard, the notion of ‘animal worship’ has been developed as a recurrent but inconsistent category, which remains subject to preconceptions and generalisations. As a consequence, we can identify an Egyptological ‘Standard Model’ (Figure 1.1.; Table 1.1) that Fitzenreiter 2003a: 12. Fitzenreiter 2003a: 13-14. Fitzenreiter 2013a. 84 Fitzenreiter 2013a: 11. 85 After Morenz 1962a: 896. 86 Plut., De Is. et Os. 20 (359 B). 81 82 83

15

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Figure 1.1. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the Egyptological ‘Standard Model’ of Egyptian ‘animal worship’.

(re)constructs the historical-religious significance of ‘animal worship’ mainly in terms of visual metaphor symbolising individual divine powers, while its articulation as living practice remains generally underestimated or poorly described.87 The term ‘model’ is evidently intended here as a catchy word to define not a systematic approach but a regular interpretive strategy or pattern, easily recognised in literature, which tends to positively emphasise certain aspects (left column) over others (right column), ultimately reproducing that polarisation between theological discourse and ritual practice already discussed in relation to Classical literary sources (supra § 1.3.1). Looking at the table below, two further considerations can be drawn. First, there is the reluctance to deal with certain tangible, physical manifestations of the divine. The identification of a living animal as a god-like being cannot but result from a conceptual mistake of the simple believer, unable to distinguish (unlike the educated priests) between visible forms end invisible deities.88 Rather, it will be shown that the misunderstanding lies in the application of the modern western category of ‘god’ (with all its cultural and theological background) to the flexible Egyptian notion of nTr.

Content Time Mode Agent Significance

Animal Worship and Egyptian Religion + Symbolism (zoomorphic/mixed forms) Ritual actions (mainly burials) Full pharaonic times Prehistory/Late period Theological discourse Popular veneration Priestly élite Common people Conceptualisation of gods Religious practice

Table 1.1. ‘Animal worship’ and Egyptian religion according to the ‘Standard Model’.

A second consideration concerns the temporal dimension. The ‘Standard Model’ basically attaches ‘animal worship’ to the two chronological ends of Prehistory and the Late/Graeco-Roman periods with no real diachronic depth (Figure 1.2). Thus, for Lázlo Kákosy, while the veneration of animals is one of the earliest aspects of Egyptian religion, ‘hatten die Tiere im religiösen Leben und Kult im See Colonna 2017. The statement, of course, refers to the general understanding of the phenomenon and not to the treatments of its later manifestations and multiple contexts, for which detailed studies and overview are available 88 See Hornung 1983: 137. 87

16

Introducing Animal Worship AR und MR keine zentrale Rolle gewonnen’ until the New Kingdom foundation of Serapeum under Amenhotep III.89 He shares this opinion with Smelik and Hemelrijk, according to whom ‘animal worship disappeared in the historical periods and did not reappear until the New Kingdom’,90 while Alan Lloyd speaks of ‘occasional glimpses through much of Eg(yptian) History, until the great upsurge of popular worship in the L(ate) P(eriod) brought it conspicuously to the fore’.91 Despite the factual remark on the increased visibility of the phenomenon in the final stages of Egyptian history, in all these cases the historical issue remains disregarded on behalf of discontinuous and disconnected representation of its development – one might also incidentally note the straight connection linking the ideas of ‘great upsurge’ and ‘popular worship’ in the same sentence –, with a substantial ratification, in Lloyd’s assessment as a ‘retrograde movement’, of the anti-historical, negative view already expressed by Hans Bonnet.92 Thus, the Egyptological ‘Standard Model’ on ‘animal worship’ reveals two major shortcomings that severely limits the possibility to produce a broad synthesis and a well-structured interpretation, beyond individual cases:93 1. Lack of theoretical framework, resulting in definitions or descriptions that continue to rely, intrinsically and often uncritically, on literary paradigms of Classical/Biblical origin, and to maintain more or less accentuated t(h)e(le)ological undertones. No heuristic category can be built this way. 2. Lack of historical perspective, resulting in a simplistic appraisal of the phenomenon and its configurations in terms of both religious practice (= animal burials), social diffusion (= popular religiosity), and chronological articulation (= Late Period).

Figure 1.2. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Standard Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 1. Kákosy 1977: 662. Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1863. 91 Lloyd 1976, 293. 92 Lloyd 1976, 293. 93 See Colonna 2017: 108. 89 90

17

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt 1.4 Theory and methodology In order to redress the imbalance, the present study identifies (1) in the construction of an explicit conceptual framework, and (2) in the historical-religious perspective of the so-called ‘Italian School of History of Religions’ – particularly refined through the intellectual efforts of Raffaele Pettazzoni and Angelo Brelich –94 a methodological shift that may indicate a different, more productive way of understanding ‘animal worship’, allowing us to (re)phrase and (re)assess ancient (‘emic’) ideas and actions in modern (‘etic’) terms and categories without dismissing their historical and practical dimension. In the debate around ancient Egyptian ‘animal worship’, just like for any other religious topic, two types of problems combine – one methodological, the other historical – related respectively to the critical assessment of the notion at play and to the range of manifestations to which it may apply, as they can be recovered from textual and archaeological sources. Theoretically, it is argued that explicitly designed approaches and interpretive patterns together with critically defined concepts strengthen interpretation and are as useful as required when attempting wider synthesis. Terminological discussion sets up a discursive arena for delimiting the object of inquiry and reflecting upon its conceptualisation by providing a focus for analysis. Practice and display are here proposed as key concepts providing that focus. Besides, theoretical frameworks help modelling patterns and gaps in the available sources, connecting data in meaningful ways, and countering (at least in part) the inevitable limitations due to the partial and scattered distribution of the archaeological record. Historically, the approach suggested moves from the essential consideration that that ‘every phainomenon is a genomenon, each apparition presupposes a formation, and behind every event there is a process of development’.95 Against religious phenomenology that describes and classifies religious forms horizontally as rooted in the unifying numinous experience of ‘the sacred’ (the latter conceived as an objectified autonomous reality) 96, the historical-religious method considers these facts as historical formations placed in time and space and belonging to given cultural milieux. Accordingly, rather than looking at ‘animal worship’ as an odd later phenomenon, the survival of prehistoric times surfacing abruptly and massively in times of crisis under the pressure of popular devotion, it should be regarded as a cultural-historical product of human creativity possessing its unique qualities, concrete expressions, and line of development that need to be analysed both contextually and diachronically. 1.4.1 The problem of a definition and the definition of a problem A central issue, therefore, concerns terminology i.e., the definition of the concept, the attached meaning, and ultimately the very possibility of its use as a heuristic category. On this point, one might note a certain ambiguity both at the general level of Religionswissenschaft and specifically in the field of Egyptology. In modern religious studies the notion of ‘animal worship’ usually recurs in relation to ethnographic or prehistoric contexts while the Egyptian case is incidentally mentioned as an outstanding historical example, remarkable for its rich documentation.97 On the other hand, the conceptual inadequacy and the ethnocentric connotation of the term are often highlighted.

A valuable presentation of the key theoretical and methodological aspects of the School and of its main representatives is given by Massenzio 2005. 95 Pettazzoni 1959: 10. 96 Otto 1917. 97 Fitzenretiter 2003b: 230-235. 94

18

Introducing Animal Worship In Egyptological literature, labels such as ‘zoolatry’, ‘animal worship/cult/veneration’ are widely used, though with not much consistency, and it is only in recent years that research has shown a keener attention to the problems raised by the related concepts (origin and development; semantic shifts and changes in their use).98 The point is especially addressed in German scholarship. On the one hand, Dieter Kessler claims that ‘Tierverehrung und Tierkult sind (…) eigentlich unzutreffende und unscharfe ägyptologische Schlagworte, besonders wenn sie dazu dienen sollen, einen angeblich bodenständigen Teil einer altägyptischen Religiosität ein- und abzugrenzen’.99 On the other hand, as Martin Fitzenreiter points out, the notion of ‘animal worship ‘sehr (…) sinnvoll ist, die Spezifität der kultischen Behandlung von Tieren in Ägypten mit einem Schlagwort zu belegen, so problematisch ist es, diese auf eine oder zwei besonders prägnante Erscheinungsformen zu reduzieren’.100 In this respect, two aspects, strictly interlaced, require closer consideration: (1) the current term of ‘animal worship’ is not a neutral designation but, quite the opposite, is packed with a whole range of underlying nuances and implications that still affect its definition; (2) accordingly, it is imperative, from an operational viewpoint, to maintain a distinction between (a) the analysis of the employs of the concept as indicators of the history of the attitudes and interpretations in modern research and (b) the assessment of its heuristic value. In this case, one must reconsider the terms of discussion inasmuch as, at the level of definition, the only decisive criterion in the formulation and application of any conceptual category concerns its efficacy as an analytical tool for classifying, organising, and communicating data. The acknowledgement of these two levels (history and legitimacy of the concept) is particularly helpful in exposing that process of semantic stratification which has more and more connoted the notion at issue. Thus, it appears – and it is all the more evident in view of the lack of a specific Egyptian term that would facilitate discussion – that the very idea of an Egyptian ‘animal worship’ is the historical product of Western culture, which has been shaped and articulated under the original and powerful influence of the Classical and Biblical tradition. Such an obvious remark, however, descends from an important methodological premise that is often neglected i.e., the need to remember that the definitions we use do not correspond to universal, invariable ontological categories, but are circumstantial constructs resulting from (and reflecting) a whole series of mutable cultural patterns, ideological frameworks, and conceptual schemes. In brief, notions themselves have a history, which we can follow through the precise intellectual strategies adopted in scholarly literature. ‘Animal worship’ is no exception in this regard: it is not a determinate concept with a fixed meaning, but one that has been variously constituted and reconstituted within our European intellectual tradition. In the notion of ‘animal worship’, as it has been developed as an object first of kulturalle Gedächtnis and then of scientific enquiry, different paradigms have converged and combined: polemic (as a category of otherness and cultural condemnation), anthropologic-evolutionary (as a discrete stage or structural aspect of religious formation), semiotic-symbolic (as a sign in the conceptualisation of the divine).101 We must be aware, of course, of this historical legacy if we want to avoid the risk of projecting (consciously or unconsciously) our (pre)conceptions (or even values) onto the notion and use it as an operable tool for analysis. Thus, turning to the heuristic efficacy of the concept, it is worth reminding some valuable indications of method provided by Angelo Brelich about the construction and application of historical-religious categories, which will allow us to move beyond intuitive definitions or purely abstract formulations. Brelich correctly states that the definition of a religious phenomenon

Bonnet 1952; Fitzenreiter 2003a; 2003b; 2013; Kessler 1986; 2003; Morenz 1962a. Kessler 2003: 36. 100 Fitzenreiter 2003: 12-13. 101 See also Fitzenreiter 2013a: 189-193, who suggests a slightly different articulation, identifying three main Egyptological patterns: ‘die evolutionische, die ethnologische, und semiotische’. 98 99

19

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt cannot be given a priori and more geometrico but should be built a posteriori and progressively, on the basis of documented facts: [I]n campo storico campo storico (…) una definizione aprioristica, più o meno precisa, è perfettamente inutile; la condizione di una sua utilità è che a questa definizione corrisponda effettivamente una realtà storica coerente e precisa.102

This does not mean proceeding with arbitrary attributions of meaning, nor presuming that the meaning we establish is something fixed and immutable; it rather means producing a functional definition of terms usually belonging to our Western tradition so that they can be positively used within a certain field of research, with no ambiguities and clear scopes: Si tratta dunque di trovare una definizione funzionale, di determinare un concetto che possa servire a fini scientifici, e non di formulare una definizione basata sulle caratteristiche immutabili che distinguano una cosa dall’altra.103

With regard to ‘animal worship’, it has been opportunely noted that the Egyptological distinction, especially evident in German studies, between ‘worship/cult’ (Tierkult) and ‘veneration’ (Tierveneration) reminds of the difference set within Catholic tradition between adoratio (limited to God) and veneratio (addressed e.g. to the community of saints). This adds to the habit, wellestablished in the frame of the ‘Standard Model’, of reducing ‘animal worship’ to a restricted domain of Egyptian religion, of which individual aspects (in primis animal burials and zoomorphism) are variously emphasised as qualifying its content and put at the centre of interpretation. Accordingly, it is abstractly isolated (and evaluated) not just in terms of content but also of chronological development (prehistoric/’primitive’ – late/’decadent phase of religion) and social context (lower strata of society). Yet, from the historical-critical perspective, such an understanding fails to grasp the complexity and full significance of the phenomenon, its practical and diachronic articulations: [I]n fatto di storia, le definizioni rischiano sempre di irrigidire le idee, mentre vale la pena che esse mantengano duttilità e plasticità, onde poter aderire alle molteplici sfaccettature della realtà concreta.104

Against this conceptual background and in view of Brelich’s strong exhortation to remove naivety and approximations from the vocabulary of historical investigation, especially when inherited from influential consolidated traditions, the notion of ‘animal worship’ is here defined as a recurrent segment of religious practice in which the mobilisation of living/dead animals (both individuals and groups) represents a central focus of ritual action and is thematised as a central theme of monumental display. The concept is articulated much differently from standard formulations, and will be commented on and expanded further at the end of this study. The fact that it is proposed here in a first loose formulation does not stand in contradiction with Brelich’s warning against aprioristic definitions. First, it is intended as a deliberate declaration of method and assessment of the critical terminology that will recur in this work, so it needs to be laid out as clearly as possible. Secondly, it is designed as an operative tool that will be practically deployed (a) as a working hypothesis to be tested (and ‘In history (…) a more or less precise definition a priori is completely impractical; the condition for its efficacy is that the definition corresponds to a coherent and exact historical reality’; Brelich 1976: 7. See also Brelich 1966: 4: ‘Definizioni a priori servono nelle scienze deduttive (…) non servono nella storia, dove i concetti si formano in base ai fatti osservati (…) i concetti storici si formano, dunque, a posteriori’ (‘Definitions a priori work in deductive sciences (…) they do not work in history, where concepts are developed on the basis of the facts observed (…) historical concepts are thus developed a posteriori’). 103 ‘It means therefore finding a functional definition, establishing a concept that can be used for scientific goals, and not formulating a definition based on immutable characteristics that would distinguish one thing from another’; Brelich 1976: 7. 104 ‘[I]n history, definitions always risk to stiffen ideas, while it is valuable that they maintain ductility and plasticity so as to hold fast to the multiple facets of actual reality’; Brelich 1976: 31. 102

20

Introducing Animal Worship adjusted) against the evidence, and (b) as a dynamic pattern to bring (textual, archaeological, visual) data into conversation with humanistic enquiry. Accordingly, it does not serve as a single, univocal explanation but as an attempt to take the ancient Egyptian practice (and its presentation in the sources) seriously. The proposed definition has some relevant implications for academic debate that is worth highlighting explicitly as they are indicative of the different theoretical approach and conceptual framework underpinning the present investigation: 1. It does not have any normative value nor it does claim universal agreement. After all, a definition does not need to be universally accepted to be useful. As with any other formula, the present definition illustrates a theory and a method, and it is elaborated accordingly. Here, the notions of ritual practice and display are the main focusing lenses through which analysis is conducted. Moreover, these and other ideas (like Gell’s theory of agency; see infra § 6.4) are not simply drawn on and strictly applied to the data, rather they are combined with the particular Egyptian material (and the indigenous concepts they possibly record) to make better and more articulated arguments. The key point, therefore, is not to replace one overarching interpretation with another, but rather to problematise traditional understanding and engage more seriously with the sources, the practices, and contexts they relate to, so as to outline a more nuanced picture. 2. It programmatically avoids the problematic and heatedly debated concepts of ‘god’ and ‘veneration’, due to their heavy cultural background, stressing, with Martin Fitzenreiter, the role of religious practice and action over theological statements and a simplistic ‘belief in gods’.105 This shift in perspective (from conceptions of gods to practice) leaves room for a potentially richer expansion of relevant data and configurations that can be included in our research on ‘animal worship’, thus countering its alleged marginal position within the ancient Egyptian religious panorama. 3. It allows for a fruitful cross-cultural comparison. While the Egyptian record is uniquely rich, the general image in which specific animals are mobilised and manipulated as a focus of religious practice is something that can be attested in other archaeological and ethnographic examples. The point is that, once released from the limitations of conventional positions (religion as mainly concerned with gods and what texts say about gods), literary-based assumptions (real animals mistakenly treated as gods), and naïve reasonings (veneration of animals as a sign of a primitive mentality and late decadence), the results of the study of Egyptian ‘animal worship’ could be brought into a broader cross-cultural perspective and positively inform theoretical and anthropological discussions on similar ideas and practices. Rather than demoting the specificity of the Egyptian case, this would help break its biased perception as an isolated odd phenomenon and highlight its originality by setting it within a more general pattern.106 Overall, the definition proposed prospects and summarises a more productive approach and line of inquiry than interpretive positions in which the acknowledgement of the historical quality of the phenomenon is subordinated to abstracted schemes, anachronistic sensibilities, or implicit assessments of value.

Fitzenreiter 2003a; 2004. While this point cannot be pursued here, the inclusion of some contributions focused on different contexts (modern Egypt; Africa; India) within the collection of studies on Egyptian animal cults edited by Martin Fitzenreiter (2003) interestingly moves along the lines sketched above. Moreover, it suits well with the comparative-historical agenda propounded by the ‘Roman School of History of Religions’; see Brelich 1976: 33-55. 105 106

21

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt 1.4.2 The practical dimension: religious practice and ritual A practice-oriented perspective of religion focuses on human activity and ritual as social actions.107 Practice – an open-ended bundle of activities (including both doings and sayings) – has, according to Catherine Bell, four features: it is situational, strategic, embedded in a misrecognition of what it is in fact doing, and able to reproduce or reconfigure a vision of the order of power in the world.108 Practice, therefore, is a social phenomenon since it is embedded in a social (and historical) context of multiple relationships. The point of the qualifier ‘religious’ is to specifically emphasise the ‘zeitlich, räumlich und auch im Bezug zum Agenten konkrete Aktivierung eines Systems von religiösen Zeichen, Normen und Praktiken in Situationen, in denen eine solche Aktivierung kulturell vorgesehen oder angemessenist oder von Individuen als sinnvoll betrachtet wird’.109 To identify what is culturally established or individually appropriated as religiously significant is of course a matter of context and interpretation, while it is by now accepted that the sharp separation between religious/secular and sacred/profane is by no means a distinction that can be straightforwardly assumed for (and projected onto) ancient cultures. An important consequence of this argument is that sacredness is not something given as inherently associated with a particular object, animal, or phenomenon, rather it is created through use and performance in specifically designed contexts. Ritual is soon implicated in the process, being an essential (though not exclusive) component of religious traditions. As a well-established subject in a large number of research fields concerned with the study of (ancient) religions, cultures, and societies, ritual has been variously addressed, with no shared consensus as to how to define or use the category.110 For the purposes of the present analysis, following Catherine Bell, ritual is understood as an action that is strategically separated from normal activities. Viewed as practice, ritual ‘is always contingent, provisional, and defined by difference’.111 More aptly, she proposes to focus on ‘ritualisation’ as a strategic way of acting that produces, within any given culture, a qualitative distinction from, and a privileged position among, other ways of acting.112 As a consequence, ‘[f]rom the perspective of ritualization the categories of sacred and profane appear in a different light. Ritualization appreciates how sacred and profane activities are differentiated in the performing of them, and thus how ritualization gives rise to (or creates) the sacred as such by virtue of its sheer differentiation from the profane’.113 Ritual(ised) activity is thus creative and transformative, affecting reality and creating meaning through performance before any verbal formulation is attached to it. This viewpoint outlines a perspective that situates practice at the centre, while the articulation of an interpretive position and discourse stands as a secondary development. In other words, ‘we have to agree with the premise of practice theory that ritual activity is not a secondary aspect of religion (subordinate to beliefs, which would be primary), but that is central’.114 Accordingly, adopting practice as a focusing lens means approaching ‘animal worship’ as a multifaceted, dynamic field of religious actions and not just as a static object of theological speculations, looking at ‘was dieser in der Praxis ist und bedeutet’ and acknowledging that ‘die in Bild und Text überlieferten Deutungen nur sekundäre Elaborationen sind, die ihren Sinn nicht aus sich selbst, sondern aus der Bindung an eben jene Praxis gewinnen’.115 Bell 1992; 1997. Bell 1992: 81-88; 1997:81. 109 Fitzenreiter 2004: 24. 110 The bibliography on the subject is thus extensive. An exhaustive presentation of ritual studies, with a programmatic focus on theoretical aspects and key analytical concepts, is offered in Kreinath, Snoek and Stausberg 2006. For a general overview, see also Stephenson 2015. Bell 1992, 1997 develops a focused discussion on practice. For an archaeological perspective, see Fogelin 2007; Insoll 2004; 2011. 111 Bell 1992: 91. 112 Bell 1992: 88-93; 1997: 81-82. 113 Bell 1992: 91. 114 Verhoeven 2011: 125-126. 115 Fitzenreiter 2003a: 27. 107 108

22

Introducing Animal Worship A focus on religious practice is analytically useful for reassessing concepts and terms of discussion and does not restrict investigation to any presumed fixed content or social context, exploring modes of action belonging to both spheres of official (temple/royal) cults and ‘practical religion’116 (more concerned with problems of everyday life). More specifically, this change implies a different way to look at the sources, not just in terms of (and search for) explicitly, textually attested univocal meanings about animals as gods or symbols of gods, but rather in terms of how every single piece of evidence (texts, images, objects) and larger configurations articulate those ritualised strategies by means of which a certain animal presence is manipulated and constructed as a meaningful focus of religious experience. The latter point, of course, implicates a more focused consideration of the character and distribution of the material, as well as of conventions and rules of display. 1.4.3 The historical dimension: display and decorum The sources for investigating practices of ‘animal worship’ are for a large part indirect and sparse, especially with regard to the early periods addressed in the present study. The core evidence is textual and pictorial, while widespread participation in these practices gain stronger visibility in the archaeological record only from the New Kingdom, and is attested on a larger scale in the subsequent Late and Graeco-Roman periods. Our understanding of the modes, contexts, and (animal) referents of relevant religious actions is therefore inevitably mediated by images and texts, which refigure them as themes of pictorial representations and inscriptions. With this limitation in mind, analysis of the available evidence allows us not just to have a grasp of the Egyptian characterisation of sacr(alis)ed animals and related activities (infra § 6.5.1), but also to make a more nuanced interpretation of their historical development. In this regard, particular attention is given to the incorporation, elaboration, and display of such practices within the formalised contexts of pharaonic ‘high culture’ (stone architecture, visual scenes, hieroglyphic writing, inscribed religious texts, etc.) i.e., those domains of cultural production marked by a high degree of formalisation and exclusiveness.117 The system, which Jan Assmann refers to as ‘monumental discourse’ – ‘the medium through which the state made both itself and its eternal order visible’118 – exhibited a strong integration of art and writing and was centred around the values of the inner élite, while its organisation (in terms of both form and content) was regulated by the principles of what John Baines terms as ‘decorum’: 119 The decorum found on the monuments, which can be traced from the late predynastic times, is a set of rules and practices defining what may be represented pictorially with captions, displayed, and possibly written down, in which context and in what form. It (…) was probably based ultimately on rules or practices of conduct and etiquette of spatial separation and religious avoidance.120 Decorum is one means by which people negotiate relations among themselves, between themselves and the royal, and also between themselves and the divine – a connection that is largely presented as passing through the royal.121

In brief, decorum affected what was deemed as appropriate for public presentation, and operated through hierarchisation and exclusion, especially limiting the access to religious display in nonroyal contexts. While deeply rooted in Egyptian social and cultural forms, and characterised by a strong normative value, decorum – Baines remarks – ‘has a history’; the system went through some crucial changes at certain moments in time, which resulted in a long-term weakening of Baines 1987; 1991. The topic of Egyptian ‘high culture’, its context and products, is variously addressed in Baines 2007; 2013: 1-20. Baines and Yoffee 1998: 233-252 offer an early theoretical account with a comparative focus on 3rd millennium Egypt and Mesopotamia. 118 Assmann 2011: 149-154 (150). 119 Baines 1990; 2007: 14-29. 120 Baines 1990: 20; 2007: 15. 121 Baines 2007: 17. 116 117

23

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt its constraints.122 However, Baines maintains that ‘the general effect of decorum was probably to slow the proliferation of religious material in public contexts. A subject would not be displayed on monuments simply because it existed in society. Most subjects must have existed for long periods before contexts were created or forms devised for presenting them within the system of decorum’.123 Analytically, the concept of decorum reminds us of what might have been left outside the monumental presentation and prompts us to reflect upon gaps and distortions, including these factors in modern reconstruction. This point raises issues of social access to the modes and contexts of display as well as of chronological distribution and preservation of the sources, which are both relevant for our research. The sparse and fragmentary character of the evidence before the New Kingdom does not apparently require (or inspire) discussion. The extant material has been incorporated within a traditional view of linear development that, perhaps also under the implicit influence of an organic analogy, interprets ‘animal worship’ (with its typical configuration of animal burials) as a later occurrence, and possibly one that arose from times of decline and decay of traditional religious forms. While such a development is possible, specific animal figures (single individuals and groups) are presented as a meaningful focus of both religious action and display since the Early Dynastic, though only indirectly. It is therefore problematic to see the proliferation of late monumentalised animal cults as a dramatic innovation documenting only new tendencies of reinforcement of self-identity. Rather, it is here argued that: (1) early pictorial and written sources relate, often in complex and not straightforward ways, to an actual field of lived religious activities; (2) practices of ‘animal worship’ were present at all times but found limited visibility in the early monumental record for reasons of decorum, while of course forms and focuses of religious action did not remain identical and changes in beliefs may have contributed to developing new patterns; (3) by looking at the modes and times of the monumentalisation of these practices – their integration within highly formalised media and contexts of monumental scale – it is possible to model sources in meaningful configurations and to arrange them in a diachronic perspective, tracing continuities and caesuras.124 By referring to the crucial aspects of monumental culture and decorum, the point that is accentuated is not much about accumulating evidence, however valuable new discoveries and finer interpretations of extant sources might be, as about presenting a general framework for approaching that material in relation to its historical and social dimension, and discussing the implications in terms of religious activities. In brief, the view defended in this study is that ‘animal worship’ represents a dynamic and multifaceted field of Egyptian religious practice that cannot be confined to one particular period, but is differently attested in the archaeological and textual record, while patterns of evidence relate to broad historical developments. This move is not meant to demote the strong impact produced by the outburst of animal cults during the 1st millennium BC. On the contrary, as it will appear at the end of this work, it allows us to set those later expansions within a wider and more nuanced chronological framework, and therefore to reconstruct ‘animal worship’ as a historical movement of longue durée.

Baines 2007: 20-25. Baines 1991: 138. 124 See Colonna 2017: 110. 122 123

24

Introducing Animal Worship 1.4.4 ‘Animal worship’: designing an Alternative Model The conceptual background outlined in the previous sections can be summarised and formalised schematically in the diagram illustrated in Figure 1.3. The theoretical dimensions so far discussed – historical-religious method (§ 1.4.1); ritual theory (§ 1.4.2); decorum and monumental display (§ 1.4.3) – combine into an alternative approach to the strategy pursued by the ‘Standard Model’, which sets practice at the core of interpretation and articulates discussion through these three perspectives. (1) The historical-religious method pays explicit attention to the problems of definitions and category formations, and asks for a critical interrogation of the sources while looking at religious phenomena as active historical processes. (2) Ritual theory is concerned with doing and strategic ways of acting (ritualisation) as particularly effective (transformative) in the creation of meaningful distinctions (like between ordinary and sacred animals) and here is used in the attempt to trace ritual(ised) actions in the extant material record. (3) display and decorum look at how religious practices are adapted and presented on monumental media, within formal contexts of visual and written expression. The claim of this study is that Egyptian ‘animal worship’ can be more positively investigated from these perspectives, namely by considering the biased history of the current notion and the conditions for the construction of an effective heuristic category that matches historical data and strengthen scientific discussion; by exploring the modes and circumstances of ritual mobilisation of a selected animal presence; and by analysing the thematisation of those actions in images and texts, with particular regard to the historical conditions and limits of their monumental display. The model so designed – it is argued – stimulates a more serious engagement with the sources, both analytically, challenging intuitive interpretations with an explicit focus on the practical ways of constructing animals as religiously significant agents, and chronologically, examining changes and developments in the monumentalised forms of ‘animal worship’ within the frame of ‘high culture’ and decorum.

Figure 1.3. Diagram illustrating the conceptual background of the ‘Alternative Model’.

25

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Methodologically, two further remarks need to be made explicit to better qualify the approach just described in relation to the state and character of the available evidence. As already noted, the material for investigating practices of ‘animal worship’ is sparse and fragmentary from periods before the New Kingdom, and increases significantly only in the following periods. This situation leaves room for the possibility to use analogies and combine sources (especially textual sources) from later, better-known times in order to elucidate earlier evidence. This in turn raises the question of whether or not it is legitimate to extrapolate and project later well-documented ideas into earlier periods. The procedure appears as attractive as dangerous since the meanings associated with concepts and actions are not static but continuously renegotiated, nuanced, or recreated over time. So, in linking superficially similar but chronologically distant contexts one runs the risk of constructing an artificial impression of continuity in which historical variation and development are overlooked, if not entirely misunderstood. Emphasising, as it is done here, that practices of ‘animal worship’ (not to mention specific individual figures, like the Apis bull) are not limited to the later stages of Egyptian civilisation but can be acknowledged as present and, to a certain extent, significant already in earlier times does not mean assuming any automatic correspondence or uniformity in their forms and contents (e.g., ideological characterisation or funerary traditions), and even less understanding the earlier contexts as mere (and less clear) antecedents of later manifestations. This argument relates to the broader issue of alleged survivals within a given cultural and religious system. The notion of ‘survival’, developed within the frame of evolutionism, designates a fact, phenomenon, or feature that outlives the historical conditions of its formation and remains as a marginal fossil in later traditions. Under the (tacit) influence of these evolutionary positions, Egyptology, as discussed above (§ 1.3.3), often presents (more or less explicitly) ‘animal worship’ as an archaic substratum originating in prehistoric times – what would be demonstrated mainly by predynastic animal burials – and surviving hidden from official religion until its vigorous (re) appearance in much later times, following what has been suggestively labelled as a ‘retrograde movement’. In a general historical perspective, the limit of this position is double: on the one hand, it scarcely considers the chronological gap between the late phenomenon its supposed antecedents; on the other, it takes a retrospective approach that while reductively viewing late animal cults as odd relics of an archaic religiosity, also indulges in reading early practices in the light of later traditions (including Classical literary accounts). The historical-religious method is again helpful in overcoming these shortcomings and redressing a more balanced picture. In criticising the idea of ‘survivals’ as inert fossils that almost passively persist within a culture, and replacing it with the concept of ‘reworkings’ that are actively (re) shaped to adapt to the everchanging needs and conditions of society, it puts the accent on the creative quality of historical dynamics, which continuously model and enrich religious traditions (features, practices, etc.) as long as they remain meaningful to that culture, and thus on the relevance of a real diachronic perspective for interpretation. The claim is to reconsider and restore the direction of historical processes. Accordingly, the present study adopts a prospective view that attempts to follow and situate the unfolding of practices of ‘animal worship’ both horizontally, within the specific social and historical contexts of their material configurations, and vertically, with regard to the identification of broad lines and patterns of development through time. This view combines, finally, with a critical assessment of the material basis of our understanding of ‘animal worship’, especially in early periods, one that reflects on the formation and preservation of extant sources and points at gaps and limitations in our knowledge. In brief, an approach that suits the lacunary nature of our evidence. Considerations of decorum and distribution of evidence play a crucial part in this regard, and discussion must inevitably proceed through calibrated hypotheses that aim at producing better explanations of the present documentary situation rather than emphatic presentations or even judgemental views that take the surviving material as truly representative of the phenomenon addressed. 26

Introducing Animal Worship The final result will not be an overarching narrative or a unifying retrospective overview, but a broad conceptual framework that presupposes a recurrent domain of religious action and belief, of which sparse and fragmentary traces have been preserved. In the former case, early evidence can only count (at best) as an antecedent to the well-established (late) core of the narrative; in the latter, instead, it can be used to formulate a wider historiographic scenario into which these and new data can be fitted (infra § 6.5.2). Overall, the approach propounded by the ‘Alternative Model’ sets a dividing line between a narrative that strives for a description of ‘animal worship’ in its clearest expressions at the expense of its historical development, and a general, even imperfect interpretive frame that tries to model patterns and gaps in our material. Very likely, therefore, early sources of ‘animal worship’ should not be read as documenting singular, isolated episodes but understood as pointers of a more articulated (but for a long period only partially attested) arena of religious practice.

27

Part I Presenting the Evidence

Chapter 2

The Early Dynastic The evidence for Early Dynastic religion is ‘piecemeal and often difficult to interpret’.1 An attempt to assess the role and position of practices of ‘animal worship’ against this backdrop is therefore not an easy task, especially considering the extremely limited character of the sources. A further issue concerns their geographical provenance and archaeological context (when they are known), which are almost exclusively confined to the two major sites of Abydos and Saqqara, and mostly focus on the élite funerary sphere. Overall, the available sources are both direct and indirect, including on the one hand contemporary inscribed monuments of different types (wooden and bone labels; decorated ostraca; stone vessel, stelae, and statues) and, on the other hand, later attestations known from royal annalistic records (the Palermo Stone and its related fragments) as well as from Classical accounts. Given such restrictions, the picture that emerges from the analysis is unsurprisingly incomplete and can hardly be brought together into an organic and consistently structured description, yet it is also remarkable for its complexity, only suggested by some significant individual attestations, and needs to be modelled within a broader theoretical framework. 2.1 Royal evidence One of the most ancient documents that possibly alludes to the mobilisation of a specific animal presence in relation to the cult of Sobek at Shedet, in the Fayyum, is represented by a seal impression (Cairo JE 43798) recovered by William Matthew Flinders Petrie from Tomb 414 at Tarkhan and tentatively dated to the reign of Narmer (Figure 2.1).2 It shows a palace-façade surmounted by a bucranium (sign f5∪O33∪[…?])3 and flanked on the right by a crocodile on a pole with two oblique elements (likely feathers) on its back, while the rest of the surface is dominated by two rows of crocodiles and a spiral pattern resembling the sign for ‘cord’ (V1). The meaning of the scene is unclear and different interpretations have been proposed by different scholars.4 Petrie, followed by Claudia Dolzani and Toby Wilkinson, interpreted the building as a representation of the temple of Shedet, which is well-known in subsequent periods, and identified the object as ‘the seal of the Fayum province’.5 The use, as early as the Pyramid Texts,6 of the

Figure 2.1. Sealing from Tomb 414, Tarkhan (Cairo JE 43798). After Petrie 1913: pl. II.4. Wilkinson 1999: 261. Petrie 1913: 21-22, tav. II.4. The inscription inside the serekh is not clearly legible, so the identification with Narmer suggested by Petrie is not certain, and has been questioned by Dreyer 1992: 259-263. 3 The codes identifying the early signs or groups of signs follow the list of Gardiner 1973 integrated with Kahl 1994 (here Kahl 1994: 883). 4 A summary of the debate can be found in Zecchi 2001: 24-25 with references. 5 Petrie 1913: 21-22. Cf. Dolzani 1961: 166-167, 173-174; Wilkinson 1999: 295. 6 Pyr. 1564b. 1 2

29

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt group of signs building + bucranium as the determinative of the toponym of Shedet and the short distance separating the site of Tarkhan from the Fayyum would support Petrie’s suggestion. At the same time, the crocodile on the standard has been understood as ‘the sacred crocodile of the province, Sebek (…), with ostrich plumes above the back, which were at that time the mark of a divine animal’.7 Finally, the sequence of curved lines would allude, in an unusual and otherwise unattested schematic way,8 to the waters of the lake where the other specimens swim and thus evoke the typical watery landscape of the region. In this perspective, Dolzani considered the document a proof that, at the beginning of the dynastic era, ‘il processo di avvicinamento (…) di interferenza e di fusione tra le due entità (il dio e l’animale)’ was already fully developed in its essential features of religious conception and cult practice.9 On the other hand, a different understanding has been proposed by Gunter Dreyer. According to him, the building combined with the bucranium represents the serekh of Horus Crocodile, a local ruler of the so-called ‘dynasty 0’ and a likely competitor (Gegenkönig) of the emerging Thinite leadership, whose name has been reconstructed via comparison with that identified on contemporary inscribed material coming from other sectors of the same necropolis.10 One might note, however, that while Tomb 414 is dated to the reign of Narmer (Naqada IIIC1), the ink inscriptions mentioning ‘Crocodile’ come from earlier graves – Naqada IIIA2/B (Tomb 315) and Naqada IIIB/C1 (Tomb 1549). Moreover, the topographical distribution of this serekh is not as close as Dreyer suggests.11 A second related point concerns the very interpretation of the group of signs f5∪O33∪[…?] as a serekh: the combination of the bucranium with the palace-façade as a marker of royal status is unusual, instead it best suits the contemporary iconographic conventions functioning as a semogram for a sacred building or place and probably signifying the toponym of Sd(y)t by means of its religious centre.12 As a consequence, the accompanying sign of the crocodile on the standard is likely to be understood as a visual reference to a specific divine agency – Sobek of Shedet – in its distinctive animal form, the two feathers on its back being a further indicator of its higher status.13 If so, it would be tempting to see the unmarked crocodiles as a group of animals belonging to the temple and related to the cult of Sobek. Of course, the pictorial character of the sign must be fully acknowledged, since ‘dürfte es sich dabei (…) eher um eine Art ikonisch aufgeladenes Schrift-Bild-Zeichen Als Tatsächlich um ein abbildliches Bild für das Kultbildhandeln’.14 On the other hand, if the latter is assumed to encode logographically the divine name of the local deity Sobek (sbk) and to be linked to the preceding group, then the whole sequence could be roughly read as ‘the place/temple Shedet of Sobek’,15 pointing to a strong connection between temple and urban milieu, and identifying the original object as a product of that institution. Be that as it may, what appears more relevant is that the two visual features just mentioned (standard and feathers) clearly introduce a religiously meaningful distinction between the single marked crocodile and the others unmarked animals depicted, although one can only speculate how such a meaning was articulated in terms of religious belief and practice. Developing Petrie’s Petrie 1913: 22. Petrie 1913: 22: ‘This mode of representing water is not found elsewhere’. ‘the process of approach (...) of interference and fusion between the two entities (the god and the animal); ’Dolzani 1961: 166. Cf. Wilkinson 1999: 295. 10 Dreyer 1992. 11 Critical discussion in MacArthur 2010: 93-94. 12 For detailed arguments, cf. Morenz 2004: 156-161; the author considers the palace-façade surmounted by the bucranium as the ‘Vorläufer’ of the formalised monogram ( ) and also proposes to understand the bucranium as a ‘Rebusschreibung’ adopted for its phonetic value (Sdi) and combined with the semogram of the sacred building to represent the emblem of the city of Crocodilopolis (Morenz 2004: 157-158). Cf. also Morenz 2014: 51. 13 Morenz 2004: 158, n. 670; 2014: 51, n. 254. 14 Morenz 2014: 51. 15 Morenz interprets the whole group as ‘die Gegründete (Sdy.t) des Sobek’, according to a toponomastic pattern ‘X des Gottes NN’; Morenz 2004: 158-159. 7 8 9

30

The Early Dynastic interpretation within a linguistic-semiotic framework, Ludwig Morenz understands the multiple crocodiles as a repeated semogram conceptualising the distinctive landscape of the area around Shedet/Crocodilopolis, and the likewise reiterated curled motif (sign V7) as an abbreviation encoding the first letter of the toponym (S) and so reinforcing the reading of the whole sequence as a reference to that city and its local cult.16 The original piece, therefore, might be recognised as a temple-seal related to the cult-place of Sobek at Shedet, which displays an already complex pattern combining semographic and phonographic notations, while also pointing to the important role played by this local temple at religious, economic, and administrative level as early as the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC.17 This first representation of the complex of Sobek, as Morenz aptly remarks, ‘gibt uns offenkundig keinen naturalistischen Seheindruck von ihm wieder, sondern vielmehr eine starkzeichenhafte, symbolische Verdichtung von hoher Lesbarkeit’.18 In this regard, the figurative arrangement would provide an effective visual formulation to a local dimension of Kult-Topographie in which the inclusion and participation of a specific animal presence play a central role in the configuration of both (1) a precise cultural landscape (the Fayyum region), (2) a defined urban/temple context (Shedet), and (3) a particular field of religious practice (Sebek’s cult with its animal ‘correlates’). The interpretation put forward relies on a general understanding of the Early Dynastic pictorial codes as well as on some possibly instructive parallelisms from later times – the ‘Sobek stelae’ and the remains of a sacred building at Al Mahamid Qibli (infra 5.7) –, which however do not allow going beyond hypotheses and would require direct archaeological confirmation. Unfortunately, no evidence of the temple complex in Medinet el-Fayyum has been preserved before the Middle Kingdom and the site remains unknown in its early archaeological context.19 Thus, without explicit contemporary sources or stronger comparative material, any further attempt to describe the early Shedetite religious configuration as characterised by a form of integration of living animals into cultic practice would lay outside verification. On the other hand, comparison with a larger set of data coming from and related to different contexts of the same period provides a wider historical framework within which the Tarkhan seal impression might be properly assessed and discussed. Relatively more positive information comes from the following reign of Aha when the first known attestation appears of an important animal figure, whose origins are difficult to detect with precision but whose fame of high antiquity survived in the Classical tradition. It is the Apis bull,20 whose official cult would have been established, according to Manetho, by king Kaiechos (= Raneb) of the 2nd dynasty, while Aelianus ascribes its foundation to the legendary Menes.21 The latter tradition seems now to be preferred on the basis of contemporary evidence referring to a wellstructured ritual context the animal belonged to. The earliest one is represented by a ceremonial inscription incised on a porphyritic diorite bowl of king Aha from the Michailides collection (Figure 2.2), whose exact provenance is however unknown.22 The text reads as follows: Hr aHA zp tpy pHrr Hp

Horus Aha, first occasion of the running of the Apis bull

The inscription23 is concise and does not provide any detail about the meaning of the recorded event, its spatial/temporal setting, or the religious value of the bull involved, yet some important points emerge from the text: (1) it highlights an early strong association of the single animal with Morenz 2004: 159. Morenz 2004: 161. Morenz 2014: 51 19 See Arnold 2003: 143; Gomaà 1980. 20 General overview in Bonnet 1952: 46-51; Otto 1964: 11-34; Vercoutter 1975: 338-350. More recent discussions, although mainly concerned with later manifestations in Dodson 2005: 72-91, Jurman 2010, and Kessler 1989: 56-150 with further bibliography. For review and discussion of the Early Dynastic evidence cf. Colonna 2020 and Wilkinson 1999: 281. 21 Cf. Waddell 1964: 34-41, especially p. 35, n. 4; Ael. NA XI, 10. Further discussion infra § 2.3. 22 Kahl 1994: Qu. 548 = Simpson 1957: 139-142. See also Ibrahim and Rohl 1988: 19-20; Vercoutter 1962: xxi-xxii. 23 For discussion on grammar, see MacArthur 2011: 1209-1210. 16 17 18

31

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt the royal authority, within an already highly formalised ritual framework, the developments of which will reach well into later stages of Egyptian history; (2) it emphasises, for the first time, the relevance of this kind of events centred on specific individuals in the official written records and contexts of display; finally, (3) its mention of ‘the first occasion’ (zp tpy) is to be understood as a relative (not absolute) chronological reference within the reign of Aha, although vaguely defined. It means, as it is demonstrated by later sources, that such a ritual was intended as a recurring episode that was expected to repeat more than one time during a king’s reign. At present, we lack documents attesting an earlier (Predynastic) existence of the Apis bull and its ritual running, although a prehistoric origin has been suggested for both, invoking an alleged agricultural context linked with the renovation of fertility.24 On the other hand, the integration of the bull into a ritual performance likely related to the exercise or display of royal power appears to fit well with the role that the animal acquired in conceptualising and visualising ruling authority as early as the late Predynastic period.25 The association is well illustrated, at the very end of the state formation process, on the Narmer palette (Cairo CG 14716 = JE 32169), both metaphorically by the full image of the raging bull and metonymically by the bull features of the king’s garments and attributes.26 So, while the rich iconographic repertoire articulates pictorially such beliefs and values, the Aha’s inscription suggests that they were also translated into a controlled arena of ritual action.

Figure 2.2. Inscription on the Michailides Bowl. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Simpson 1957: fig. 2).

Figure 2.3. Wooden label of king Aha from Umm el-Qa‘ab B18/19 (Philadelphia Penn Museum E9396). After Petrie 1901: pl. X.2.

A second source is represented by an incised wooden label that apparently records the visit of the king at two important localities in the Delta, both of which are pictorially visualised by their related temples (Figure 2.3);27 in the second register, a temple-complex is depicted, which has a vaulted shrine surmounted by a standing bird flanked by a -t sign and is preceded by a sort of mound (?) or arena where a bull is running. The animal is not identified but an interpretation as the Apis bull has been tentatively suggested, while a different explanation is based on the understanding of the bird over the sacred building as Otto 1964: 5, 12. See Kessler 1989: 70-71. Stan Hendrickx has devoted a number of detailed studies to the cultural meaning and historical development of the bull symbolism in the context of Predynastic-Early Dynastic iconography. See Hendrickx 2002; Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2010: 123; 2012, 29-30; Hendrickx, De Meyer and Eyckerman 2014; Hendrickx et al. 2014/2015. 26 In this regard, Hendrickx, De Meyer and Eyckerman 2014 and Hendrickx et al. 2014/2015 have proposed to connect the origins of both the White Crown and the royal false-beard to the early bovine symbolism. On the bull tail attached to the ruler’s girdle, cf. also Jéquier 1918. The Bull Palette (Louvre E 11255) of Naqada III date represents another remarkable example of such semantic discourse. Cf. Hendrickx et al. 2014/2015: 238: ‘The bovine symbolism will culminate in the personification of the king as a wild bull on the Narmer Palette and the Bull Palette’. 27 Helck 1987: 148; Jimenez-Serrano 2002: 57-60; Wilkinson 1999: 317-318 24 25

32

The Early Dynastic a hieroglyphic sign encoding the toponym of Dba(w)t, which identifies the ancient centre of Buto.28 While largely agreed, this interpretation appears also to find some archaeological correspondence at the modern site of Tell el-Fara‘in. The remains of cultic structures have been identified at the site, among which there is a rectangular building (attributed to the reign of Narmer) with a large pottery bowl sunken into the earth. The presence of two bovine silhouettes incised on the external surface of the bowl has triggered the hypothesis that it might have been used to feed a real living bull kept in a restricted religious context,29 for which the scene depicted on the Aha label would thus offer an interesting iconographic parallel. The reasoning sounds a bit circular and speculative and further evidence is required, although one may incidentally note the occurrence of a bull on the standard of the 6th Lower Egyptian nome, which Otto, in his work on bull cults, lists among the centres in the Delta where ab antico ‘Stier Verehrt Worden Sind’.30 Under the reign of Den, some evidence seems to refer to a rather articulated series religious situations centred on the ritual treatment of specific animals. On the one hand, while the ritual running of the Apis bull (pHrr Hp) is mentioned on the Palermo Stone for his regnal year x+12,31 two objects from tomb S3035 at Saqqara provide its first known pictorial representation. One (Figure 2.4) is a seal impression showing the king – clearly identifiable by his Horus name – as the protagonist of two scenes of ritual running (so-called Opfertanz).32 In one of them, he wears the Red Crown and is accompanied before (or next to him) by a running bull, above which a p-sign is still readable. These two elements suggest that the illustrated episode is the ‘running of the Apis bull’, therefore the preserved hieroglyph might belong to both the verb pHrr or, most likely, to the bull’s name (Hp).33 In the other part of the decoration, the king appears with the White Crown while moving toward an enthroned baboon holding an offering vessel, which is identified with the divine figure of HD-wrw (‘The Great White Ones’ or ‘The Great Ones of the White [Crown]’) and interpreted as the personification of the corporation of the royal ancestors from whom the living king receives the right to reign.34

Figure 2.4. Sealing from Tomb 3035, Saqqara. After Emery 1938: fig. 26.

Figure 2.5. Painted limestone ostracon from Tomb 3035, Saqqara (Cairo JE 70149). Photo by A. Colonna.

While the schematic and conventional character of the scene does not allow for precise conclusions, at least three features (the running king with the following serekh; the (WpwAwt?) standard; Extended discussion on this reading in Morenz 2004; 2014: 52-53. Von der Way 1989: 295, fig. 12.1-12.2; Wilkinson 1999: 317-318 Otto 1964, 6-7. 31 PS r. III12. Wilkinson 2000: 117-118. 32 Emery 1938: 64, fig. 26. See also Blackman 1938: 4-9; Eaton-Krauss 1984: 90-92 (§ 106); Kaplony 1963 III: fig. 211 (facsimile). Eaton-Krauss thinks, based on the ‘ground-line’ marked under the king’s figures, that the whole scene represents the dedication of two royal statues, and adds: ‘If the interpretation (…) is correct, the impression would provide additional, as well as the earliest, evidence for the existence of a statue type not documented to date in surviving repertory of actual statuary’ (Eaton-Krauss 1984: 92). 33 Blackman 1938: 7. 34 Friedman 1995: 25-26; Kaplony 1977: 1078-1080; Wilkinson 1999: 285. 28 29 30

33

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt the seated baboon) might be related to the performance of the Sed-festival and compared with the middle relief panel placed under the pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara, which displays a similar iconographic structure,35 though, as Florence Friedman aptly remarks, ‘by Djoser’s day the interpretation of these Den elements - whatever they were - may well have changed’.36 Accordingly, the two parts of the sealing would correspond to as many episodes of that ceremony and would thus provide the most ancient evidence for the integration of the ritual race of the Apis bull into the major celebration for the renewal of kingship.37 The second related object is a painted limestone ostracon (Figure 2.5) showing a striding white and black spotted bull in the upper part and a baboon in the lower one. Although lacking any inscription, the apparent parallelism of the two animals with those depicted on the seal is certainly suggestive, and even more relevant, whereas the bull was to be identified with Apis, would be the display of a distinctive physical appearance that possibly recalls the notion of the bull’s special marks, as both illustrated in pictorial sources and recorded in the literary tradition of subsequent periods.38 The ostracon, therefore, might point, although indirectly, to an already early definition of some formal criteria and procedures for the selection of the Apis bull, which will be further developed or, at least, better represented in the later archaeological record. From the tomb of Den at Abydos (Umm el-Qa‘ab, Tomb T) comes a broken ivory label where a ram is depicted above – thus, according to Egyptian pictorial conventions, inside – an enclosed temple court preceding a sort of vaulted shrine surmounted by a bucranium (Figure 2.6).39 Since the label is damaged, it is not possible to appreciate the whole pictorial context, but the building appears to be placed within a broader wsxt-courtyard surrounded by a crenelated wall with a tall, slender aH-edifice adjoining at its lower left corner and having a small Xkr-frieze at its top;40 just below the shrine a fragmentary inscription likely displays part of the royal title(s). A second smaller example has been preserved, which appears to bear the same depiction.41 The complex is identified with the so-called ‘Fortress of the god’ (aH-nTr), a type of building wellattested in contemporary inscriptions engraved on stone vessels as well as on the Palermo Stone,42 and generally interpreted as a cult precinct designed as ‘a place of assembly for ritual festivals to be carried out by the Horus king and the divine powers (the Followers of Horus)’.43 In particular, according to Dieter Arnold, this structure might have been the setting for the performance of the Sed-festival, a point which would be of great relevance since it would imply a connection between the animal represented and the royal context suggested. Unfortunately, the identity of the latter is no longer understandable due also to the fragmentary preservation of the object, but the scene has been tentatively linked with the annalistic mention (PS r.III.9) of a royal visit to the temple of the ram-god Heryshef at Herakleopolis Magna, recorded in Den’s year x+9;44 aHa nn-nswt S Hwt-nTr Hry.S.f

Visiting Herakleopolis (Nen-neswt) and the lake of the temple of Heryshef

The association is certainly suggestive and cannot be ruled out. Alternatively, it can be proposed to recognise in the building and its occupant respectively the temple of Mendes in the Delta and Friedman 1995: 22-26, fig. 14; Jimenez-Serrano 2002: 49 (c, d, g). Friedman 1995: 25. 37 Blackman 1938: 7-8; Eaton-Krauss 1984: 91; Jimenez-Serrano 2002: 69 gives a slightly different interpretation. 38 See infra 5.1.1. 39 Petrie 1901: 25 and pl. VII.8 = Kahl 1994: Qu. 1269. 40 For a detailed discussion on the aH-building and its meaning during the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom, see Goelet 1982: the Abydos label is presented at pp. 230-232. 41 Petrie 1901: pl. VII.9 = Kahl 1994, Qu. 1270. 42 Arnold 1997: 32-39; 2003, 71; Kaplony 1962. 43 Arnold 2003: 71. 44 Wilkinson 2000: 115-116. 35 36

34

The Early Dynastic the local deity Banebdjed,45 although in both cases it cannot be determined whether the ram figure is an emblematic representation of the god or it alludes to the actual presence of a living individual kept in the temple for ritual purposes and associated to the divine cult.46 The latter hypothesis seems preferable since both the city of Mendes and the cult of Banebdjed are attested in contemporary evidence, both official and private.47 The Ram of Mendes is also listed among the most renowned and significant temple-animal in Late Period sources, while literary tradition (Manetho in the first place)48 underlines the great antiquity of this figure and its cult. Although not particularly robust, all these elements might indirectly support the idea of the early integration of a particular specimen into the religious panorama of Mendes and its main temple. Except for this document, the rest of the available evidence almost exclusively refers to the Apis bull: the ritual running (pHrr Hp) is recorded again in the Royal Annals under year 2 of king Semerkhet (CF1 r.IV).49 It also recurs on two ebony labels of king Qaa from Abydos (Ab K 1440 and Ab K 1441; Figure 2.7), both mentioning the ‘year of the second occasion of [the feast of] the Apis bull’ (rnpt zp 2 [Hb] H).50

Figure 2.6. Ivory label of king Den from Umm el-Qa‘ab T. After Petrie 1901: pl. VII.8.

Figure 2.7. Wooden label of king Qaa from Umm el-Qa‘ab Q (Ab K 1440). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.

Finally, on the Palermo Stone the same event is recorded in two different entries under king Ninetjer of the 2nd dynasty, respectively in years x+4 (PS r.IV.4) and x+10 (PS r.IV.10),51 which also represent the only attestations known of this kind of practices for this period: xa(t) nsw-bit pHrr zA anx

Appearing of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt; running of the living Apis bull (or ‘the living son’-bull ?)

xa(t) nsw-bit zp 2 pHrr ¡p

Appearing of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt; second occasion of the running of the Apis bull

The attestations known for Qaa and Ninetjer are particularly remarkable in their formulation since they explicitly mention, for the first time, the occurrence of the ceremony on two occasions Baines, personal communication. Wilkinson 1999: 284-285 47 See infra § 2.3. 48 For a recent overview see Redford 2010: 18-41. A presentation of the stratified archaeological sequence of the 3rd millennium BC, including the remains of a large temple building, and its historical interpretation are given by Adams 2007. See also infra § 3.6. 49 Wilkinson 2000: 196. 50 Dreyer et al. 1996: 75. 51 Wilkinson 2000: 122-123, 126. 45 46

35

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt under the same king, thus implying a periodicity of some kind in the performance of the episode. However, the laconic character of these annalistic notations, together with the lack of comparative material and further information on this point, makes it difficult to fully understand the pattern, criteria, and possible regularity behind the event. In addition, the two entries of Ninetjer have raised a problem of identification concerning the animal involved, since the actor appears to be labelled as ‘the living son(-bull)’ in one case and as ‘the Apis-bull’ in the other. In this regard, it has usually been assumed that zA-anx is in fact an epithet of the Apis bull and that two occasions of the ritual running are recorded.52 On the other hand, Toby Wilkinson, basing on internal compositional features of the annals, considers both the episodes and the engaged individuals as distinct.53 According to him, if both records were to refer to Apis and its famous race, the first entry should have adopted the standard formula zp tpy pHrr Hp (‘first occasion of the running of the Apis bull’), which was known since Aha’s reign and is documented on PS r.III.12 for Den. That not being the case, he concludes that ‘we should see in zA anx a second divine bull, distinct from the Apis bull’.54 Accordingly, if the first occasion of the ritual was actually included in the annals as an eponymous event, it should have taken place earlier in Ninetjer’s s reign, being displayed in the now missing part of the Palermo Stone. Few remarks, however, can be put forward to reassess and refine the traditional identification of the animal as Apis against Wilkinson’s hypothesis: (1) the reading of the sign of the duck (G39) as zA (‘son’) is incorrect, as it is not used ideographically but has rather the value of a phonetic determinative of the group Hp (spelling the bull’s name) and is borrowed from the homophone term Hp (‘duck’).55 This fact is already apparent on the Michailides’ bowl,56 and is confirmed by the orthography well-attested in the Old Kingdom, which often combines the duck and the determinative of the bull,57 while the presence of G39 ( ) ‘is probably to be attributed to the exceedingly common occurrence of the (…) Hp-duck (…) in animal files and offering lists of the Old Kingdom’.58 There follows that the particular graphic form displayed on PS r.IV.4 is likely to be understood as an abbreviated form for Hp anx (‘the living Apis bull’) due to space reasons, with only the duck-sign G39 encoding (logographically) the name of the bull and being marked by the bull determinative. Accordingly, (2) the use of anx (‘living’) should be recognised as an epithet referred to Apis, a feature which is better documented from later periods59 when it also recurs to characterise other individuals.60 If that is the case, considering the likely composition of the Palermo Stone during the 5th dynasty, its occurrence would represent the most ancient attestation of this kind of predication in relation to Apis (or any other animal), and would also provide a rare hint of the early existence of a conceptual discourse concerning the definition of the religious status of a particular specimen. How such a discourse was articulated, however, remains impossible to ascertain and it must be remarked that the substantial lack of similar expressions in contemporary sources prevents us from fully appreciating the alleged ideological framework as well as from assuming a de facto long continuity with later phraseology. A final argument that can Clagett 1989: 77; Naville 1903: 71; Schäfer 1902: 23. Wilkinson 2000: 123. Wilkinson 2000: 123. 55 The main forms of the name are listed in Wb. III, 70. For a summary of the different hypothesis on the origin and meaning of the Apis name, see Otto 1964: 11, nn. 2-4. 56 See Kahl 1994: 529. 57 This point had already been noted by Chassinat 1916: 36: ‘[L]a graphie , déjà fixée sous l’Ancien Empire, montre que le 52 53 54

signe fait function de determinative phonétique du groupe ’. See also Browarski 1984: 879-880, and n. 6-7 ; Gunn 1926 : 90-91. Browarski 1984: 879. ¡p anx (‘the living Apis’) is attested on monuments from the late New Kingdom onwards. Just to mention few examples: for the New Kingdom, see the stela Cairo JE 48845 of vizir Prahotep from Saqqara (time of Ramses II; Frood 2007: 157, 159); for the Late Period, see the Serapeum Stelae Louvre IM 3072, 3075, 3082, 3129, 3130, 3046 (time of Psamtik I; Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1968: 147, 149-150, 150, 151-152, 152, 164-165); for the Ptolemaic period, see the stela British Museum EA 49678 (early Ptolemaic; Andrews 2002: 29-30) and the Rosetta Stone (Ptolemy V; Urk. II: 186.3). 60 Among the most celebrated cases, the Ram of Mendes is addressed as bA anx (‘the living Ram’) on an inscribed limestone fragment pertaining to the decoration of the hypogeum of the rams in Mendes; see Redford and Redford 2005: 181 (SF317). Similarly, at Edfu, the popular falcon was labelled as bjk anx (‘the living Falcon’); see Chassinat 1933 (VIII): 52; cf. also Wb. I: 444, 13-445,04. 58 59

36

The Early Dynastic be opposed to Wilkinson’s interpretation (3) is that the group zA anx (‘living son/son of life’) as the name of an individual bull in religious context, is, in fact, unattested not just in the annals but in the whole Early Dynastic textual record as well, and it does not even appear in later, more detailed documents. Thus, although ex silentio, this fact strongly weakens the idea of a new bull other than Apis participating in the ritual running. 2.2 Titles and personal names Only a few data that belong to the private (i.e., non-royal) domain are open for discussion, although they still focus on élite individuals and mainly consist of personal names and titles displayed on their monuments. Even so, they may provide additional hints on how religious practices and beliefs centred around specific animals could circulate beyond the strictly royal sphere. On the other hand, the small number of relevant attestations, the difficulties in reading or grouping signs together as well as the short, non-narrative character of the sources partially reduce their informative value and do not allow for a very consistent picture. Regarding the titles, there is only a couple of monuments that offer some possibly relevant material for discussion. One is represented by the stela of mr-kA (Merka), a high official under Qaa, which was discovered in a secondary context near a niche of the eastern façade of tomb S3505 at Saqqara.61 It contains the longest and most detailed private inscription known for the 1st dynasty and displays several administrative and religious titles sculpted in admittedly rough workmanship, which makes their interpretation not always easy. Among these, one is extremely difficult to read and has been tentatively reconstructed as mdw HzAt (‘staff/herdsman of the Hesat-cow’);62 if this understanding is correct, it would be the earliest known attestation of this very particular title, which mostly recurs in Old Kingdom documents in combination with the Apis bull and the White bull (kA-HD).63 A second stela (Ashmolean E.3937) comes from the area of the tomb of Den at Umm el-Qa‘ab (T) and, although partially defaced, appears to belong to a female individual named Mery-hetep (mryHtp?) who also bears the title of ‘(female) servant of Apis’ (Hm[t]-Hp?).64 Such an early occurrence of the title, which is virtually unknown apart from a later attestation on a decorated fragment of the later solar temple of Niuserra, would thus be of great importance since it would confirm the not secondary role of the Apis bull within the Early Dynastic religious panorama in general, and the royal court in particular.65 Yet both the arrangement and reading of the hieroglyphs are not sure and their interpretation should be viewed with caution. As for private personal names, a number of Early Dynastic anthroponyms contain a mention of certain animals, and may thus reflect a larger interest in a specific domain of religious ideas and performances. The list presented here (Table 2.1) is mainly based on the review of the material collected by Peter Kaplony;66 it is not very conspicuous nor much consistent, some readings are doubtful, and both chronological and provenance information is not always available or ascertained. All these constraints hamper the interpretation of the material, and make it especially difficult to establish whether such names had already acquired a religious character – such as in the Late Period – or other (more mundane) factors determined their choice, like the wish to extend the qualities of certain animal to the name-bearers or pure affection.67 Apis represents a notable PM III/2: 446A. See Emery 1958: 30-31, pls 23b, 29. For a recent discussion on the stela and its archaeological context, see Martin 2008, with further bibliography. The actual location of the stela, which is not inventoried in any of the registers of the Cairo Egyptian Museum, is not known so that any reading must rely on the facsimile and on the low-quality photograph printed in Emery’s publication; Martin 2008: 470-471. 62 Jones 2000: 454 (1700). Emery (1958, 31) recognises only the mdw-staff, but cf. Helck 1987: 282 (1). 63 See infra Chap. 3. 64 PM V: 84. See Petrie 1901: pls xxvii.131, xxx.131 = Kahl Qu. 1292. Cf. Kaplony 1963 I: 191 (St 131), 498. 65 Jones 2000: 588 (2153). For discussion see infra Chapter 3. 66 Kaplony 1963 I: 399-672. 67 On Egyptian Tiernamen see Ranke 1925; Scheele-Schweitzer 2014: 94. 61

37

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Name ini-Hp (?) an-Hp mr-Hp (?) mzH/mzHt

Gift of Apis (?) Beautiful is Apis Beloved of Apis (?) Crocodile

ny-mAat-Hp

Maat belongs to Apis/Apis belongs to Maat

M/F

Provenance

M M M M/F

Saqqara Saqqara Saqqara Umm el-Qa‘ab

F

Date1

Kahl Qu.

(dyn. 2-3) (Ninetjer) (dyn. 3) (Djer)(Semerkhet)

Kaplony IÄF

ny-mzH-wiA The boat belongs to the (?) crocodile (-god?) ny-rw-Ab (?) Who belongs to the pantherlion (?)

M M

Abydos, Saqqara (Ninetjer)

Who belongs to Apis (/the rudder?) Who belongs to the ram (?) Who belongs to the sheep (?) Perfect is (w)dj.n-mzH/ Perfect is he whom the crocodile has given (?) Perfect is the hippo (?) Singer of Apis Beloved son of Apis

M

Unknown

(dyn. 0-3)

2177, I: 519 2828-2829, 2832 3542 I, 525

F M M

Umm el-Qa‘ab, Saqqara Unknown

(Djer) (dyn. 2-3) (dyn. 0-3)

I: 532 I: 530 I: 542

M F M

Saqqara Unknown (CF1) Umm el-Qa‘ab

(Wadj-Qa’a) (Djer) Qaa

ny(t)-sr (?) ny-srt (?) nfr-(w)dj.nmzH (?) nfr-db (?) Xnwt-Hp zA-mry-Hp

PN

3311-3313 2744 I: 449 3334 726, 742, I: 577-578 I: 164, 1111(?), 14, 16 1676 Khasekhemwy 2960, 3162 I: 527-529 I: 172, 19

Umm el-Qa‘ab, Beit Khallaf, Heliopolis Unknown

ny-Hp(t?)

1

Meaning

(dyn. 0-3)

3610

3105 3609 1172 1869a-b, 1870a-b

I: 530

I: 550 I: 605 I, 610

The dates follow the conventions given in Kahl 1994.

Table 2.1. Early Dynastic Tiernamen

exception in this regard, although even in this case caution is required. Nonetheless, it is worth bringing this evidence into discussion and trying to assess its informative value against other sources of the period, while considering the whole societal setting for these individual modes of religious action and display. In this perspective, one might incidentally note that certain animals included in the personal names correspond, with few exceptions, with those attested in royal documents as possibly connected with religious contexts and activities: this is the case for the crocodiles on the Tarkhan sealing or the ram the Den’s labels, while lions and hippopotami are known to have played a role in the ritual characterisation of early royal power.68 Formally, these personal names may be distributed among the three categories of (1) one-word names (mzH/mzHt); (2) compound names not forming a complete sentence (ny[t]-sr?; ny-rw-Ab?; ny-srt?); (3) names forming a complete sentence (nfr-db?; ny-mzH-wiA?; nfr-di.n-mzH?).69 On the semantic ground, they record relevant aspects of the animal or establish a relationship between the latter and the name-holder according to different patterns, which mainly express ideas of ‘belonging’ and ‘perfection’. Thus, while one instance addresses the hippopotamus (db) as perfect, other individuals are said to belong to the ram (sr), the sheep (srt), or the lion (rw-Ab?). Seven young individual lions were identified within the northeast most of Aha’s subsidiary graves at Um el-Qa‘ab, which apparently were born and raised in captivity, most likely as part of the royal entourage (Dreyer et al.: 1990, 86-89). As for the hippopotamus, this animal certainly played a role in the king’s ritual hunting as it is attested in Early Dinastic iconography; furthermore, a white female hippo (HDt) also represented the focus of the Hb-HDt ceremony known (at least) from the Old Kingdom down to the Late period as an important context of royal activity. See Roche 2014; Säve-Söderbergh 1953: 47-55; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 260. 69 According to the classification proposed by Vittmann 2013: 1; for full discussion, see Ranke 1952: 20-94. 68

38

The Early Dynastic Personal names composed with mzH apparently display a greater variation: among these, one has been tentatively reconstructed by Kaplony as ‘Dem Krokodil(sgott) gehört das Schiff (?)’ and explained as possibly referring to a ritual procession; another, read as nfr-(w)dj.n-mzH (?), would represent a complex patron (or anthropophoric) name based on that of a second individual called (w)dj.n-mzH, ‘The crocodile has given’ (or ‘One whom the crocodile has given’), expressing a close relationship between the name-holder and the animal in terms of a gift bestowed by the latter. However, the reading of such names is admittedly difficult and cannot be taken for granted. When not of unknown provenance, these anthroponyms come from the royal cemeteries of Umm el-Qa‘ab and Saqqara, being attested mainly on prestigious objects (stelae, stone bowls/vessels, sealings), which show the high status of their holders and their belonging to the inner élite. It seems therefore that appellations constructed on the name of certain animals might have played an important role in the definition and self-presentation of its members, although it must be stressed that they only represent a very small fraction of the whole range of personal names attested for this period. Their meanings remain hard to evaluate as well as their possible connection with actual religious practices and contexts involving specific specimens: comparison with scanty and admittedly ambiguous pictorial and epigraphic sources (discussed above) can do no more than suggesting a focus of interest on specific animal figures, whose real – rather than just metaphorical – exploitation cannot yet be determined more precisely. A quite different situation concerns the Apis bull, who apparently plays the lion share, being represented in almost half (6) of the anthroponyms collected; the animal is mentioned in compound or full appellations mainly expressing its positive attributes (an-Hp?; ny-mAat-Hp) or stressing the notions of belonging to (ny-Hp?), being loved by (mry-Hp?;zA-mry-Hp?) or related with (xnwt-Hp) Apis. While in this case a connection with a distinct living individual is well-documented, though only vaguely defined, a major issue concerns the writing of the bull’s name. The latter appears usually written with the signs (Hp) accompanied by the phonetic complements, but is never accompanied by the bull determinative so that in some instances a different interpretation could be possible, although an understanding of the group as ‘Apis-bull’ fits better with the general context. Accordingly, some information can be inferred from those anthroponyms which appear to refer to specific aspects of the bull, its status, or the wider framework of its ritual engagement: (1) anHp, ‘beautiful is Apis’, might be interpreted as containing a reference to the physical appearance and the special physical marks of the animal; (2) ny-mAat-Hp, ‘Maat belongs to Apis’, emphasises a strong connection between the bull and Maat, which, while possibly implying the existence of an early ideological framework already at work around the animal and the construction of its religious position, will be explicitly developed only in the New Kingdom theological discourse and system of predication; (3) xnwt-Hp, ‘musician of Apis’ could hypothetically allude to the existence of a structured organisation, with specific (ceremonial) roles and (more or less) definite contexts for ritual actions. Here it is worth noting the graphic encoding of the term xnwt, written with the final determinative of a standing female figure holding a kind of staff/flail (possibly a sistrum?);70 well documented in both Old and Middle Kingdom scenes and inscriptions, it refers to (usually female) musicians and dancers that were supposed to provide the musical accompaniment for religious services, especially those associated with funerary ceremonies. Thus, one might take the name as a hint of similar practices being related to the Apis bull at such an early date, although no direct attestation of the title is known for the Early Dynastic period. The geographic distribution of the anthroponyms composed with the name of Apis is largely centred on the key royal sites of Abydos and Saqqara and their surrounding areas,71 with the Memphite Cf. Wb. III: 288: 8-10. Discussion in Kaplony 1963: I, 605. For similar names, see Ranke 1935: 250 (6-7); 1952: 310 (15-16), n. 1. The name of ny-mAat-Hp occurs with a high frequency on sealings from mastaba K1 at Beit Khallaf but is also attested on the relief decoration of the Djoser’s shrine at Heliopolis. 70 71

39

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt region being especially represented, while chronologically the trend to use Apis’ appellations is well apparent from the time of the 2nd-3rd dynasties. Like previous examples, these names belong to individuals of the inner élite, some with strong connections with the royal entourage; this is particularly the case for the two queens and royal mothers xnwt-Hp and ny-mAat-Hp. The former only appears on the Old Kingdom Cairo Annals Stone (CF1), where she is mentioned as the mother of king Djer, but there is no contemporary evidence recording her name, family relationships, and position at court.72 Based on the assumed Memphite character of the Apis bull, Wilkinson speculates ‘that the name may indicate that Djer’s mother came from the Memphite area’; while this is not necessarily the case, it is interesting to set this late information on Djer’s genealogy against the first known occurrence of the Apis bull and its formal religious context under Aha, as it is attested on the Michailides’ bowl. On the other hand, ny-mAat-Hp is much better documented on a large variety of sources, emerging as an important figure with a unique, articulated titulary and an institutionalised mortuary cult (despite the uncertain identification of her tomb).73 Since she bears the titles of ‘Mother of the royal children’ and ‘Mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt’ on sealings dated to the reigns of Khasekhemwy and Djoser, she is usually considered to be the wife of the former and mother of the latter, thus representing the link between the 2nd and 3rd dynasty.74 From the onomastic documentation gathered, and from these two particular cases, three interrelated points can be emphasised: (1) a certain significance of the single animal in the naming practice – thus a crucial mode of representation, attribution, and communication of social identity – of the inner élite; (2) the particular local connection that the Apis bull seems to have with the region of Memphis; (3) his special association with the royal sphere, which already appears as a distinctive element and possibly as the driving force in the selection and religious exploitation of the bull. This last point is particularly relevant and can be further articulated in its ideological and social implications. Firstly, it matches textual and visual data pointing to the crucial role played by the animal in the ritual display and construction of the king’s authority (the pHrr-Hp); in this perspective, the adoption of an Apis-based name by two queens would not just reflect such ideas but also show how much ingrained they were into the very mechanism of transmission of the royal power. Accordingly, the Memphite character of the bull could be regarded as a derivative feature resulting from this royal bond rather than as a marker of a local origin. This is an issue Dieter Kessler has repeatedly discussed, while the two aspects may not be mutually exclusive and a (re) configuration of the local bovine figure and rituals to bolster kingship is an equally applicable hypothesis. Finally, the impact of Apis on the name patterns of élite individuals may not just signal the influence of royal models but also reveal a conscious strategy of self-representation, which aims at displaying interest (or even participation) in religious practices promoted by the court, thus remarking proximity to the king or inclusion within his innermost entourage. 2.3 The Classical tradition While ‘animal worship’ represents a fascinating and recurrent subject in the classical tradition about ancient Egyptian religion,75 Manetho’s Aegyptiaca provides explicit information regarding the Early Dynastic period. Although only known via later, partially preserved epitome, his work contains the remarkable note that under the reign of king Kaiechos of the 2nd dynasty the cults of the Apis bull at Memphis, the Mnevis bull at Heliopolis, and the Ram of Mendes were officially established:76 See Wilkinson 2000: 186-187 (CF1 r.I.10). The tomb is likely to be located at Saqqara as the official mTn, whose mastaba is located not far from Djoser’s complex, was her mortuary priest and due to receive offerings from her tomb (see Urk I: 4.9); the two tombs, therefore possibly lied in proximity to one another. 74 Wilkinson 1999: 94. 75 See supra § 1.3.1. 76 Waddell 1964: 35-41. See also Verbrugghe and Wickersham 2001: 117, n. 57, 133, 188. 72 73

40

The Early Dynastic Kaiechos, for 39 years. In his reign the bulls, Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis, and the Mendesian goat (sic) were worshipped as gods (Africanus, after Syncellus) He (i.e., Bochos) was succeeded by Khaicoos (or Choos), in whose time Apis and Mnevis and also the Mendesian goat (sic) were worshipped as gods (Eusebius, after Syncellus) He (i.e., Bochos) was succeeded by Cechous, in whose time Apis and Mnevis and also the Mendesian goat (sic) were worshipped as gods (Eusebius, Armenian Version)

Manetho’s entry illustrates a particular religious configuration that includes the three animals, highlighting three main points: (1) it traces the origin (or at least the formal institution) of their cults back to the reign of Kaiechos, usually identified with Raneb, thus claiming high antiquity also for the Mnevis bull and the Ram of Mendes; (2) it establishes a close connection between the three animals and their respective cult centres; (3) it acknowledges their unique religious status, a fact which is made clear by the use of precise terminology to designate their official recognition as divine beings. The early date of this religious configuration is striking and raises some interest considering the renowned identities of the named animal figures, so it is imperative to set the information within the cultural milieu of Manetho’s activity on the one hand and, on the other, to assess its value against the archaeological and textual data coming from contemporary Early Dynastic contexts. Concerning the first issue, by Manetho’s time, under Ptolemy II, the living Apis, Mnevis, and the Ram of Mendes enjoyed great popularity and became an important focus in the religious policy promoted by the Ptolemies.77 Already Herodotus had given ample emphasis to Apis and the Mendesian ram,78 while Alexander the Great reportedly sacrificed to the Apis bull,79 and the newly crowned Ptolemy I granted financial support for the burial of a dead bull.80 Moreover, Ptolemy II himself renovated the temple complex at Mendes and paid a visit to the living ram, as recorded in the great Mendes Stele (CG 21181); likewise, his wife Arsinoe II served as a priestess of the Ram of Mendes, and, after being deified upon her death, her cult maintained a strong relationship with that of the sacred animal.81 Finally, the royal maintenance of Apis and Mnevis received special mention in the decrees issued by priestly synods, like the Canopus Decree (Ptolemy III)82 and the Rosetta Stone (Ptolemy V).83 Within this context, Manetho is among the first authors to describe such variegated cultic geography, then a tradition developed that maintained the grouping of these three animal cults, as a passage of Diodorus Siculus on the ‘the ceremonies about the spotted Apis in Memphis, the Mnevis of Heliopolis, and the goat of Mendes’ confirms.84 A similar association recurs in Plutarch’s account, which discusses together Apis and the Mendesian ram in relation to Osiris, while elsewhere the author relates the opinion that Apis was the offspring of Mnevis.85 A further analogy linking the Apis bull and the Ram of Mendes concerns the surviving memory of their impious killing under the Persian domination, by Cambyses86 and Artaxerxes III/Ochus,87 which well contrasted with the devotion displayed by the Ptolemies. Under such circumstances, Manetho’s entry looks likely of Ptolemaic inspiration, and its historical value for the Early Dynastic Period appears thus questionable. See Crawford 1980; Pfeiffer 2008: 389; Redford 2010: 194-197; Thompson 1988: 111, 115-116, 199-207, 212-265. Hdt. II, 38, 153; III, 28 (Apis); II, 46 (Ram of Mendes). 79 Arr., Anab. III, 1,3-4. Cf. Hölbl 1994: 9. 80 Diod. I, 84.8. 81 Urk. II, 37; for discussion, see Hölbl 2001: 101-104. 82 Urk. II, 128.6. 83 Urk. II, 185.2. 84 Diod. I, 84.4. 85 Plut., De Is. et Os. 33 (Apis and Mnevis) and 73 (Apis and the Ram of Mendes). 86 Hdt. III, 29-30. 87 Ael. NA X, 28; Fr. 35 ; VH IV, 8 ; VI, 8 ; Plut., De Is. et Os. 11, 31. 77 78

41

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt On the other hand, one should consider why this note was specifically related to Raneb/Kaiechos and the 2nd dynasty. The attestations of the Apis bull, with the associated ritual running, recur already at the beginning of the 1st dynasty, while there is no positive information on Mnevis at such an early stage and only circumstantial pictorial evidence of the Ram of Mendes before the late Old Kingdom. In the latter case, however, there is now substantial archaeological proof that a major cult building was erected between the late Early Dynastic and the beginning of the Old Kingdom (2nd/3rd dynasties).88 In this regard, there remains the difficulty of interpreting Manetho’s statement in view of this documentation. Jochem Kahl argues that while both Apis and Mnevis (or the ancestor of the Heliopolitan bull) might have been known since earlier times, the mention of Raneb would not be casual. According to him, two explanations are possible: ‘Either Kaiechos (…) was interpreted as “bull of the bulls” so that later copyists wrongly associated this king’s name with the origins of the bull cult, or the knowledge about Ra-neb’s/Weneg’s preference for Ra on the one hand and Mnevis’ and also Apis’ connections to the sun-god on the other hand caused this entry’;89 he prefers the second option, arguing that both Manetho’s information and the well-known solar theology associating the two bulls with Ra and Maat ‘correspond very well to the situation in the Second Dynasty, when Maat and Ra have been established as gods’.90 His remark seems to imply that such a complex system of ideas was already in place at that period, but there is no evidence in support of this assumption, as nothing of the solar characterisation of the two bulls is known before the New Kingdom. Overall, the possibility that Manetho refers to a formal inauguration of these cults cannot be excluded but is more reasonable to consider it, with William Kelly Simpson, as the result of the preserved records that were accessible to the author.91 With its discrepancies, the veracity of Manetho’s statement remains controversial, as the logic behind it: the description of the tripartite configuration might well be an invented tradition of his times drawing on ancient material, although the early appearance of individual cultic contexts can be positively confirmed or (at least) assumed in some cases (Apis; the Ram of Mendes) on the basis of direct evidence. 2.4 Summary In brief, religious practices and configurations focused on the participation of specific animals seem to be already attested in the Early Dynastic record as a meaningful thematic focus, yet they recur only sporadically and cannot be framed into a well-defined and consistent picture. Both royal and private sources give a special emphasis to the Apis bull, whose presence and integration within a distinct ceremonial context (the pHrr-Hp) appear as early as the 1st dynasty (Aha) and are quite often recorded on annalistic sources in relation to the reigns of several kings. Qaa’s labels from Umm el-Qa‘ab and Ninetjer’s entries on the Palermo Stone are especially relevant in this regard, since they both document a repetition of the event, and thus point to an early formalisation of its organisation according to a regular (though unknown) pattern. On the other hand, personal names display a certain interest in the bull figure and its ceremonies by members of the inner élite and possibly allude to specific aspects of its ritual treatment (xnt-Hp), physical appearance (an-Hp), and ideological connotation (ny-mAat-Hp). All this material has a strong Memphite character and also reveals an apparently well-established connection with the royal sphere, which appears to be a crucial element in both the construction and the success of the Apis’ rituals. Other instances and contexts remain much more difficult to evaluate, although some hints might point to a larger roster of characters and to a wider extension of these kinds of practices than usually acknowledged. While Tiernamen are not particularly informative, other material and See infra § 3.6. Kahl 2007a: 59. Kahl 2007a: 59. 91 Commenting specifically on the early institution of the Apis cult, the author (Simpson 1957: 141) notes: ‘it might be suggested (…) that the second king of the Second Dynasty was the earliest monarch of whom records were preserved by the priests of the Apis cult in Manetho’s time’. 88 89 90

42

The Early Dynastic pictorial sources suggest that the integration of a living crocodile and ram into a distinctive cultic landscape and ritual context, respectively at Shedyt and Mendes, might be a possibility; the sealing from Tarkhan is admittedly a piece of tenuous evidence, but the temple remains discovered at Mendes shows that the site was an active religious centre as early as the 2nd-3rd dynasties and could provide, at least, an architectural framework and a material background to the Manethonian entry about the Ram of Mendes, which also resonates with the possible interpretation of the Den’s label.

43

Chapter 3

The Old Kingdom So-called ‘animal worship’ is not usually regarded as an integral part of the great cultural and historical cycle of the Old Kingdom. Sources are limited, fragmentary, and laconic though they show a certain degree of homogeneity in content, and do not seem to leave room for discussion or definite conclusions beyond brief comments on individual attestations. Nonetheless, on deeper scrutiny, their combination concurs to outline a broader picture that on the one hand shows continuity with the preceding early dynastic phase and, on the other, encourages critical reflection on the complexity of the contemporary religious panorama. Scattered among different types of material support, the corpus of relevant attestations has been organised into five main classes including: (a) inscriptional and pictorial evidence from royal/temple contexts; (b) passages from the Pyramid Texts and (c) designations of funerary estates; (d) titles of individual officials and private inscriptions; (e) personal names. There is a significant paucity of architectural evidence but the substantial remains discovered at Mendes offer a remarkable archaeological case to compare with pertinent visual and textual sources. Two final remarks should be pointed out concerning the extant documentation: firstly, almost all the material appears to be geographically and socially circumscribed to the Memphite court and, secondly, not all the sources addressed in the following analysis can be used as positive evidence to explore contexts of ‘animal worship’ due to both the intrinsic features of the documents (type and content) and the general difficulties in determining the identity, role, and meaning of animal agents that are supposedly mentioned. 3.1 Royal and temple evidence Official evidence of monumental character belonging in royal or temple context is sparse and only partially preserved. Reduced, for the most part, to short annalistic notations or fragmentary relief decorations, these documents focus in particular on the associations of certain animals (individuals or groups) with the domain of kingship, inscribing such participation within physical spaces, ritual dynamics, and ceremonial contexts where the king acts, directly or indirectly, as the protagonist of the ritual action. Like for the Early Dynastic period, in the Old Kingdom the Apis bull and its ritual run (pHrr-Hp) provide the most evident and better-documented configuration for the religious role ascribed to specific animals as well as for the relevance of such theme in the pictorial and textual record. To the reign of Snefru date the only two attestations known of this ceremony which, although not particularly informative or detailed, confirm the celebration of the event and, on the other hand, reveal important monumental developments. The first mention is (once again) an annalistic entry recorded on the middle register of the Cairo Fragment (CF) 4,1 where, among other eponymous events of an unknown year, reference is made to:

1

[rnpt] xa(t) nsw zp 4 pHrr Hp

[The year of] enthronisation of the nsw-king; fourth occasion of the running of the Apis bull

[ms nbw Hr nb-mAat (?) nDr nTrw]

[Creation of the golden statue of the Horus Neb-Maat]

inw m THnw sqr(w) anx 1100 awt 23000 (?)

Tributes from Tjehenu (= Libya ?): 1100 live captives, 23000 (?) small cattle.

Urk. I: 237, 11; See Roccati 1982: 40 (§ 13); Strudwick 2005: 67; Wilkinson 2000a: 235-236 (CF4 r.M1).

44

The Old Kingdom [...]

[…]

iw grg (?) itA (?) [...]

Coming and destroying (?) the city of Ita (?) […]

[...] Ssp 2

[…cubits], 2 palms

The attribution to Snefru is not explicit but can reasonably be inferred on the basis of some formal and compositional features: first of all, the missing upper band with the royal titulary suggests that the entries of the middle register belong to the same king (i.e., Snefru) mentioned in the upper part of the fragment; secondly, the selected events look similar in content to those recorded in PS r.VI, in the section related to this king;2 finally, there is general agreement among the scholars about the reconstruction of the Horus name of Snefru (nb-mAat) in relation to the notice of the fabrication of a royal statue.3 Due to the fragmentary state of the document, the restoration of both the text and its internal partition is not assured: the loss of the lower part of the block makes it especially difficult to understand whether the visible vertical lines correspond to as many year divisions or just mark the several inscribed columns within the same entry. The latter option seems more likely, as no rnpt-sign can be recognised on the top of the register, which is well preserved4. Kurth Sethe, on the other hand, distinguishes two different entries basing on the possible mention (not acknowledged by Wilkinson) of the cattle count (Tnwt), which usually closes the list of events included in the entry and would accordingly refer to the year immediately preceding the one marked by the ceremonial running of Apis.5 The reading of the formula zp 4 pHrr Hp does not raise any particular issue and also its association with the commemoration of the royal enthronement (xat-nsw) matches a recurring pattern that has already been noted for the Early Dynastic period.6 The standard and laconic character of the annotation does not give any detail on the event itself, yet the reference to a ‘fourth occasion’ is noteworthy for at least two reasons, one connected with the alleged regularity of the episode, the other with the length of the reign under which it occurred. On the first point, it must be remarked that while two Early Dynastic occurrences are known under Qa‘a (label Ab K 1440-1441 = zp 2) and Ninetjer (PS r.IV.10 = zp 2) which hint at a periodical celebration, Snefru’s entry is the first and only one attesting a fourth repetition of the event under the same king; moreover, if one accepts Siegfried Schott’s hypothesis of a regular celebration every six years,7 the final result is a quite high figure (fourth occasion = year x+18). This fact leads us to the second related aspect: such a time-range suggests that the year of ‘the fourth occasion of the running of the Apis bull’ should be placed in the latter part of a long reign, thus reinforcing the hypothesis of the attribution of this section of the royal annals to Snefru,8 whose reign, according to recent studies, would have last about thirty years.9 More relevant is the second piece of evidence attested under Snefru, which displays, for the first time, the inclusion of the pHrr Hp within the monumental discourse of a royal funerary complex, thus providing a significant (although partial) pictorial complement to the textual references known so far. It is a portion of relief (Figure 3.1a) belonging to the decoration of one of the pillars Wilkinson 2000a: 235. According to Gauthier (1915: 52), the signs inside the serekh were no longer readable, yet the reconstruction Hr nb-mAat occurs in Urk. I: 237, 12 and is maintained both by Roccati (1982: 40) and Strudwick (2005: 67). Wilkinson (2000a: 236), on the other hand, is more cautious and does not offer any attempt of reading, simply noting ‘traces remain of a royal figure (…) preceded by a serekh’. 4 Wilkinson 2000a: 235. He observes (Wilkinson 2000a, 232) that such a detail is not attested on the recto of the Palermo Stone and thus concludes that it was probably introduced in the more recent entries at the end of the recto and on the verso, since they include more information for each year. 5 Urk. I: 237, 9. Roccati 1982: 40 (§ 12) and Strudwick 2005: 67 both follow, in their translation, Sethe’s reconstruction. 6 Otto 1964: 12. 7 Schott 1950: 937, 939, pl. XI. 8 Wilkinson 2000a: 235. 9 Discussion on the length of Snefru’s reign in Verner 2006: 125, 128-131 and table at p. 127. 2 3

45

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt from the Valley Temple of the king’s pyramid complex at Dashur (the so-called ‘Bent Pyramid’). Ahmed Fakhry attempted a reconstruction of the scene from the only four preserved fragments:10 on the right side, along the edge of the pillar, a text column includes the restored caption [p]Hrr H[p] identifying the episode and is divided by a vertical band from the adjoining figure of the king. The latter is now largely lost but was originally depicted in the act of running, wearing the ceremonial sbAw-kilt, and holding the characteristic mks-container in the left hand – these are the only two details preserved; the royal protocol, of which only the nbwy title remains, ran above the king. While the relief offers an important iconographic parallel to the annalistic notes, it is on the basis of such comparison that Erika Schott proposed a different restoration and interpretation of the monument (Figure 3.1b), suggesting that the note recorded on FC4 r.M.1 and the scene depicted on the Snefru’s relief actually refer to one and the same episode.11 Accordingly, she includes in her reconstruction the fragment illustrated by Fakhry as fig. 237 showing the protruding curlicue (XAbt) of the Red Crown (dSrt), part of the serekh with Snefru’s Horus name (nb-mAat), and a partial inscription that reads: zp 4 Hwt-nbw, ‘fourth occasion of the Mansion (House) of gold’.12 Therefore, the scholar interprets the scene as referring to a procession that the king performs around the ‘Mansion of gold’ and that was followed or integrated by the running of the Apis bull. In this perspective, the institution of the Hwt-nbw and the pHrr Hp would have shared a common ritual context, the former lacking, at the time of Snefru, that specific connection with the ‘Opening of the mouth’ ceremony which would have developed only in the subsequent reign of Khufu. Finally, as a further supporting argument, she adds that Apis is a divine figure linked with the North, and that would fit with the Red Crown worn by the king.

Figure 3.1a. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fakhry 1961, fig. 96).

Figure 3.1b. Relief from the Valley Temple of the Snefru’s bent pyramid, Dashur. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Schott 1972, 32).

Fakhry 1961: 98-100, figs. 96-98 and pl. XIX. See also Ćwiek 2003: 243-244. Schott 1972: 31-36. 12 Fakhry 1961a: 155, 158, fig. 237, pl. XXVIB. 10 11

46

The Old Kingdom However suggestive, there are three main objections against Schott’s interpretation: first, considering the series of reliefs from the royal complex, the arrangement of the fragment with the group Hwt-nbw within the pictorial framework rather than in the text column on the right looks anomalous, since the latter is usually reserved to the text (except for royal titles and epithets). It is, therefore, more likely that the inscribed block was placed at the edge of a pillar or belonged to the relief panels on the east and west walls, placed just above the well-known processions of the personified funerary domains. In addition, compared with two similar attestations in the biography of Metjen13 where the ritual of the ‘Opening of the mouth’ is explicitly mentioned (wptr[A]), the reference to the fourth repetition (zp 4) can plausibly be restored as part of the following line: [mst wpt-r(A)] zp 4 m Hwt-nbw, ‘[fashioning and opening the mouth], 4 times, in the Mansion of gold’;14 it must be concluded that the fragment was not part of the original decoration of the pillar and, as a consequence, there is no correspondence between the latter and the royal Annals as the scholar thought. A final, epigraphic remark concerns the disposition of the titulary; nowhere on the other pillars a royal title appears under the caption, not just because the caption itself receives a different arrangement within the scene (as noted above) but especially because, within the Egyptian monumental discourse, the display of the king’s titles always precedes the description of the action he performs. Moreover, after the text zp 4 m Hwt-nbw there is enough space to indicate that this was the end of the inscription so that any other interpolated element – the nbw title according to Schott’s hypothesis – would not fit such a pattern. Accordingly, also the connection between Apis and the Red Crown is no longer tenable so that, in the end, Fakhry’s reconstruction is to be preferred as more reliable. Unfortunately, the fragmentary condition of the block prevents us from being certain about the actual presence of the Apis bull alongside the king and, if so, how it was represented; comparison with pictorial material of smaller-scale from both earlier (Den’s sealing from Tomb 3035 at Saqqara; supra fig. 2.4) and contemporary periods (see Sahure’s cylinder seal below) as well as with later royal monumental evidence (e.g. the famous scene of Hatshepsut’s running with Apis on the north and south façade of the Red Chapel; infra 5.1.3, fig. 5.5) is sure of help in this regard, although it is also possible that the animal was not depicted but only mentioned in the caption. Ultimately, the general iconographic pattern (king’s run) and the details preserved (the mks-container) supports the interpretation of the scene as representing an episode of the Sed-festival ceremony15 possibly related with the ideas of renovation of royal power, as well as of acquisition and confirmation of the king’s claims on the territory of Egypt.16 Be that as it may, the thematisation of the ritual in such a highly monumentalised form and within a formal architectural context clearly indicates that (1) the animal and its ritual configuration played an important role in the definition and communication of royal ideology; (2) the motif was part of the royal repertoire of decoration and could be combined with other thematic units, in particular with the image of the running king in contexts of royal offering rituals (Kees’ ‘Opfertanz’);17 (3) its display in the reliefs of the funerary complex coincides with the occurrence of the first extensively decorated temple at Dashur South, which established the form and content of many motifs. While the relief from Snefru’s pyramid complex provides a positive textual attestation of this kind of religious practice, and was most likely integrated by a visual correlate, a second possible iconographic reference to the same range of ideas and context of action seems to occur on a silver cylinder seal belonging to king Sahure of the 5th dynasty (Baltimora, WAM 57.1748).18 Lepsius 1949: II, pl. 5. Otto 1960 II: 3, with further references. 15 The motif of the king’s ritual run likely recurs several times on the pillars and the walls of the valley temple, although only sparse fragments survive; see Fakhry 1961: figs. 43 (pillar A, side 2), 55 (pillar B, side 2), 58 (pillar C, side 1), 68 (pillar D, side 1). 16 Full review and discussion of the attestations of this theme in the Old Kingdom royal decorative programme in Ćwiek 2003: 225-232. 17 Kees, 1912: 100-102; 1939, 23. 18 Kaplony 1981: 185-189, pl. 59 (no. 16). 13 14

47

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt The inscribed text is arranged in four pairs of columns facing each other and alternating the Horus name with the other titles of the king: Hr nb-xaw wTz xaw

The Horus Neb-khaw, who lifts the Two Crowns,

sHtp-ib nsw bit %AHw-Ra

who satisfies the hearth, the king oh Upper and Lower Egypt Sahure.

Hr nb-xaw dA xAswt

The Horus Neb-khaw, who subdues the foreign lands,

nbty nb-xaw Xnm anx wAs nb ra nb mr nTr

The Two Ladies Neb-khaw, who receives every life and power every day, who loves the god.

Hr nb-xaw nTr Spsy (?)

The Horus Neb-khaw, the noble god (?),

irr wDt nbwy xrp gs(w) mDH wr(r)t imy-r(A) gsw Netjerwy-Nbw, who does what he commands, who Xr(yw)-a-nsw fashions the wre(re)t crown, overseer of the leatherworkers, royal assistant. Hr nb-xaw pHrr Hp (?)

The Horus Neb-khaw, who runs (like) Apis (?),

nbty nb-xaw (Xnm) sxmty Xkr HAt wADt

The Two Ladies Neb-khaw, who unites the Two Ladies, who adorns the brow of Wadjet.

The particular feature of the inscription is that each column displaying the Horus name is followed by a small group of ideograms or emblematic signs encoding epithets or laudatory formulas. The last group is the one at issue here, for which Peter Kaplony suggests the reading nsw spH ngA(w), ‘king lassoing the ngA(w)-bull’.19 Such an interpretation reminds of the famous relief from the socalled ‘Corridor of the Bull’ in the Abydos temple of king Seti I, representing Ramses II and his eldest son Amunherkhepeshef lassoing a bull,20 although no direct comparison is established by the German scholar and, more importantly, a fitting parallel for this ritual episode might be found in a passage of the celebrated ‘Cannibal Hymn’ in the Pyramid Texts.21 Actually, no explanation or comment is given by Kaplony for his reading but, considering both the pictorial character and the schematic execution of the sign, a different hypothesis might be put forward, i.e., to identify the attribute held by the figure of the king as the nxAxA-flail often depicted in contexts of ritual running and, therefore, to understand the group as an emblematic representation of the pHrr Hp.22 Although not irrefutable,23 this interpretation resonates with a religious configuration that is well documented in the early textual record and has at least one contemporary iconographic parallel in Snefru’s relief. The royal annals record under the reign of Sahure an important initiative in favour of the less known animal figure of kA-HD (the ‘White Bull’), which is attested several times in the Old Kingdom epigraphic corpus, especially during the 5th dynasty, although the information available is not detailed enough to allow for a more analytical and in-depth appreciation of the specific aspects of its identity and religious status as well as of their articulation in ritual practice. The Palermo Stone (PS v.III.1)24 simply includes the bull among the divine recipients of a series of donations promoted by the king in his fifth year of reign:25 Kaplony 1981: 185. PM VI: 26 (236-237). Pyr. 286e: ‘(…) on the day of lassoing the ngA(w)-bull’. 22 See Ćwiek 2003: 244. 23 The reading of the emblematic group as pHrr Hp implies here an unusual understanding of pHrr as an imperfective active participle rather than as an infinite of the verb 3ae geminatae, which is the case in all the other known attestations. 24 Urk. I: 245, 1-2. Cf. Roccati 1982: 46-47 (§27); Strudwick 2005: 71-72; Wilkinson 2000a: 160-161. 25 The attribution is based on the mention of rnpt (m-)xt zp 2 Tnwt (‘the year after the second occasion of the cattle census’) as well as on the idea that such census regularly occurs every two years. On this mechanism, its possible fluctuations, and the related chronological issues, see Verner 2006: 124-128. 19 20 21

48

The Old Kingdom [nsw-bit] sAHw-ra iri.n.f m mnw.f n kA-HD

[The King of Upper and Lower Egypt] Sahure, he made as his monument (i.e. endowment) for the White bull

Xnt-iAbt sTAt 23 xA 2 Hsb mH 2

an arable land of 23 arouras, 2 kha ¼, 10 cubits, in the nome “Foremost of the east” (14th nome of LE).

The formal layout of the entry matches the pattern that Michel Baud labels as ‘format annalistique canonique’, which appears at the beginning of the 5th dynasty and is characterised by a tripartite articulation of the epigraphic space where the standard formula nsw-bit KN iri.n.f m mnw.f n introduces a list of the benefits granted by the king to the gods and their temples, and is followed by the usual record of the Nile flood.26 The translation of the term mnw as ‘monument’ is conventional27 and may include different categories of items and activities: while befitting the description of the foundation of buildings or the manufacture of statues, it does not suit contexts related to the dedication of offerings, lands, and personnel, which – like in the present case – represent the main contribution of the king’s munificence, so here ‘the translation “endowment” seems more appropriate’.28 The interpretation of the text – the most articulated document known so far on this particular animal – poses two major issues concerning the religious profile of the ‘White bull’: (1) its identity, status, and attributes; (2) the nature and significance of the donation received. The exact identification and significance of the animal remain elusive. On the monument, the name kA-HD is written with the hieroglyphs followed by the determinative of the standing bull, which is the standard orthography confirmed by its attestation in private titles (infra 3.2) but no specific morphological indication can be deduced from it; logograms and determinatives often display particular features or details of the entities they represent29 but that does not seem to be the case, and the effaced surface of the stone prevents any precise remark on this point.30 On the other hand, the meaning is quite straightforward and possibly contains an allusion to the colour of the animal’s hide, although other (correlated) values might be encoded. Alessandro Roccati equates the ‘White bull’ with the Mnevis bull,31 traditionally associated with the city of Heliopolis and the god Ra, yet this seems unlikely for two reasons: first of all, there is no definite evidence confirming the existence of the animal at such an early date, although an ancient origin for this famous bull might be posited on the basis of Classical literary sources (Manetho) and of some passages in the Pyramid Texts. The second compelling reason concerns the distinctive black colour that the available sources (admittedly all of later periods) ascribe to the Mnevis bull – a chromatic detail clearly in contrast with what the name ‘White bull’ suggests.32 On the other hand, the regular combination with the Apis bull in the contemporary titles of high officials could indicate a relationship of some kind between the two animals and their related institutions, thus implying an analogy in status and position.33 As for the second issue, the inclusion of kA-HD among the beneficiaries of the royal donations is a relevant fact that should be considered under two aspects:34 (1) the shift in the type of events recorded on the verso of the Annals (i.e., for the late 4th and 5th dynasties), which are now restricted to the description of the fields allotted by the king to various temple institutions. This fact likely reflects a change in the modes of self-presentation of Egyptian kingship, which focuses more prominently on the display of piety towards the gods as well as on their integration within the royal field of Baud 2003, 276-278. See also Redford 1986: 88-90. Wb. II: 69-71 (‘Denkmal’). 28 Wilkinson 2000a: 154. See also Baud 2003: 276, nn. 14-15. 29 See the running bull employed as determinative of Apis in PS r.IV.10 30 The statement is therefore based on the copies provided in literature; see Wilkinson 2000a: figs. 2-3. 31 Roccati 1982: 47; no explanation, however, is given for such identification. 32 Cf. also Wilkinson 2000a: 165 on this point. 33 See Otto 1964: 7. For the private titles see infra § 3.3. 34 Wilkinson 2000a: 148. 26 27

49

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt interest and political action. Moreover, (2) the divine recipients of such attentions seem to have a particular (but not exclusive) connection with the Memphite area and religious tradition as well as a strong ideological link with the royal power and the developing solar cult.35 These elements, therefore, may provide some (admittedly tenuous) hints for a better characterisation of the bull pointing, if not to a geographical area for its origin, at least to an association with kingship, as it is also the case with Apis and his ceremony. In this perspective, however, the localisation of the estate on the eastern part of the Delta is not as informative as it may seem: in fact, it perfectly fits with the strategies of colonisation, organisation, and exploitation implemented by the central authority in the area of the Delta, ‘a region which may be considered a kind of a “frontier area”, with extensive grazing and agricultural land and which was apparently under direct administration by the crown’36. Therefore, any attempt to establish a direct link between the bull and the mentioned region remains purely hypothetical. On the other hand, Eberhard Otto, on account of (1) the high incidence of Lower Egyptian gods in the entry, (2) a possible connection with Apis, and (3) the prominence of bovines among the standards of the Delta, regards the Lower Egyptian origin of kA-HD as a serious possibility.37 If so, then, one may ask whether the donated fields (at least part of them) could have been destined to the pasture and keeping of the specimen(s), a suggestion that finds a later parallel in the donation stele of Thutmosis III in favour of Mnevis and his herd.38 While this cannot be established, few general points emerge from the text as relevant for defining the animal’s religious identity: (1) the individual name and the bull determinative make sure that the referent is a single (real) specimen and that the name was not intended as an epithet for any deity; (2) the reference to the white colour seems to imply that there was some kind of criteria according to which the bull was selected, although other meanings cannot be excluded; (3) an ideological and possibly ritual association with the royal domain is apparently the most prominent feature – there is, however, no clue on how this relationship was possibly articulated –, and conforms to a broad pattern that has already been discussed for the Apis bull. The solar character of most of the deities mentioned in the entry, or their association with the sun cult (Ra and Hathor in the first place), might suggest that a connotation of this kind also affected kA-HD and its ritual context. Of course, comparison with other contemporary documents and similar religious contexts can help to detail with more precision the profile of the bull and the contours of the interpretative framework. A third configuration is first attested under Sahure, which, on the one hand, is not included in the traditional understanding of so-called ‘animal worship’ and, on the other, enjoys a major development in later times as an important theme of temple decoration. It is the so-called rite of ‘Driving the calves’, in which the king takes four calves of different colours in the presence of a deity.39 As for the first point, this ritual episode exemplarily illustrates the paradigm shift in the approach to the issue of ‘animal worship’ that is advocated here, in as much as its inclusion into the debate is not built on literary premises nor intuitive and less defined concepts, but it is consistent with (and makes explicit) those two criteria of ritualisation and the thematisation which have been stressed above. We have thus a set of practices directed at the mobilisation of a specific group of animals with certain characteristics and within a distinctive ritual context, while such a configuration is also transposed into the monumental discourse as a significant focus of religious display. Although not all the deities mentioned in the entry can be safely identified due to the deterioration of the stone, they include: ‘[the souls?] in Heliopolis’, Nekhbet, Wadjet, four different forms of Ra, two forms of Hathor, (Ptah) Khenty-iawtef. All of them are linked in multiple ways with the royal authority, the Helipolitan and Memphite cults and religious system. 36 For a more articulated discussion on the provincial administration of that period see Moreno-Garcia 2013: 107-121 (cit. p. 108.). The role of the Delta in the royal policy of provincial administration is stressed also by Wilkinson 2000a, 162: ‘The Delta clearly emerges as the focus of royal foundations’. 37 Otto 1964: 7. 38 Urk. IV: 1373; see infra § 5.2.2, fig. 5.6. 39 The work of reference, with a comprehensive review of the extant material and a thorough analysis of the meaning of the rite, is Egberts 1995. Due to the chronological restriction and to the different informative potential of the material, his interpretation is mainly based on the Graeco-Roman sources. 35

50

The Old Kingdom The second remark simply reflects the present state of evidence, characterised by a substantial absence of pertinent material earlier than the New Kingdom. The antiquity of the ceremony is however demonstrated by the two fragmentary scenes dating to the Old Kingdom (Figures 3.2a-b):40 a block from the pyramid temple of Sahure only shows two calves (the spotted and the white) facing right, while nothing remains of the divine beneficiary; on three joining fragments from the mortuary temple of Unas, instead, a goddess that can be identified as Hathor is depicted holding the wAs-sceptre as the recipient of the rite, with the four calves (of which only the front parts are preserved) moving toward her.41

Figure 3.2a. Block from the pyramid temple of Sahura, Abusir. After Borchardt 1913, 47.

Figure 3.2b. Fragments from the mortuary temple of Unas, Saqqara. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Ćwiek 2003: fig. 76).

Arno Egberts has extensively studied this rite, which is also attested in the Middle Kingdom (Sesostris I), and from the New Kingdom onwards becomes part of the regular repertoire of royal acts performed (and depicted) in temples; throughout this long history, the iconographic pattern of the scene remains virtually unchanged. The texts before the Ptolemaic period, instead, are very concise and only serve to denote the actors (officiant pharaoh; coloured calves; divine beneficiary), the setting, and the general course of action; it is only the Graeco-Roman times that inscriptions develop into longer, more complex captions expressing the contemporary theological interpretation and explanation of the episode. Based on these texts, the scholar has identified a multi-layered structure that articulates the meaning of the ceremony through four main themes: the four cardinal points; pastoral activities; agricultural activities; the burial of Osiris. While a detailed analysis is not relevant nor necessary here,42 from these arguments follows an important historical conclusion: such a meaningful constellation of semantic levels, at least in the form in which it has been preserved, is the product of a later, conscious and elaborate reinterpretation of the vignettes of the rite by the Egyptian specialists; that means, accordingly, that such a sophisticated reading does not affect the two Old Kingdom scenes, and cannot be automatically projected onto them to have a grasp of the significance and value of the ceremony prior to its much recent reformulation.43 Still, few points The suggestion that the relief fragment Turin Inv. Suppl. 12341 originating from Gebelein and dating to the Early Dynastic displays the same scene, thus representing the most ancient attestation of the ‘Driving of the calves’ appears quite untenable and is (rightly) discarded by Egberts 1995: 432, n. 94. 41 Their original position in the temples is uncertain; the alleged location of Unas’ scene in the transverse corridor is hypothetical. See Ćwiek 2003: 245, n. 1061. 42 For full discussion see Egberts 1995: 335-374, 437-440. The author also remarks that, starting at least from the New Kingdom, the ceremony is strictly linked to the rite of consecrating the meret-chests in temple decoration (Egberts 1995: 432, 433). 43 Egberts 1995: 372-374. 40

51

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt can be briefly remarked concerning this early configuration: the first one concerns the ancient form of the title, which can be safely reconstructed as Hw bHsw m Hwt-nTr, ‘driving the calves in the temple’;44 the adverbial adjunct m Hwt-nTr, which is well readable on the Sahure’s relief, clearly refers to the temple as the original setting of the performance, although, admittedly, ‘this does not say much about the symbolism of the rite’.45 In this regard, the view that it has an agrarian origin and was later osirianised, which is usually assumed in literature, is to be discarded as highly unlikely, since there is no internal or comparative evidence supporting the equation driving the calves = threshing ceremony as early as the Old Kingdom;46 as Egbert’s analysis demonstrates, the agrarian theme itself is one of those conceptual correlates combining each other within an ‘allembracing reinterpretation’ of the rite that only emerges in the texts of the Ptolemaic period.47 Rather, there are indications that a first stage of the ceremony had a pastoral character and meaning: considering the reference to the temple context in the Old Kingdom reliefs, and the fact that the driving of the calves is formally associated with the consecration of the victims (iwA-bull, ngA-bull, gazelle, oryx) as early as the 12th dynasty – it is certainly attested on the relief decoration of a bark-station of Sesostris I –,48 Egberts speculates that the ceremony ‘originally symbolised the expansion of the temple herds by means of royal gifts’.49 While hypothetical, this suggestion might also explain the apparent marginal position and loose integration of this theme in the whole structure of the rite after its later reconfiguration.50 On the other hand, we lack precise data about the liturgical context during the Old Kingdom, although comparison with later evidence unequivocally shows that the driving of the calves (together with its ritual correlate, the consecration of the meret-chests) was an episode associated with festival processions and could be performed in a wide range of occasions,51 while also displaying relationships with different deities.52 Similarly, no direct information can be drawn from the two fragments about the religious status of the animals involved; here too, comparison with later sources may be useful but, due to the chronological gap, caution is required. Despite such limitations, some arguments might be tentatively developed on these aspects: one tempting possibility is that the driving of the calves here is part of the Sed-festival, a theme that features prominently in the relief decoration of the Old Kingdom funerary complexes, while the presence of Hathor on Unas’ relief would not be inappropriate, given the goddess’s significant role within royal ideology.53 Yet this is no more than an educated guess, resting on the association of the Sahure’s fragment with another block showing the anointing of the cattle before the king, who is seated on a palanquin and dressed with the jubilee-garment.54 Alternatively, one might think of a temple festival dedicated to (or associated with) Hathor, as her representation possibly suggests; exact identification remains elusive, but the idea would fit well with both the alleged festive character of the ritual event and with contemporary evidence on Old Kingdom festivals: the occurrence of two festival mentions within the temple of Unas himself at least confirm that this was a motif important enough to be included in the decorative programme of the royal building. Egberts 1995: 336, n. 8. Egberts 1995: 374 46 Egberts 1995: 369-373, 439-440. 47 Egberts 1995: 372. More specifically, he observes (Egberts 1995: 369) that ‘the concepts associated with this rite constitute a structural unity, in which the most important positions devolve upon the Osirian and the agrarian themes. Once we have recognized the coherence of these two themes, it is no longer necessary to explain their concurrence as a historical development’. 48 Egberts 1995: 400. 49 Egberts 1995: 432. 50 Egberts 1995: 432-433. 51 The list of the major festivals related with the performance of the two rites includes: the Opet Festival, the Osiris Mystery in its Busirite form, the Sokar Festival, the Min Festival, the Valley Festival, the Festival of the Beautiful Visit at Edfu, the Festival of the First Month of the Summer. For a full discussion, see Egberts 1995: 377-418, 440. 52 In later contexts, the divine recipient of the rite is mostly represented by a male character, like Amon, ithyphallic Amon-Ra, and Min, whereas female deities are rarely attested; cf. Egberts 1995: 372, 437. 53 Obviously it cannot be excluded that the two scenes refer to different liturgical situations. 54 Borchardt 1913: 56, and pl. 47 (right). The scholar cautiously observes that the interpretation of the two episodes as part of the royal jubilee on the basis of the king’s garment is by no means certain, remarking: ‘Ähnlich ist auch der Ausdruck “Zeremonien beim Jubiläum” aufzufassen, nämlich als Zeremonien, die man als zum “Jubiläum” gehörig ansieht. Das mögen irgendwelche Feste im Tempel gewesen sein, die mit einem wirklichen Jubiläum nicht das geringste gemein hatten‘. 44 45

52

The Old Kingdom This leads us to the second aspect, concerning the religious profile of the animals. No explicit formulation is provided by the scenes, due to the laconic character of the texts and the fixed iconicity of the composition more than to the accidents of their archaeological preservation; however, three elements must be considered in this regard as potentially, although indirectly, relevant: (1) the reference to the temple as the setting for the ceremony (m Hwt-nTr) inscribes the presence of the four calves into a liminal, restricted context of ritual actions, thus possibly correlating their role and status to their active engagement into the rite. One could even speculate whether this presence was made permanent, in terms of both procedures of selection and confinement within the temple domain – a well-known fact for other specimens and periods. While this cannot be demonstrated, (2) the number of the calves, as well as the indication of their distinctive colours, may point in the same direction. Both these aspects have a clear symbolic value that is related to the notion of totality, yet it cannot be excluded a priori that such a symbolic meaning reflects a concrete and practical reality in which the four calves were actually selected according to those physical marks as living representatives and referents of this system of ideas. In this regard, (3) also the presence of Hathor may acquire a more precise significance. As a celestial deity and female counterpart of the sun god, she has a prominent position in Old Kingdom religious ideology,55 while also displaying a strong connection with royal authority in her role of divine mother of the king.56 Her cult is among the most important of the period and receives special attention by the state, as proved by the conspicuous endowments recorded in the annals57 and by her recurrence within the iconographic programme of royal funerary temples in particularly meaningful scenes.58 Thus, while it is not surprising to find the goddess as the recipient of the rite, one might ask whether this association possibly affects also the conceptualisation of the animals’ status, by emphasising, at least in this specific case and only indirectly, their celestial connotation. Perhaps this is stretching speculation too far; be this as it may, the occurrence of the goddess expands the roster of divine beneficiaries (in both number and gender) and, more importantly, further articulate the festive programme in which the rite is integrated. Whatever the precise value of all these points, which remains difficult to assess considering the rather isolated character of these early attestations, they reveal both the basic pattern and the variable, historical contingencies of animal worship as a dynamic field of religious practice. A general conclusion can be therefore inferred from this analysis, which is theoretically relevant for the topic under discussion since it helps to clarify how we can better articulate, both analytically and historically, the operative and discursive levels through which specific animals were integrated within restricted domains of ritual practice and, accordingly, mobilised as effective religious entities/agents. The driving of the calves, with its complex structure and development, makes apparent that the value of the animals is strictly related to the special position they fill within the ritual framework, i.e., it is relational and shaped through action. On the other hand, how this role (as well as the whole course of the rite) is possibly defined, interpreted, and expressed depends, ultimately, on the historical context and the concrete circumstances of their cultic use. The documented changes in the emic understanding and theological explanation of the ceremony strongly confirm this fact: there is no definite, exclusive and invariable semantic field, but meanings and interpretations can be modified and renegotiated in time (as it actually happened). What is relevant here, however, is the possibility to recognise, in relation to a context that evidently does not fit the standard view on ‘animal worship’, traces of a basic semantic process that structures and connects seemingly different situations: an active animal presence is invested with a particular religious efficacy by making it the focus of a specific ritual manipulation performed in a restricted/ The standard work remains Allam 1963, although somewhat outdated; a general overview in Daumas 1977: 1024-1033; Vischak 2001: 82-85. 56 Pyr. 466: ‘Are you, Unas, the god, the eldest one, the son of Hathor’. Hathor features prominently in scenes of suckling the king by a goddess; review and discussion of this theme in Ćwiek 2003: 176-184. 57 Hathor of sxt-ra(w) (Urk. I: 244,5); Hathor in the r-S of Sahure (Urk. I: 244.15); in xaj-bA (the pyramid) of Sahura (Urk. I: 244.17); Hathor of the Sycamore in the mrt of Sneferu (Urk.I, 247.15-16). See Wilkinson 2000: 160-161, 173. 58 The most relevant themes include: suckling, embracing, giving life to the king. For review and analysis of the pertinent material See Ćwiek 2003: 176-191. 55

53

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt liminal situation. The antiquity of the episode is also a notable aspect to consider from a historical and comparative perspective. An important group of evidence dating to the 5th dynasty is especially remarkable for the subjects and types of practices documented, their monumental elaboration within an extraordinary rich decorative cycle, and the ideological implications underlying such formulation; it consists of a series of relief fragments belonging to the decoration of specific areas of the sun temple Ssp-ib-ra of Niuserre at Abu Ghurob.59 The figurative programme, which mainly (but not exclusively) decorated the two main cult areas located at the base of the central obelisk, focused on two major themes: (1) the representation of the most salient episodes of the Sed-festival was illustrated in two cycles coming respectively from the so-called ‘Chapel’ (kleine Festdarstellung) and from the southern corridor connecting the main gateway of the temple to the obelisk (grosse Festdarstellung);60 (2) the celebration of the sun god Ra, in his crucial role of nourishing, sustaining, and renewing the natural world, was displayed in the so-called ‘Room of the Seasons’ (Jahreszeitendarstellungen) or ‘Chamber of the World’ (Weltkammer).61 To the first thematic pole belongs a group of reliefs assigned by Hermann Kees to the cycle of the grosse Festdarstellung and depicting the participation of the Apis bull in the complex set of rituals for the renewal of the royal power (Figures 3.3a-c). Of the three fragments indicated by Kees, two

Figure 3.3. Fragments from the solar temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob: a: visit to the chapel of the Apis bull (fr. no. 251); b: procession (fr. no. 252); c: inscription fragment (fr. no. 255). After von Bissing-Kees 1928, pl. 15.

The complex was excavated between 1898 and 1901 by Ludwig Borchardt and Heinrich Schäfer; the three volumes edited by von Bissing remain the standard archaeological publication (Borchardt 1905; Bissing and Kees 1923; Kees 1928). A new investigation of the site has been carried out, in recent years, by an Italian mission; see Nuzzolo and Pirelli 2011. For a general overview, cf. Stadelmann 1984. An updated synthesis on this type of building is given by Voß 2004: 60-134, pl. 3-8 (on the complex of Niuserre) and, more recently by Nuzzolo 2019: 113-248. 60 PM III/1: 316-19; the two series are published respectively in Bissing and Kees 1923 and Kees 1928. For a full analysis of the Sed-festival pictorial cycle cf. Bissing and Kees 1922. For a recent reappraisal of the topic and discussion on the reconstruction of the scenes, see Voß 2004: 78-88, 94-98. 61 According to Ćwiek (2003: 353), ‘transformation’ and ‘nourishment and supply’ are the basic concepts underlying respectively these two themes. 59

54

The Old Kingdom deserve particular attention: block no. 251 shows Apis standing within an open shrine, while the Xry-Hbt and the iry-smA priests move towards him, each one being identified by the label above and wearing his own distinctive garments and insignia.62 Despite the break on the left edge of the relief, the p-sign above the bull’s head is still recognisable as part of the name [H]p, which was likely written with the logogram Hp [ ] and the two phonetic complements ( and ), as on Fr. no. 255; the determinative was probably omitted since the animal was fully represented. Unfortunately, almost all the figure of the bull is lost, so it cannot be established whether any morphological detail was marked; only part of the face survives, apparently showing two long curved horns depicted in profile, an unusual fact that indeed results from the unfinished character of the relief, as the remains of the sketched grid with multiple corrections signalled clearly indicate.63 Another interesting detail is given by the representation of the vaulted shrine, the form of which is only partially preserved but resembles that of the dummy chapels in the Sed-festival court of Djoser’s complex. This feature may be relevant for interpretation, and the stylisation of the structure may correspond to a simple hut-shrine in light materials. Finally, the brief caption running vertically next to this building reads: pr(t) aA iAbty, ‘going forth/procession (of) the eastern door’. The scene has thus been reconstructed as representing the opening of the bull’s chapel, since ‘[e]vidently a processional visit of the king to this god is now due, or the bull is to be brought out to be led before the king’s throne’.64 As for the meaning, the episode has been related to the appearance of the newly enthroned Apis bull in his shrine, mainly on the basis of the later P. Vindob 3873 (= P. Vienna 27);65 on the other hand, a connection with the ancient ritual of the ‘Running of the Apis bull’ (pHrr Hp), which recurs several times in the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom sources, is perhaps more appropriate and has been also highlighted.66 While a punctual identification of the episode is not possible, and the evidence at our disposal does not allow any definite conclusion, the significant point is that the visual reference to an official procession and a physical structure associated with the individual bull points towards a real topographic and architectural setting, which, although only vaguely appreciable, gives however a distinct sense of how deeply the presence of selected specimens was integrated into religious practice, including prestigious, high-level ceremonies such as the Sed-festival. More specifically, because of its paradigmatic character, the case of the Apis bull provides a general interpretative pattern and illustrates how such participation was ritually constructed and formalised (within a controlled situation), in terms of (a) performance (the royal visit and possibly the famous running of the bull), (b) time/occasion (the Hb-sd), and (c) space/location (the architectural setting depicted), thus confirming that semantic structure already pointed out above. The second pertinent fragment (Fr. no. 255)67 likely shares the same archaeological context as the previous one and was thus part of the same sequence.68 It preserves the caption Hm Hp, repeated two times (only one of the two occurrences is fully readable) and likely to be understood as a title (lit. ‘servant of Apis’)69 related to as many figures now lost. The inscription matches the Berlin ÄM 20072 (lost); see Bissing and Kees 1923: 8, pl. A (Z. 241); Bissing and Kees 1922: 68-69; Kees 1928: 28-29, pl. 15 (251). There is, therefore, only one horn, which however was sketched twice in a slightly shifted position; the same effect can be observed for the stick held by the iry-smA priest on the same fragment, and it also occurs elsewhere in the decoration, (see Fr. no. 252; Fig. 3.3b). 64 Frankfort 1948: 84. 65 This hieratic-demotic papyrus describes the ritual for embalming the Apis bull. In particular, at Ro IV, 10-11 the text recounts how a newly discovered specimen was introduced in his office via the eastern door of its ‘stall’, while its dead predecessor was led out via the western door of the same building; cf. Spiegelberg 1920: 1-33, especially pp. 18-19. On the basis of this passage Bissing and Kees 1922: 69, identified the shrine and the ‘eastern door’ referred to in the Niuserre’s relief with those mentioned in the papyrus. Cf. also Bissing and Kees 1923: 8; Kees 1928: 29; Otto 1964: 14. This idea is maintained in the most extensive study of Vos (1993: 154-155), where the scholar states: ‘Of this epiphany of the god (…) we presumably find an authentic representation in the ritual feast in the temple of Ne-User-Ra’. Although suggestive, this understanding remains problematic, not just for the huge temporal gap separating the two documents, but also because there is no definite evidence about the burial of the Apis bulls before the late 18th dynasty. 66 See Kees 1928: 7, 29. For discussion on the Early Dynastic evidence of the ‘running of Apis bull’, see supra Chapter 2. 67 SMÄK, Gl. 213; Bissing and Kees 1922: 44; Kees 1928: 29, n. 6, pl. 15 (255). 68 See Kees 1928: 29. 69 Jones 2000: 588 (2153). 62 63

55

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt standard orthography for the name of Apis as it is documented in Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom attestations, with the Hp-duck serving as determinative on account of the homophony with the sign [ ] (Hp),70 so that is almost certain that the bull is meant here. While the meaning of the term Hm seems to display a religious nuance (‘servant/priest’), the formal pattern of the title (Hm + GN) finds numerous parallels in the contemporary epigraphic record,71 and may be interpreted as an abbreviation for Hm-nTr, ‘priest/prophet’.72 On the other hand, Martin Fitzenreiter accepts a reading of the group as mdw-Hp (‘staff of Apis’),73 although there is no clear reason supporting this interpretation apart maybe from the higher occurrence of the first title over the second (infra 3.2); nonetheless, judging from the published drawing of the relief, the form of the hieroglyph is unmistakable and the two signs cannot be confused. A possible earlier antecedent of the title could be recognised on the 1st dynasty stela discussed above, where it seems to be borne by a female individual – and has thus been restored as Hm(t)-Hp –, although both the identification and the interpretation are problematic.74 Even so, that does not imply an understanding of the Niuserre’s occurrence as female as well, while the two occurrences would suggest the possibility (very slightly documented) of the early existence of specialised personnel linked to the Apis bull that was presumably diversified both in terms of gender and type of tasks. In this regard, it also remains hard to appreciate the difference between the Hm-Hp and mdw-Hp titles: the latter is better attested in the record but not less difficult to assess than the former,75 about which one can only speculate based on (1) the possible equation with Hm-nTr and (2) the alleged pictorial content of the (lost) scene. As for the first point, if the assumption is correct, then the Hm-Hp is expected to have held the same position and carried out the same duties as the other members of the Hm-nTr class: ‘he prepared offerings, performed rituals, had access to the sanctuary of the divine image, and controlled the entrance to the temple’.76 This has, of course, serious implications concerning the existence of a well-structured context (architectural setting, ritual techniques) focused around the animal and framing its engagement in religious experience – a fact that other contemporary evidence, like a passage from Debeheni’s biography, seems to confirm. The second aspect has to do with the ceremonial role of the Apis bull within the royal celebration: considering the archaeological context of the artefact and its association with Fr. no. 251, it is plausible that the missing scene depicted the ritual running of the bull according to the same figurative pattern that appears on the two only parallels known (the Hemaka’s sealing; the relief fragment from Snefru’s pyramid complex), and that the ‘servants of Apis’ had a part in setting the stage or in supporting the royal performance. From these remarks also follows that the shrine depicted is likely to be interpreted as a temporary building serving the scopes of the Sed-festival, while, on the other hand, a more permanent and monumental space is supposed to have been specifically designed for the bull and set elsewhere.77 A third block (Fr. no. 252)78 has been restored by Kees as adjoining (physically) and matching (thematically) Fr. no. 251, as it would show the immediately preceding event, i.e., the moving of the group of priests led by the iry-smA towards the Apis’ shrine and its opening.79 The association between the two fragments is mainly established on the basis of the partial reconstruction of the See supra § 2.1. Many examples gathered in Jones 2000: 500-502 (1873-1874, 1876-1877), 588-591 (2151, 2153-2164). So Bissing and Kees 1922: 44. 73 Fitzenreiter 2013a: 67, n. 235. 74 See supra § 2.2. 75 For discussion, see infra § 3.3. 76 Shafer 1997: 10 77 Cf. Bissing and Kees 1922: 69. 78 Unknown storage; cf. Bissing and Kees 1922: 69; 1923: 8, pl. A (Z. 975); Kees 1928: 29, n. 5, pl. 15 (252). 79 Cf. Kees 1928: 28-29; Bissing and Kees 1922: 69. 70 71 72

56

The Old Kingdom inscription on the broken left edge of Fr. no. 252 as [iAbty] aA (‘[eastern] door’) as well as of the alleged parallelism between the depicted characters. That would give us, therefore, the unique chance to reconstruct and follow the development of a whole set of ritual actions related to the Apis bull:

Figure 3.4. Hypothetical sequence of episodes according to Kees’ restoration of fragments 251, 255, 255.

Kees’ restoration and interpretation of Fr. no. 252, however, are problematic in several ways. Firstly, the reading [iAbty] aA is purely conjectural and probably wrong: on the one hand, the orientation of the sign aA ( ) is opposite to that shown on Fr. no. 251, and, on the other, one should also assume an inversion in the word order. Moreover, in the upper register of Fr. no 252, the iry smA is not accompanied by the Xry-Hbt but by the enigmatic iry-tA. Finally, the content and the pictorial organisation of the relief seems to correspond much better to those scenes of presentation of the offerings to the king (so-called Huldigungsszenen) which are well attested in the cycle of the kleine Festdarstellung.80 This last point also raises the issue of the original position of the fragments within the architectural setting of the temple, whose reconstruction is essential to a better understanding of the whole figurative programme. In this regard, the limits of Kees’ restoration have been recently exposed and fully discussed by Susanne Voß.81 Moving from a division of the material based on the context of provenance (where noted by the excavators) as precise as possible, she has attempted to reconstruct82 the development of the scenes using as a reference model the similar series of the kleine Festdarstellung from the southern ‘Chapel’.83 Its better preservation had already allowed Werner Kaiser to produce a reliable interpretation of this relief cycle, which he divided into three main sections, identifying and labelling, within each one of them, different thematic units.84 According to Voß’ restoration, the motif of the royal visit t the gods’ chapels, which is part of the so-called Minfolge und Upuautfolge, would correspond, in the grosse Festdarstellung, to Fr. no. 251 with its representation of the Apis’ shrine displayed in the access to the obelisk.85 On the other hand, while the belonging of Fr. no. 255 to this sequence is likely confirmed by its provenance from the same area,86 Fr. no. 252 should be relocated, more fittingly, within the so-called Huldigungsszenen from the southern corridor, which separates the first two sections of Kaiser’s reconstruction, and focus on the hommages presented to the king enthroned in the Sed-pavillion.87

See von Bissing and Kees 1923: 3, pls. 4-5. 2004: 78-82. As the scholar justly remarks, the loss of both material and/or the related documentation does not allow restoring the position of every fragment but only to rearrange ‘die Abfolge der Szenen’; see Voß 2004: 79. 83 Voß 2004: 82: ‘Um eine Abfolge wieder herzustellen, wird somit im folgenden die “Kleine Festdarstellung” zugrunde gelegt, um festzustellen, ob sich entsprechende Fragmente der “Großen Festdarstellung” – im Idealfall mit Fundortangabe - in eine analoge Abfolge einfügen lassen’. From her reconstruction (Voß 2004: 82-88, pl. 5) it becomes apparent that several blocks should be rearranged in different positions from those previously suggested by Kees. On the kleine Hebseddarstelung, see von Bissing and Kees 1923; Kaiser 1971. 84 Kaiser 1971: 94, pls 4-5; see Voß 2004: 82. 85 Kees 1928: 28-29. See also Bissing and Kees 1922: 69; Voß 2004: 85, where she remarks that ‘an dieser Stelle auf einen räumlichen Übergang der Szenenfolge vom südlichen Umgang zum Obeliskenumgang hinweisen könnte’. 86 The block is not included in Voß’ reconstruction (2004: pl. 5); yet, its arrangement on the same wall as Fr. no. 251 is explicitly stated in Kees 1928. 87 See Kaiser 1971: 94-95; Voß 2004: 84-85, and pl. 5. 80 81 82

57

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt From a different architectural context of the same complex, another block has been interpreted as a possible depiction of the Apis bull: it is a large fragment (Fr. no. 388)88 belonging to the inner decoration of the two chambers of the monumental gateway (Oberer Torbau) connecting the causeway and the open court of the upper temple.89 The iconographic programme of this area was apparently centred on larger-than-life representations of the king acting before the gods, as Heinrich Schäfer records the contextual discovery of fragments inscribed with part of speeches.90 Not all the reliefs mentioned in the preliminary report feature or can be safely identified in the final publication, but among them there is the mentioned slab showing the rear part of a huge bovine (‘eine Grosse Ochse’).91 Despite the lack of any distinctive detail, Schäfer tentatively interpreted the animal as the Mnevis bull while Hermann Kees proposed an alternative identification with Apis, based on his occurrence in the cycle of the grosse Festdarstellung.92 In fact, both interpretations seem to rely on the remarkable dimensions of the animal as well as on the alleged thematic focus of the decoration (king-gods interactions): specifically, Schäfer’s suggestion was possibly motivated by the solar character that later tradition ascribes to Mnevis (although no explicit statement is made by the scholar), while Kees’ claim is clearly based on contextual elements. However, none of their arguments is beyond question, even though the equation with Mnevis is extremely improbable considering that he is not mentioned as such in contemporary sources. In the end, the loss of some of the original reliefs, the poor conditions of those preserved, the lack of more precise information on the architectural and decorative context do not allow any certain conclusion on the position and meaning of the bull within the figurative programme as a whole so that also the identification with Apis remain speculative and can only be signalled as an educated guess. The second great conceptual and figurative cycle was designed for that very particular space traditionally known as ‘Room of the Seasons’,93 a cultic area most likely intended as an offering chamber and marked by a distinctive solar connotation, already apparent in its planimetric arrangement. With its north-south orientation, the room points directly towards the monumental obeliskoid that represents both the spatial (as physical centre) and conceptual (as monumentalised expression of the sun power) core of the complex. Inside, the lateral walls (east and west) of the chamber are decorated with reliefs that illustrate some major episodes (both natural events and human activities) marking the succession of at least two of the three seasons of the Egyptian year: Axt and Smw.94 They are displayed on both sides as personifications preceding the sequence of superimposed registers where the different activities are punctually arranged according to an actual ‘solar’ principle: ‘les activités des êtres vivants sont classées non seulement par saisons, mais aussi départagées en activités du matin (à droite, donc à l’est) et en activités de l’après-midi ou du soir (à gauche, donc à l’ouest)’.95 Apart from the aesthetic quality of the reliefs, and despite the inevitable constraints imposed by their fragmentary and partially decontextualised preservation,96 the pictorial character of the composition needs to be set in context, since it is concerned with an extremely rich and detailed presentation of the natural world which, while illustrating the knowledge the Egyptians had of Cairo (unknown inv.); cf. Kees 1928: 44, pl. 25 (388). General overview in the preliminary report by Schäfer 1899. See Borchardt 1905: 10-11, 27-29, for detailed architectural description. For analysis and discussion of the figurative programme of this area, see Kees 1928: 44-45, pls. 24-25; Voß 2004: 70-73, and pl. 4. 90 Schäfer 1899: 4. 91 Schäfer 1899: 4. 92 See respectively Schäfer 1899: 4, n. 4 and Kees 1928: 44. 93 PM III/1: 319-324. On the inscriptional and decorative programme of the hall, see von Bissing 1956: 319-338; Edel 1961; 1964; Edel and Wenig 1974. For a recent reassessment based on the published data, see Voß 2004: 98-105, pl. 7. 94 Whether three or only two of the seasons were depicted is an open issue: it is generally agreed that only Axt and Smw were actually displayed; see Edel 1964: 185-189; Edel and Wenig 1974: 10-11; Voß 2004: 102; von Bissing (1956: 319-338), on the other hand, defended the thesis that all the three seasons were depicted while, according to Ćwiek (2003: 257-358, n. 1118) the idea that the prt-season was not represented is simply based on arguments ex silentio, and finds not much support in the parallel evidence. 95 Meeks 1990: 39. 96 On the events related to the conservation and publication of the reliefs, see Voß 2004: 98-102. 88 89

58

The Old Kingdom their surrounding environment, displays and communicates a ‘textbook of natural history’ marked by a ‘fundamental semantic framework: the sun god’.97 Within such a conceptual framework, which is religious in orientation and solar in formulation, a very individual monument gives visual expression to a distinctive ritual configuration focused on the participation of a specific group of animals: it is the so-called ‘Scene of the pelicans’ (Pelikanszene) decorating a fragment of limestone relief that was originally located on the east wall of the ‘Room of the Seasons’ (Figure 3.5).98 The scene, which according to Edel’s reconstruction99 belongs to the Smw-section of the figurative programme, owes its modern name to the depiction of a row of seemingly captive pelicans under the charge of three priests. The birds (likely Pelecanus onocrotalus or Pelecanus rufescens) are identified as Hn(w)t-pelicans100 and visibly characterised as male by the accompanying hieroglyph of the phallus (D52), while the religious role of their guardians is made explicit by the associated Hm-nTr title. The fact that priests follow behind the pelicans with outstretched arms as if to guide them suggests that the latter were probably kept as domestic birds.101 To the far left, a further damaged pelican has its wings spread; it is placed behind the main group, facing in the opposite way to the other figures, and was likely part of a related scene or even the same one. The rest of the decoration is lost. The caption running above is the most enigmatic feature of the composition and its understanding has stimulated a certain debate, with various interpretations being attempted:102 Edel 1961

sDr snk(w) m pr n Dj(w) nk(w) wbA pt wpj(w) Hw jsSm.f Hnnw nb(w) kA[wt nb(w)t] Verbringt die Unterweltssonne die Nacht in der Tempeldomäne, so wird keine Paarung zugelassen. Wenn der Himmel hell wird (eig. sich öffnet), so wird dem Schöpfungswillen (wieder) frei Bahn gegeben, dann regierter (wieder) alle Phallen und [alle] Vul[ven]

Krauss 1991

sDr snk m pr n Dj(w) nk(w) grH wp(jw-r) jtj.f TAw nb(w) […] Schalfen. Eingehen in das Haus. Nicht wird zugelassen, dass gepaart wird nächtlich; vielmehr führt er (der Priester) herbei alle ‘Männchen’

Jansen-Winkeln 1998

sDr.sn m k(jj) pr n Di(w) nk(w) grH jTj.f TAw nb(w) kA[wt nb(w)t] Sie schlafen in einem anderen Haus. Eine nächtliche Paarung wird nicht zugelassen, vielmehr führt er (der Priester) herbei alle Männchen [und alle] Weib[chen]

Despite the differences, all the proposed translations imply that the presence and integration of such a group of birds within a restricted temple (?) context had perhaps a significant role in connection to the solar cult, one which, however, remains difficult to define more precisely. Nonetheless, some aspects (role of the pelicans, position of the priests, setting of the episode) might be considered for a contextual assessment of the composition and its ritual and religious background. A first point concerns the status of the animals. In the scene, (1) the great size of the birds – especially the one on the left;103 (2) the explicit indication of the male sex – although likely complemented by

Assmann 2001: 56. Berlin, ÄM 20037 (Z. 254); Wreszinski 1936: pl. 84. See von Bissing 1956: p. 331, pl. XII; Edel and Wenig 1974: 21, pl. 11. An attempt to reassess and contextualise the religious meaning of the scene is proposed by Colonna 2019, with a detailed analysis. 99 Edel and Wenig 1974, 21. 100 Wb. III: 104; cf. Cannuyer 1999: 44, n. 8. On the morphological identification of the animals see Houlihan 1986: 10-12; Störk 1982: 923924. 101 Houlihan 1988: 10; Störk 1982: 924. 102 Edel 1961: 239-243; Jansen-Winkeln 1998; Krauss 1991. 103 See Houlihan 1986: 10: ‘In comparison to the men, the birds may seem excessively large, particularly the one furthest to the left’; however, as he himself admits, this might not be a distinctive criterion, since an adult white pelican stands about 140 cm. 97 98

59

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Figure 3.5. ‘Scene of the pelicans’ (Berlin, ÄM 20037) from the so-called ‘Room of the Seasons’, sun-temple of Niuserra, Abu Ghurob. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.

the depiction of the female birds in the left missing portion; (3) the white colour of the feathers104 – which may allude to the solar character of the animal or visually express its association with the sun god – are all possible markers that the pelicans were accorded a special status. Comparison with few pictorial and textual sources adds further material to the discussion. This evidence indicates that the bird had a strong cultic symbolism and was made the object of religious interest and perhaps mythological speculation over a very long period.105 This is particularly apparent in the Pyramid Texts, where the pelican is integrated into the funerary discourse about the royal afterlife, being mentioned in some long spells focused on the protection of the dead king and his ascent to the sky among the gods.106 The pelican is specifically addressed as Hn(w)t or psDt(y), each one of these designations expressing its supportive and protective role in different ways: (1) as a maternal figure (Hnwt) likely equated to the goddess Nut,107 and (2) as a solar birdform (psDt[y]) that helps the deceased (or that the deceased himself takes on) to succeed in the process of his celestial transfiguration.108 In this perspective, the giant bill of the pelican emerges as its distinctive feature, characterised by a marked symbolic efficacy: the locus is the enigmatic passage of PT 254, which describes the dreadful arrival of the king among the great gods at the horizon.109 The topic of the royal ascension to the sky is here complemented by a second motive, the bird’s supposed prophetic power as expressed by the verb sr.110 Dimitri Meeks has aptly summarised the combination of these two aspects, remarking that ‘[t]he pelican was a solar bird; his immense bill incarnated the door through which entered and left our world. Living on the confines of the universe, he knew what would one day come to pass (…)’.111 In view of this text, it has been assumed that such a conceptualisation of the bird could have had some cultic implication in the adoption of the pelican as a ‘prophezeiende Tier’,112 Painted details of the plumage are not preserved but the identification of the bird as the great White Pelican makes this a likely possibility. The suggestion is also supported by the other known Egyptian designation of the animal as psDt(y) (‘the shining one’; see the following discussion). 105 The bird appears early, among other emblems, on a wooden label of king Djer (Cairo JE 70114), which possibly depicts a religious episode of some kind; Emery 1938, 35-39, fig. 8, pl. 17-18 (A). At the opposite end of the spectrum, memory of the special significance of the bird survived in the late (4th century) statement of Horapollo that the Egyptian priests were forbidden to eat the meat of the pelican for some unexplained taboo-reasons. For general discussion on the cultural-religious value of the pelican in the Egyptian belief-system, see Cannuyer 1999; Meeks 1990: 43-44; Otto 1951; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 404-405. 106 Pyr. 226a-b (PT 226), 278b (PT 254), 435a-b (PT 293), 511d (PT 318), 671a-c (PT 383), 680a-b (PT 387). See Cannuyer 1999. 107 Cannuyer 1999: 48-50, 57-58. The association would have been based on Nut’s role ‘en tant que protectrice, mère et élévatrice du défunt roi’ as well as on a ‘certaine homophonie’ between the name of the bird and that of the goddess. 108 Wb. I: 559, 16. Cannuyer (1999: 44) holds that this is ‘une autre appellation, clairement métaphorique, du pelican’, whose root is related both to the idea of luminosity (Wb. I: 556-558) and to the notion of the Ennead (Wb. I: 559, 1-15). On this view, he interprets the name as: ‘Le Lumineux’, ‘Le Culminant’, ‘Celui-de-l’Ennéade’; Cannuyer 1999: 48, n. 23, 50-51. 109 For a detailed analysis and contextualization of the spell, see Cannuyer 1999: 45-51. 110 Wb. IV: 189-190: ‘vorhersagen, verkünden’. 111 Meeks and Meeks 1996, 17. 112 Störk 1982: 924. 104

60

The Old Kingdom in analogy with what is known for much later periods about the oracular activities performed by sacred animals maintained in temples.113 These notions are further refined in the Coffin Texts:114 on the one hand, PT 254 is transmitted and adapted into some spells of this later corpus;115 on the other, the open beak of the pelican acquires a stronger association with the eastern horizon, and can thus be exploited figuratively to signify the doors of the tomb in a cosmic framework, as in CT III, 218b-220a (Spell 225 = BD 68).116 While suggestive, the understanding of this material requires caution, not least because the idea itself of the prophetic abilities of the pelican is not as obvious as it might seem: Christian Cannuyer has justly noted that the usual interpretation of sr (‘to prophesy/foretell’) is ideologically tainted and argues that the term has a more neutral meaning as ‘far savoir, announcer, communiquer une information’.117 Be this as it may, the formulas from both the Pyramid and Coffin Texts greatly develop around this crucial point, emphasising the connection between the bird’s bill and voice and his prominent role in announcing the (re)birth of the sun/deceased. Overall, the rich imagery addressed above gives a broad picture of the range of values and beliefs that could have been at work behind the religious use of living pelicans, but there is no need to mechanically assume any straightforward correlation between the passages in the Pyramid Texts and the ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ with its displayed ritual activities. Comparison, in this case, illustrates some conceptual references (celestial character; protective role; communicative capacity) that could have been significant for the ancient performers in their ritual engagement with the birds, helping modern analysts to gain some understanding of such use. These ideological concerns, on the other hand, are not per se the key of interpretation. Instead, they should be viewed as complementary with the actual practice, i.e., with the fact that specific animals (in our case pelicans) were selected, set apart in a sacred/liminal context, and mobilised as effective agents of religious activity. The symbolism and iconic status of the bird, in other words, should not make us forget that the latter represented a real focus in the cult of Ra, as it is thematised in the ‘Scene of the Pelicans’. The depiction of three Hm-nTr priests is a second aspect to consider in this regard, as it relates to an official, institutional framework of action. Grammatically, it would be tempting to combine and read the two labels Hm-nTr and Hn(w)t as one single title, ‘Hm-nTr priest of the pelican’, which would indicate that there was a specialised sacerdotal group responsible for the maintenance and religious care of the pelicans housed in the temple area.118 On the other hand, considering the arrangement of the signs and the fact that the title of Hm-nTr is rarely attested with the names of (sacred) animals,119 it is safer to keep the two captions separated, and to assume that the priests depicted were the regular personnel employed in the temple service. Nonetheless, the pictorial display of the association between priests and pelicans is not irrelevant, as it suggests that the care and ritual handling of the birds were perhaps part of the temple priestly duties or at least that they took place and were required on specific occasions (festivals?), and could, therefore, represent an important focus of religious activity at official level. This suggestion can be supported by comparison with other titles that display an explicit connection to specific individuals or groups (see Tables 3.1, 3.2) along with additional pictorial evidence that See Ikramm 2005b: 8-9; Kessler 1986: 572-573, with further references. Discussion in Cannuyer 1999: 52-57. CT VI: 53e-54e (Spell 484); CT VI: 231b-k (Spell 619); CT VI: 236b (Spell 622) 116 ‘The mouth of the Hnwt-pelican is opened for you, the mouth of the Hnwt-pelican is thrown open for you, the Hnwt-pelican has caused you to go out into the day to the place where you wish to be’. Other relevant passages are CT III: 330a-331a (Spell 243); III: 393b (Spell 264); V: 37d (Spell 374) = PT 318 (Pyr. 511d). 117 Cannuyer 1999: 47-48, n. 22. 118 See Edel 1961: 239, n. 56. 119 The recorded attestations for the Old Kingdom include ‘Hm-nTr of the kA-wr-bull’, ‘Hm-nTr of the mrHw-bull’, ‘Hm-nTr of the HzAt-cow’. See infra Table 3.1. 113 114 115

61

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt illustrates well-defined religious contexts in which the participation of selected animals is actively constructed, as it will be discussed below. Finally, as for the temporal-spatial setting of the event, the inscription appears to correlate the ban on nocturnal pairing with a space generically defined as pr, of uncertain identification. The presence of the priests fits with a temple area or building within (or connected with) the main complex but nothing can be said about its exact location.120 In Elmar Edel’s interpretation,121 the pr toward which the pelicans are led by the priests must be identified with the sun-temple itself where the god Ra himself comes to rest overnight and to which the priests belong, yet the solar complex is not mentioned elsewhere in the epigraphic material from the Room of the Seasons. Rolf Krauss, by contrast, thinks that, during the day, the birds were kept in a place outside the pr-building and likely situated near the Valley Temple, where it was easier to get direct access to water and land; only at night they were brought back to the prdomain.122 Lastly, Karl Jansen-Winkeln’s rendering of the passage – ‘Sie schlafen in einemanderen Haus’ – implies a distinction between this resting place and a different area, which is possibly to be related to the structure where the female pelicans were housed at night or with the communal space where both sexes were housed together during the day.123 Be that as it may, the link between the presence of the pelicans in the temple area and the explicit interdiction of nocturnal pairing remains unexplained. Edel’s understanding is the only one in which both the prohibition and the related seclusion of the male birds are formulated in terms of solar ideology: the suspension of all vitality is required in accordance with the nocturnal form (snkw) of the sun god. If then any reference to Ra disappears from the text, as in the other two interpretations, one can just conclude that either the seclusion in the pr is aimed at avoiding the coupling or that the special (religious?) character of the pr-area makes it necessary to prevent the pairing of the pelicans; in both cases, the exact ideological meaning of the ban can no longer be appreciated in detail. Despite the difficult understanding of the text, the integration of the group of pelicans into the domain of the ritual practices related to the solar cult, according to specific modes, times, and places, is a very plausible scenario, one that may have been enriched further by the mythical-symbolical associations between the bird and the creative role of the solar demiurge, as both the architectural setting of the sun temple and some contemporary passages in texts suggest. It seems that this mobilisation was institutionalised and structured within the semantic framework represented by the god Ra. For the sacralised pelicans, that is, beings who were ritually manipulated for religious activities, participation in the solar cultic dimension meant a kind of adaequatio to the cosmic order which Ra manifested and embodied in his cycle. In this regard, it becomes also significant – as Meeks aptly remarks – that the scene was displayed on the eastern wall of the chamber, ‘celle correspondant au soleil levant ou au matin’.124 In Edel’s reading of the inscription, this relationship is made explicit by reference to the ‘creative will’ (H[w]) of the demiurge; however, even if it was not expressed in words, the crucial point is that it was ritually performed. The thematisation of such a set of religious practices focused around an active animal presence, together with its elaboration within the monumental discourse of the formal high culture, inscribes the ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ within an articulated historical and cultural process, listing it among the oldest attestations in Egyptian art of the keeping of a living group of selected creatures.125 See Edel 1961: 240: ‘Tempeldomän’’; Krauss 1991, 71: ‘Tempelgebäude, Tempeldomäne’. Edel 1961: 240. Krauss 1991: 71. 123 Jansen-Winkeln 1998: 40, n. 10. 124 Meeks 1990: 44. 125 See Colonna 2017: 109-110. 120 121 122

62

The Old Kingdom We can corroborate and refine this interpretation by comparing the ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ with the already discussed relief fragment of the Kleine Festdarstellung showing the Apis bull within its shrine (see supra). This case – it has been noted – offers a general interpretative pattern of how a particular animal presence was ritually constructed and formally activated (within a controlled situation), in terms of (a) performance (the royal visit to the bull’s shrine), (b) time/occasion (the Hb-sd) and (c) space/location (the architectural framework depicted). These same factors recur in the ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ shaping, as with Apis, a ritual configuration from which the animals involved gain their distinctive religious role and status. Of course, a ritual context is always specific (the royal jubilee on the one hand, the solar cult on the other), and so is the role of each animal, but they share a basic semantic pattern: endowing the specimen(s) with religious efficacy through ritual action and manipulation. No explicit theological definition is given about the nature of these animals and we should not expect it or search for it since the focus is different: what matters – and what emerges from the sources – is the role of the animal as a meaningful focus of religious practice. The crucial point that the ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ highlights is that multiple animals and not just single individuals could play such an important role and be integrated into major temple cults of the mid-Old Kingdom. Not less significantly, the parallelism between the two situations demonstrates that the case of the pelicans in Niuserre’s sun-temple should not be viewed in isolation but framed in a wider context of religious action and display, expanding the range of manifestations of ‘animal worship’ and challenging any attempt to create a uniform understanding. In brief, the ‘Scene of the Pelicans’, with its formal representation of the cultic mobilisation of multiple animals, is likely to be seen as the monumental expression of a more diffuse but otherwise scarcely attested religious practice, rather than as an unusual episode.126 Here as elsewhere, decorum is an important factor to consider in interpreting early sources and their patterns since it tends to limit the visibility of such activities in the monumental record, thus concealing their importance for larger groups within society.127 3.2 Private inscriptions: titles and biographies The category of private inscriptions includes both personal biographies and sequences of titles, which appear to represent the privileged mode through which the significance of certain animals is thematised within the private sphere. A distinction based on the narrative and non-narrative character of the sources has no particular heuristic value in this regard since all the available information, with just one remarkable exception (the biography of Debeheni), comes from single attestations in titularies that sum up the cursus honorum and the social position of private individuals. These documents complement the official (i.e. royal) perspective on the phenomenon and, despite being inevitably linked to a court dimension, make apparent the prestige coming from the formal association with particular specimens and from the (possible) participation in the ritual practices focused on them. The assembled evidence originates, almost exclusively, from the decorated tombs (with their associated materials) of high officials and members of the Memphite court and, although numerically more conspicuous than their royal or temple counterparts, reveals a likewise limited informative value. The major problem here relates not just to (1) the synthetic character of titles, but also to (2) the difficulties in ascertaining their purely honorific use rather than a factual association with a specific task, and to (3) the substantial lack of any indication of the social context or relational structure shaping the various strings.128 Titles mentioning specific animals (both individuals and

Colonna 2019: 350. See discussion below, Chapter 6. 128 The study of Old Kingdom titles has been the topic of some influential works that aimed at addressing analytically the critical issue concerning the distinction between functional-titles and rank-titles; see Baud 2005: 236-252 and Helck 1954, with a focused discussion of the main problems and further bibliography. 126 127

63

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Official

Titles

Monuments

Provenance

Dynasty (reign)

PM

spA

mdw kA-Hd

Statues Louvre A 36-37

S (?)

3rd (Djoser)

Hm-iwnw

mdw Hp

1. G 4000 2. Statue Hildesheim 1962 3. T 16 (nfr-mAat I)

G: WF (1+2)

4th (mid-Khufu) III/1: 122-123

mdw kA-Hd anx-Ha.f

mdw Hp

*snb

Hm-nTr kA-wr xnty sTpt Hm-nTr (kA) mrH(w) Hmt-nTr TA-zp.f

*xa-mrrnbty I

G 7510 1. Unnumbered mastaba 2. Statue Cairo JE 51280

M (3)

Baud [§]

Jones Index 1701

[151]

1699 1701

G: EF

4th (mid-Khufu) III/1: 196 [35]

1699

G: WF

4th (Djedefre)

2139

III/1: 101-103

1945

‘Galarza Tomb’ (*xa-mrr- G: CF nbty II)

4th (KhufuMenkaure)

III/1: 273-274

[171]

2141

4th (Menkaure) III/1: 273-274

[172]

2141

4th (mid-late)

III/1: 199 [163]

2141

III/1: 256 [59]

2141

III/1: [179] 188-190 III/1: 6566 III/1: [211] 183-184 III/1: 216

1699

*xa-mrrnbty II

Hmt-nTr TA-zp.f

‘Galarza Tomb’

*Htp-Hr.s II

Hmt-nTr TA-zp.f

*bw-nfr

Hmt-nTr TA-zp.f

Sarcophagus Cairo JE G: EF 54935 reused in G 7530 A (mr.sanx III) Unnumbered rock-tomb G: CF

xwfw-xa.f

mdw Hp

G 7130+7140

G: EF

iry-n-wr

mdw Hp

G: EF (?)

snfrw-xa.f

mdw Hp

G: EF

4th (Khafre)

xwfw-anx

mdw Hp mdw kA-Hd wa HzAt

Sarcophagus Cairo CG 6007 1. G 7070 2. G 7060 Sarcophagus Cairo CG 1790 (G 7750?)

4th (Shepseskhaf) 4th (mid-late Khafre) 4th

G: EF

4th-5th

Statue Frankfurt X. 20.900

Ab: EPN

5th (Niuserre)

III/1: 344

1358 1701

Hm-nTr HzAt mdw kA-HD

C 11

S: ESP

III/2: 579

2082 1701

Hmt-nTr TA-zp.f

D5

S: NSP

5th (UserkafSahure) 5th (DjedkareUnas)

III/2: 488 [78]

2141

mdw kA-HD

G 2150

G: WF

5th (?)

1701

kA(i)-swDA mdw kA-HD

G 5340

G: WF

5th

III/1: 77- [239] 78 III/1: 159

Hzi

mdw Hp

Unnumbered mastaba

S: TPC

6th (Teti)

mrrw-kA.i

mdw HsAt mdw Hp

Unnumbered mastaba

S: TPC

6th (Teti)

III/2: 525-534

S: TP

6th (Teti)

III/2: 394 [201]

S: UPC

6th (Pepy I)

S: TPC

wsr-kA.fanx iiDfA *mr.s-anx IV kA(.i)-nfr

mdw kA-HD

mdw HsAt Hmt-nTr TA-zp.f

mHw

mdw Hp

Relief fragment Cairo JE 39922 Unnumbered mastaba

mry-Tti

mdw Hp

Chapel mrrw-kA.i

Tti

mdw Hp

*zSzSt

*nbt

*innk inti ppi-anx Hry-ib

G: CF

1699

H A

zAt (kA) mrH(w) Pyramid complex

S: SPI

6th (Pepy I)

Me

6th (Pepy II)

64

1701 1699

Statue BM 29594 (Tomb M 8) zAt (kA) mrH(w) Stela Cairo CG 1578 Tomb D2

1699

1701

III/2: 619-622 6th (mid-Pepy I) III/2: 536-537 6th (MerenreV: 20 Pepy II) 6th (Pepy I)

mdw Hp

1699

IV: 254

[83]

1700 1699 1700 2141

[89]

1699

[81]

1699

*A3

2987

[21]

2987

1699

1699

The Old Kingdom Official

Titles

Monuments

Provenance

Dynasty (reign)

ibi

mdw Hp

Tomb 8

DeG

6th (Pepy II)

Daw

mdw Hp

Tomb 12

DeG

6th (Pepy II)

PM IV: 243244 IV: 243244 (?)

Baud Jones [§] Index *C1/ 1699 B2 *D2 1699

Legend A: Abydos Ab: Abusir EPN: East Pyramid Niuserre DeG: Deir el-Gebrawi G: Giza CF: Central Field EF: East Field WF: West Field H: el-Hawawish

M: Meidum Me: Meir S: Saqqara NSP : North Stepped Pyarmid ESP: East Stepped Pyarmid SPI : South Pyramid Pepy I TPC : Teti Pyramid Cemetery UPC : Unas Pyramid Cemetery *: uncertain case

Table 3.1. Old Kingdom officials and titles related to individual animals. Official sHtpw

Titles Monuments imy-rA iHw(?)- False door stela Louvre E 14328 DHwty ir.s-anx xt-Tntt 1. Stelae Cairo JE 57123 and 57189 from G 4630 2. False-door stela in G 4631 rmn-wi-kA.i/ mniw Tntt Inscribed mastaba imi ggi mniw kmt 1. False-door stela Cairo CG 1455 2. Statues Cairo CG 72, 73 xw.n-wx imy-rA Tzt n(t) Tomb 2 Tntt Hpi mniw Tntt Tomb D2 Hnnit imy-rA Tntt Tomb A2 Ttw imy-rA iHw(?) Tomb E4 n Tntt in-it.f imy-rA Tzt n Rock inscription N 7 nTrt ny-anx-ppy imy-rA Tzt n Rock inscription N 8 nTrt in-it.f imy-rA Tzt n Rock inscription O 31 nTrt igns imy-rA Tzt n Rock inscription O 48 nTrt Sn-sTi mniw Tntt Inscribed block Cairo JE 1664 ny-ibw-nsw/ mniw Tntt Lintel MMA 98.4.2a-c bbiqr mrri mniw Tntt Inscribed blocks Idw/wHAi mniw Tntt Inscribed block

Legend

AR: Abu Rawash

Provenance Date (dyn.) PM AR 5th III/1: 7

Jones Index 288

G: WF

5th

III/1: 133134

2761

G: CF

6th

1602

S: Unknown

6th

III/1: 261262 III/2: 692

Q

6th

IV: 239

997

Me Me Me

6th 6th 6th

IV: 254 IV: 247 IV: 256

1602 990 287

WH

6th

V: 190

995

WH

6th

V: 190

995

WH

6th

V: 190

995

WH

6th

V: 190

995

D D

6th-8th 6th-8th

V: 112 V: 112-113

1602 1602

D D

9th 9th

V: 112-113 V: 114

1602 1602

Me: Meir

D: Dendera Q: Quseir el-Amarna G: Giza S: Saqqara - CF: Central Field WH: Wadi Hilâl (Elkab) - WF: West Field Table 3.2. Old Kingdom officials and titles related to multiple animals.

65

1601

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt groups) must be set against such background, while also raising, sometimes, the not irrelevant question about the correct identification of the entity recorded as a real animal being. The pertinent documentation has been arranged in tabular form (Tables 3.1, 3.2) in order to provide a general overview of the data. Nonetheless, a preliminary review of the material already allows enucleating three main levels that can be briefly commented upon: 1.

2.

3.

Animals. As for the identity of the mentioned animals, the evidence shows a double trend. On the one hand, it mostly refers to single, named, and marked specimens (the Apis bull; the ‘White bull’; the Hesat-cow) that occur in association with specific titles, in primis that of mdw (lit. ‘staff ’), thus confirming the picture sketched on the basis of royal monuments. The interpretation of such a title remains problematic, especially concerning its correspondence with a real task, while other combinations (e.g., Hm-nTr + animal) are very rarely attested or uncertain. On the other hand, some designations mention, in connection with a sacral, temple context, larger groups of animals (especially bovines); yet, considering the limitations pointed out above, their characterisation remains extremely elusive. Officials. The titles under discussion belong to high officials and members of the royal family/ entourage charged with important administrative or representative functions. Moreover, the comparison (both synchronic and diachronic) of their relative position within the string gives the opportunity to discern the existence of recurrent combinations or associative patterns. Geographical distribution. The high concentration of data in the Memphite region represents a significant detail that must be understood within the broad political framework of a continuous negotiation of power relationships between centre and periphery. In this perspective, the occurrence of certain groups of titles (such as mdw Hp) in provincial contexts during the 5th and (especially) 6th dynasties reflects the shifting balance between the central court and the local élites, in terms of better visibility of the latter than the previous period.

3.2.1 Early Old Kingdom (3rd-4th dynasties) Early titles focus exclusively on single animals (Table 3.1). The oldest known example is given by the title mdw kA-HD (‘staff of the White bull’)129, which is part of the sequence inscribed on the base of the two statues of Sepa (spA) dating to the 3rd dynasty and probably coming from Saqqara (Louvre A 36-37). Later attestations (4th dynasty) are slightly more abundant and diversified: six officials hold the title mdw Hp,130 which first appears with Hemiunu (Hmiwnw) – the renowned vizir of king Khufu – in combination with mdw kA-HD, while it recurs alone in the strings of Ankh-khaf (anx-xa.f) Khufu-khaf (xwfw-xa.f), Iri-en-wr (iri.n-wr/wr-jr-n[.i]), Snefru-khaf (snfrw-xa.f). Among the other relevant titles marking the rank and authority of these individuals, all of them are identified as smHr waty and xtmw-bity, five iry-nxn (four also r P nb), four HAty-a and iry-pat, and two TAyty zAb TAty;131 more importantly, they all bear the status of ‘king’s son’ (zA-nzw), a clear indicator of their high position within the royal family and entourage. The regular occurrence of mdw Hp in these cases points to its progressive codification and systematisation within the Memphite court, following a general process of formalisation of the system of titles, many of which especially emphasise the relationship with the royal person.132 A final piece of evidence, the inscription on the coffin of Khufu-ankh (xwfw-anx), completes this first group of attestations and adds a further element to the pattern they show.133 The text, which lists the main titles of the official, includes the standard pair of mdw Hp and mdw kA-HD together Jones 2000: 455 (1701). Jones 2000: 454 (1699). Begelsbacher-Fischer 1981: 32, 35 only lists five individuals (Ankh-khaf not included). See Begelsbacher-Fischer 1981: 32, n. 2. 132 Moreno Garcia 2013: 95; this is illustrated in exemplary fashion by the titles rx nsw, zA nswand msw nsw, which are thoroughly analysed in Baud 2005. 133 CG 1790; Donadoni-Roveri 1969: 114-115. 129 130 131

66

The Old Kingdom with the enigmatic wa(?) HzAt (‘unique one[?] of the Hesat-cow’), written (apparently) with honorific transposition.134 The name HzAt is encoded phonetically and followed by the determinative of the standing cow, a choice that contrasts with the usual depiction of the animal as recumbent but that is likely conditioned by the standing position of the two bull determinatives in the preceding titles.135 The reading and interpretation of the group are uncertain and the lack of any comparable attestation hampers a more precise understanding. Anna Maria Donadoni-Roveri has proposed an alternative explanation as ‘(staff) of the unique Hesat-cow’, which however seems likewise problematic.136 The inscriptional material of this period includes another source, which is remarkable for its form and content: it is a short passage of the biography of Debeheni (dbHni), a high official who possibly served under Menkaure, inscribed inside the chapel of his rock-cut tomb at Giza.137 It provides the first attestation of the Apis bull and the most ancient mention of the aH-building known from a narrative context. Such information is even more relevant since the two elements (the bull and the building) appear strictly correlated. The text is fragmentary and only partially preserved since a large part of the decoration remained unfinished. It mainly concerns the description of the arrangement and equipment of the rich tomb that the king generously bequeathed to the official. One of the damaged lines contains a significant (though incomplete) reference to:138 […] Hb Hp m aH-nTr […]

[…] the festival of the Apis bull in the Palace of the god […]

The name of the animal is encoded phonetically and accompanied by the regular determinative of the standing bull, according to a full, standard form that is attested elsewhere in the epigraphic record. Ogden Goelet also notes that the connection between the bull and the architectural setting, here verbally expressed, may find an indirect pictorial antecedent in the Den’s sealing already discussed,139 while the loss of a significant portion of the inscription makes a proper contextualisation of the passage difficult.140 The text emphasises the ceremonial character of the episode, framing the presence of the Apis bull within a context marked by punctual temporal (HbHp) and spatial (aH-nTr) parameters, which however remain hard to articulate further considering the lack of more explicit details. On the other hand, comparison with both earlier and contemporary evidence, especially royal monuments, allows at least some comments on these points. First, the rite of the pHrr Hp and the participation of Apis in the Sed-festival may provide a fitting frame of reference for the interpretation of the Hb-Hp, and one cannot rule out the possibility that the latter term actually refers to one of these occasions. In this regard, Goelet’s remark that ‘[p]erhaps dbH-n-i’s text also refers to that ritual’ (i.e., the Sed-festival)141 cannot be accepted, since it is questionable that Hb-Hp was an alternative designation of the royal jubilee, while Old Kingdom evidence rather suggests that the bull’s presence, and possibly his running along with the king, could play a part in that ceremony. It is perhaps more plausible to assume a correspondence with the pHrr Hp, which appears since the Early Dynastic period as an independent rite with a strong royal focus, and thus to suppose that the ‘festival of the Apis bull’ represents its developed form (in name if not in ritual content), Jones 2000: 368 (1358). Cf. Wb. III: 162.1-3. Donadoni-Roveri 1969: 115: ‘(bastone) della vacca sacra HzAt unica (?)’. 137 PM III/2: 235; see Hassan 1943: 118, pl. XLVIII; Urk. I, 18.8-21.15. The attribution to the 4th dynasty is mainly based on the mention of Menkaure as the patron and promoter of the construction of the official’s tomb, yet the there is no general agreement on this point, and a later dating to the middle of the 5th dynasty has also been proposed on stylistic grounds; for discussion see Kloth 2002: 38-39 (84). 138 Urk. I: 20.15. 139 See supra § 2.1, Figure 2.4. 140 Goelet 1982: 237. 141 Goelet 1982: 237-238. 134 135 136

67

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt fully institutionalised and integrated into the liturgical calendar of the time.142 A third possibility, admittedly more speculative as it entirely relies on much later textual sources, is that the feast at issue refers to the ceremony associated with the discovery and the related enthronement of the bull, an event on which we are informed by the vivid accounts of the Classical authors and by several Serapeum stelae of the 1st millennium BC, but which is completely unattested in the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom record of evidence.143 As for the topographical-architectural setting mentioned in the inscription, one may wonder whether the aH-nTr indicates a specific building (a shrine?) dedicated to Apis rather than a sector within a larger complex possibly consecrated to a different entity. An early association with Ptah could be suggested on the basis of (1) the later theological connection between the bull and the Memphite god, (2) the physical contiguity and integration of the spaces designed for Apis and the temple of Ptah in the Late Period, (3) the fact, noted by Goelet, that Ptah is the deity served by the two high priests referred to in the Debeheni’s biography as those responsible for the construction of his tomb.144 Although suggestive, this hypothesis suffers however from drawing on information that is circumstantial or derived from later times, while there is no single piece of contemporary evidence pointing to such an early connection, and Ptah is never mentioned together with Apis. The risk of simply projecting later, better defined interpretation back on early data to fill gaps in the documentation, therefore, must be seriously taken into account. In this perspective, a contextual analysis of the use of the term aH(-nTr) should be considered in order to properly assess the informative value of its mention in relation to Apis. Goelet’s exhaustive review of virtually all the pertinent material highlight three points that are especially relevant here.145 First of all, aH-nTr designates a real place and an actual building, not just an administrative department; the edifice could be juxtaposed to an open court (wsxt) and protected by a precinct, as both pictorial and epigraphic sources show.146 Secondly, the aH-building appears to have a marked religious character, being mainly associated with ceremonial occasions; it likely serves as a ritual palace where the king and the gods act. The royal focus is particularly emphasised, with the Sed-festival featuring prominently in the available record: the reliefs from the Djoser funerary complex147 as well as from the Niuserre’s sun temple are mostly exemplificative in this regard, and several passages of the Pyramid Texts connect the aH-nTr with the purification of the king. Thus, Goelet concludes that this structure was primarily ‘a changing area or a resting place for the king’.148 Its prominent ceremonial connotation also emerges from those sources presenting the aH-building as the setting for the celebration of the enthronement and crowning rituals, all functions that, together with the connection to the Sed-festival, continue to be documented also in later sources.149 Finally, such a strong royal link is complemented and integrated by a significant association with a wide range of divine beings (Atum, Nekhbet, Horus, and Seth). From these observations, it may be concluded that the aH-nTr mentioned in the text in association with the Hb-Hp refers to a real edifice with a ritual connotation – a shrine or, possibly, a more articulated temple-building – serving the purposes of a ritual performance focused on the Apis This interpretation does not preclude that the Apis’ ritual running could be integrated as a ritual episode of the Sed-festival (or at least of its pictorial elaboration). 143 The locus classicus is Hdt. III, 27, 1; similarly, Plin., NH VIII, 71. As for the relevant material from the Serapeum, cf. the basic work of Vercoutter 1962. 144 Goelet 1982: 238. 145 Evidence includes: Early Dynastic labels, entries of the Palermo Stone, private narrative texts, royal monuments, passages from the Pyramid Texts. For full discussion, see Goelet 1982: 230 ff. 146 Among the iconographic materials, the most remarkable are the Den’s label discussed above (supra § 2.1, Figure 2.6) and a relief scene belonging to the kleine Festdarstellung from the sun temple of Niuserre (block CG 57112; PM III/1: 316 [20c] = Bissing and Kees 1923: pl. 9 [20c]); as for the textual evidence, the combination of the signs aH-nTr and wsxt is evident in Pyr. 1984a (PT 667) mentioning the wsxt of Atum; although the passage does not make explicit reference to the aH-nTr the latter sign is contained in the hieroglyph for wsxt. For extensive analysis see Goelet 1982: 230-232 (Den’s label), 299-300 (PT spell), 320-321 (Niuserre’s relief). 147 Goelet 1982: 682-683. 148 Goelet 1982: 400. 149 See Pagliari 2012: 233-244. 142

68

The Old Kingdom bull; comparison with both the Niuserre’s relief showing Apis within a small shrine, the scene of the king entering the aH-nTr in the kleine Festdarstellung, and the caption describing the arrangement of this space before the beginning of the celebration of the jubilee, suggests that the structure was a temporary building erected on the occasion of the festival of Apis. While all these elements could support the idea that the event took place within the religious and architectural framework of the Sed-festival, the specific designation of the ceremony, on the other hand, seems to indicate that the aH-nTr was an independent building (or an installation within a larger complex), with a more permanent character. In this regard, the association signalled in the texts between this type of structure and the coronation ritual could provide a hint on its function as well as on the religious meaning of the whole episode: the ritual techniques concerning the selection and enthronement of the Apis bull represent an important aspect of the career of the living animal, and are especially well documented in the Late Period. There is, indeed, no direct evidence that similar procedures were in use at such an early date, and yet the Old Kingdom evidence strongly emphasised the individual, unique status of Apis, while the ostracon from Saqqara Tomb S3035 (supra § 2.1, Figure 2.5) – granted that it shows the bull, as it seems reasonable – also points to the existence of (at least) a possible established configuration of the physical appearance of the animal. So, it cannot be excluded that some kind of activities related to the selection and official installment of the Apis bull – not necessarily identical in form and meaning with the later practices – were performed in the aH-nTr as a major focus of the celebration behind the Hb-Hp. These remarks do not add much to the issue of the exact localisation and character of the place, but at least they underline a developed spatial configuration and suggest that the animal’s ritual engagement, with its distinctive topographic and architectural correlates, was fully integrated into the built environment and religious landscape of Memphis. 3.2.2 Late Old Kingdom – Early First Intermediate Period (5th-9th dynasties) Under the following two dynasties, some interesting variations occur in the quantity, typology, and content of the evidence. The titles of mdw Hp and mdw kA-HD continue to be well represented, but some differences emerge in the record from the two periods: all the officials of the 5th dynasty bear only the title of mdw kA-HD, except for Wserkaf-ankh (wsr-kA.f-anx) who is also Hm-nTr HzAt – this is the only attestation known for such title.150 On the other hand, under the 6th dynasty, the situation appears to be reversed, with only one attestation of the title mdw kA-HD in the titulary of Meryre-ankhw (mry-ra-anxw)151 and the higher occurrence of mdw Hp. Two points should be remarked in this regard: first, the only two certain attestations of mdw HzAt are documented for Hesy (Hzy) and Mererwka (mrrw-kA.i),152 who also display the more standard mdw Hp; moreover – what seems relevant in terms of geographical distribution – mdw Hp does not occur only in relation to high Memphite officials but also to provincial administrators, like Tjeti (Tti), Ibi (ibi), and Djaw (Daw). Two further elements should be added to this picture: on the one hand, the epithet zAt (kA) mrHw (‘daughter of the bull Merehw’) first appears in this period, linking an otherwise unknown bull (lit. ‘the anointed one’) with some important female figures (queen Inti [inti], and the dame-vizir Nebet [nbt]).153 No specific information is known for this title, which has a strong royal connotation, and might be intended as a metaphorical construction referring to the king rather than to an actual living animal. The royal connection and the restriction to female individuals are both interesting Jones 2000: 563-564 (2082). The title is attested on a fragmentary relief from the Hermitage Museum (Inv. c18108; Bolshakov 2005: 136-141) that originally decorated the façade of the tomb of this official. It is dated on stylistic and onomastic grounds to the reign of Pepy I (or somewhat later), thus providing ‘the latest known record of the title Herdsman of the White Bull’ (Bolshakov 2005: 141). 152 Jones 2000: 454-455 (1700). The alleged early occurrence of this title on the stela of Merka is not definitely sure. See supra § 2.2. 153 See Baud 2005: 147; Helck 1954: 20 and n. 41; Jones 2000: 817 (2987); Otto 1964: 7-8. On this bull and its association with the royal wife, see also Vernus 1978: 455-458, who collects three further attestations for as many queens of later times (26th dynasty and Ptolemaic period). 150 151

69

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt features, which can be contrasted, to some extent, to the adoption of Apis into the onomastic pattern of some early queens, and to its seemingly similar value in expressing their association with the person of the king in animal (bull) terms. However, since there is no further evidence on the mrHw-bull, the issue of the possible existence of such a bull as well as of the context of its keeping and ritual engagement cannot receive a definite answer. On the other hand, a series of titles is now well represented that mentions specific groups of animals, mainly bovines, apparently belonging in temple contexts (Table 3.2). The case of the so-called Tjentet-cattle of Hathor is certainly the most exemplificative. The name (Tntt), whose exact meaning and etymology are not entirely clear but reasonably connected to the root Tni (‘to distinguish/be distinguished’),154 is usually encoded phonetically and complemented by the cattle determinative (E1) with the strokes of the plural or by the triplication of the classifier itself; interestingly enough, in the tomb of Khwen-wekh (xw.n-wx) at Quseir-el Amarna, the determinative shows a calf together with two cows155. It follows that the term Tntt conceptualises the animal presence as a collective, perhaps unmarked herd with no specific individual standing out.156 Mainly attested in the funerary epigraphic record from provincial contexts of the late Old Kingdomearly First Intermediate Period, the name recurs in different titles (imy-rA Tntt; imy-rA Tzt n[t] Tntt; imy-rA iHw? n Tntt; xt-Tntt; mniw Tntt)157, which characterise the identity of nobles and officials of Dendera and Cusae and define their role in relation to the cult of Hathor within these two major centres. The titles refer to administrative (rather than religious) positions and are held exclusively by male individuals, while, as for their geographic distribution, a couple of attestations need to be remarked as coming from the Memphite area. Overall, ten relevant occurrences are attested, which mainly record the titles mniw-Tntt (‘herder of the Tntt-cattle’) and imy-rA Tntt (‘overseer of the Tntt-cattle’). At Dendera, the office of mniw-Tntt appears to be strictly associated to that of ‘overseer of the priests of Hathor’ (imy-rA Hm-nTr Hwt-Hr)158, since all the known men (four persons)159 who display the former usually hold also the latter – although, as noted by Galvin, the opposite is not true.160 Such a combination would indicate, therefore, a connection of both the title and the herd it mentions with the figure and cult of Hathor. At Meir, the same position seems to be less prestigious, as it occurs only once in Tomb D2 held by a low-rank individual (Hepi/Hpi) who appears among the group of relatives seated below the owner Pepy-ankh the Middle (ppy-anx Hry-ib);161 in this regard, Shafik Allam argues that ‘der Hirte der heiligen Kühe undertand dem Gaufürsten und Vorsteher der Priester des Hathor’.162 Similarly, the title of imy-rA Tntt is attested, although with different writings, in relation to three other members of the local nobility who display different status and participation in the Hathor’s cult: one of them (Hnnit)163 bears no other Hathoric titles while the remaining two (xw.n-wx and Ttw)164 are both ‘inspector of the priests of Hathor (sHD Hm-nTr Hwt-Hr) and one of them (xw.n-wx) also holds the position of ‘priest of Hathor, Mistress of Cusae’ (Hm-nTr Hwt-Hr nbt qis). Wb. V: 374.1-375.28: ‘erheben; (sich) abheben; ausgezeichnet sein; unterscheiden’; V: 376, 3-4: ‘die heiligen Kühe von Dendera’. Based on the verb Tni, Allam 1963: 26 understands the name Tntt as ‘hervorragendste Kühe (?)’ 155 Blackman 1914: 8, n. 1; see Fischer 1968: 27, n. 116; Galvin 1981: 329 (311). 156 See Fitzenreiter 2013a: 67. The presumed link with the root Tni and the consequent translation of Tntt as ‘the most distinguished cows’ seem to imply that there could have been a selection process of some kind, yet definite proof is still lacking. 157 Jones 2000: 61 (287), 275 (990), 277 (997), 434-435 (1602), 759 (2761). 158 Jones 2000: 174 (665). 159 Shen-setji (Sn-sTi): Galvin 1981: 332 (343); Fischer 1968: 120; Petrie 1900: 47, pl. VIIA; Ny-ibw-nsw/Bebiker (ny-ibw-nsw/bbiqr): Galvin 1981: 329 (307); Fischer 1968: 142; Petrie 1900: 48, pl. VIII; Mereri (mrri): Galvin 1981: 331 (336); Fischer 1968: 136-153; Petrie 1900: 47-48, pls VIII, VIIIA,, VIIIB; Idw/Wkhai (idw/wHAi): Galvin 1981: 331 (331, 333); Fischer 1968: 153-154; Petrie 1900: 49, 51, pls X, XI B. 160 A fifth official (iAmw) to hold both titles is also attested under the 11th dynasty. See Fischer 1968: 26, n. 112; Galvin 1981: 122. 161 Blackman 1924: 4 (18), pl. XV; Fischer 1968: 27, n. 113. 162 Allam 1963: 36. 163 Blackman 1953: 17, pl. XXX; Galvin 1981: 332 (340). 164 On Tjetu (Ttw) see Blackman 1914: 7, n. 5; 1953: 60. Galvin 1981: 332 (345). 154

70

The Old Kingdom Kurth Sethe suggests that the Tntt-cattle represents one of Hathor’s primitive bovine forms,165 although no attestation is known before these mentions in the titularies of the 6th dynasty. Hans Bonnet holds that the Tntt-cattle consisted of ‘Tempelkühe (…) die für den Kult erforderliche Milch lieferten und als Genossinnen der Göttin verehrt wurden’.166 Considering the sparse and laconic character of the material, this speculation cannot be easily verified and nothing precise can be said about the general religious profile of this group of animals, but at least a few remarks can be made with regard to (1) the Hathor connection and (2) the apparent local, provincial dimension of this animal presence. As for the first point, the inclusion of the Tntt-cattle in a well-structured and widespread cultic horizon also emerges not only from the hathoric titles displayed by the mentioned officials but also from the fact that most of their wives and daughters were themselves engaged in the cult as priestesses of the goddess.167 In addition, the inscription on the inner side of the sarcophagus of Bebi (Cairo CG 28117; 7th dynasty?)168 explicitly refers to ‘your (i.e. Hathor’s) Tntt-cattle’ within a long list of festal episodes, thus expressing the link in terms of belonging of the animals to the deity, and alluding to an elaborated configuration of beliefs and practices through which such association was articulated. The New Kingdom mention of ‘Hathor of the Tntt-cattle’ in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari confirms the persistence and development of this connection, and the fact that this mention occurs within an offering context of milk and wine is also significant.169 Finally, it would be tempting to recognise tangible evidence of the role sacred cows had in the hathoric cult at Dendera in the later animal catacombs identified by Flinders Petrie south-west of the main necropolis area.170 The second point concerns the Old Kingdom expansion of the cult of Hathor outside Memphis, where it is first attested as early as the 4th dynasty, playing a crucial part in the contemporary promotion of the royal ideology within the Memphite élite.171 The process has been likely explained as the result of a programme of economic and cultic colonisation promoted by the central government during the 5th-6th dynasties172 and especially endorsed by the kings of the 6th dynasty, who displayed a particular interest in Hathor Mistress of Dendera, as the patronage of Pepy I most clearly demonstrates.173 Therefore, it is possible that the origin or development of many centres of Hathor worship in Upper Egypt is to be related to such a policy. This is especially the case for Cusae, where, according to Robyn Gilliam, the cult of the goddess ‘seems to have been created ex nihilo. Every significant aspect of the cult, from the sacred Tntt cows, the wx fetish, to the office of xnwt or female musician priest (…), can be seen to originate in the Memphite area’.174 It is certainly noteworthy, in this regard, that the earliest known attestations of the Tntt-cattle come from Giza and mention two officials, Remen-wi-kai called Imi (rmn-wi-kA.i/imi) and Ires-ankh (ir.s-anx), who were active, respectively, during the early 6th and the 5th dynasties, and hold, correspondingly, the position of mniw Tntt and the unusual title of xt-Tntt (‘attendant of the Tntt-cattle’).175

Sethe 1912: 29. Bonnet 1952: 403; see Allam 1963: 26-27. 167 Khwen-wekh, for example, had both his wives and all his daughters holding such position. See Gillam 1995: 229, n. 196. 168 PM V: 133. See Lacau 1904-1906, II: 97; Petrie 1900: 57, pl. XXXVII. 169 Urk. IV: 235, 15-236, 6. 170 Petrie 1900: 28-30, pls. XXVII, XXXVI. It is not clear, however, whether the complex, which has yelded numerous Late and Ptolemaic animal mummies of different species, was ever meant to accommodate the remains of the sacred cows; see Kessler 1989: 221. Petrie records that no such remains were found in the catacombs but notes, on the other hand, the discovery of a mass of bovine bones inside the 3rd dynasty mastaba of Ny-ibw-nsw, which he interprets as belonging to late burials of sacred cows (Petrie 1900: 4). 171 See discussion in Gillam 1995: 214-226. 172 Gillam 1995: 226: ‘the cult of the royal goddess followed the ruling elite as it organized the towns of Upper Egypt (evidence for the Delta is not so clear) as centres for the redistribution of goods and services for its benefit’. 173 See Fischer 1968, 37-54; Gillam 1995: 227-228. 174 Gillam 1995: 229. 175 PM III/1: 261-262 (Remen-wi-kai), 133-134 (Ires-ankh). For further discussion, see Begelsbacher-Fischer 1981: 238; Fischer 1968: 25-26 (9); Galvin 1981: 115-117, 329 (309M); Piacentini 2002: 160. Gillam (1995, 229, n. 192), while dating Remen-wi-kai to the 6th dynasty, places Ires-ankh ‘same what later’, differently from other scholars. 165 166

71

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Since both pieces of evidence predate all the other documents attested from Cusae and Dendera, this raises questions about the meaning of such a geographical displacement as well as about the effective fulfillment of the duties associated with the titles. The provenance of this inscribed material could support the idea of an early Memphite context for the service of the two mentioned offices and, accordingly, for the related presence of the Tntt-cows. On the other hand, the title of ‘overseer of the priests of the Mistress of Dendera’ ([imy-rA]Hm-nTr nbt iwnwt) that Remen-wi-kai displays in his funerary inscription clearly identifies his cultic affiliation as belonging to Hathor of Dendera and suggests that also the Tntt-cattle is to be associated with that city and its religious landscape.176 Basing on the regular combination of the two positions (‘overseer of priests’ and ‘herdsman of the Tntt-cattle’) within the epigraphic record from Dendera – which is not earlier than the end of the 6th dynasty – as well as on the fact that the role of Herder of the Tntt-cattle is not documented elsewhere in Giza/Memphis, Marianne Galvin concludes that, in spite of Remenwi-kai’s burial in Giza, ‘it seems more logical that he would have fulfilled that responsibility within Denderah itself ’, thus filling a gap in the chronological range of attestation of these titles at that site.177 If so, one might also speculate whether such interpretation could be extended to Ires-ankh, whose offices however lack a site-specific designation and whose family ties are likely to be located in Giza. Overall, judging from this sole evidence, it remains difficult to establish a certain association of the Tntt-cattle with the Memphite cult of Hathor while, on the other hand, it surely became an important feature of her cultic landscape in Cusae and Dendera at least from the 6th dynasty, and could be related to the interest of the state in expanding agricultural domains and economic activities in the provinces of Upper Egypt, by promoting integration with provincial élite and reinforcing connections with local temples and potentates.178 Since cattle and livestock played an important part in the process, it is possible that the presence of the Tntt-cows within the provincial temples of Hathor (with the associated set of administrative roles and responsibilities) embodied and reflected this kind of concerns, projecting them into the field of religious practices and ideological values. These however remain largely unknown in their forms and articulation. Apart from the Tntt-cattle, which provides a relatively good number of attestations, temple herds that were possibly invested with a religious status and associated with local gods appear in the epigraphic material from at least one other place. At Elkab, about six hundred inscriptions were carved on the rock walls and hills of the Wadi Hilâl, located in the desert area north-east of the town enclosure; mostly written in semi-cursive hieroglyphs, the major part of them dates back to the Old Kingdom, and more precisely to the 6th dynasty.179 These graffiti mainly concern the personnel attached to the local temple cults, notably to the shrine of the tutelary goddess Nekhbet, and consist of short texts recording personal names and titles of the people involved. Among these, some identify individuals who held the title of imy-rA Tzt n nTrt, which occurs in five attestations written in at least two variants.180 Since the term nTrt is followed by the determinative of the cow ( ), the whole expression has received slightly different interpretations: ‘overseer of herds of the goddess (i.e. Nekhbet)’, ‘overseer of herds of the sacred cattle’, or ‘overseer of herds of the netjert cattle’. Such nuances reflect different understandings of the word nTrt: in one case, it is taken as a female noun evidently alluding to the vulture goddess Nekhbet, and thus the position and meaning of the animal group are conceptualised in terms of belonging to the deity and her See Fischer 1968: 25-26; Galvin 1981: 116. Galvin 1981: 116-117. 178 See discussion in Moreno-Garcia 2013: 124-138, especially pp. 137-138; cf. also Gillam 1995: 229. 179 PM V: 190. For a comprehensive and detailed study see now Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001. The inscriptions are concentrated in two main spots: a huge isolated boulder called ‘vulture rock’ (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001: spot 64 on pl. 1, maps I-II, pl. 50) and labelled ‘N’ after Green’s map from 1896, which displays 280 graffiti. The second boulder, which contains 313 inscriptions, lies to the north-east of the ‘vulture rock’, just in front of the small temple of Amenhotep III, and is labelled ‘O’ (Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001: pl. 1, spot 69, map III). 180 Inscriptions N 7, N 8, O 31, O 48, O 54; Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001: 45-46 (N 7, N 8), 161 (O 31), 168-169 (O 48), 172 (O 54), 317-318 (discussion). O 54 also appears in translation in Strudwick 2005, 162-163. On the title and its writing, see also Fisher 1981: 61, nn. 21-22; Jones 2000: 277 (995). 176 177

72

The Old Kingdom temple domain; in the other two instances, instead, the term features as a nisbe adjective-noun referring to the cattle itself and designating its collective identity as ‘sacred’.181 If so, it would be one of the earliest attestations of this form of predication applied to living animals. In both cases, the group is recognised as a selected(?) animal presence whose special status relies on the association with the local deity and the participation in the goddess’ cultic context, although it must be noted that – as in Meir and Dendera – the title refers to administrative rather than strictly temple roles. Nonetheless, it is exactly the parallelism with the similarly structured titles from Cusae mentioning the Tntt-cattle of Hathor (imy-rA Tntt; imy-rA Tzt n[t] Tntt; imy-rA iHw? n Tntt) that invites to consider the suggestion of a religious characterisation. The rest of the titles recorded in these inscriptions present the owners as members of the local élite, in a similar manner to what happens in Meir and Dendera, and thus reveal that those positions also played a part in the self-presentation of such individuals, even though they say nothing about the underlying meanings and beliefs, probably for reasons of decorum. Their large number and generally consistent character suggest that they were carved on a regular pattern, in relation to a local festival. The display character of the inscriptions and the patterns of their distribution point to a shared setting, location, and purpose that would have possessed religious meaning. Ultimately these late Old Kingdom rock inscriptions present another (common) arena of religious action in which animal participation and mobilisation could have been actively included. Such observations might be possibly applied to two more attestations of this kind of title, which similarly refer to temple herds in provincial contexts: one comes from the late 4th or 5th dynasty mastaba M XVIII at Abu Roash, where the false-door stela mentions a certain sHtpw who bears the title of imy-rA iHw(?) DHwty(?). The other belongs to the Thinite nomarch ggi, who is known from a false-door and a group of statues discovered in his tomb at Saqqara; among the titles displayed on the stela and one of such statues, there is mniw kmt (‘herdsman of the [sacred] black cattle’), which is possibly a variant of imy-rA kmt more commonly attested later at Naga ed-Der.182 3.3 Personal names Although it accounts for a small fraction of the Old Kingdom onomastic record, a consistent number of anthroponyms appears to contain a reference to specific animal entities, both individuals and groups. Formally, they consist of simple (one-word names), composite (compound names), and fully developed (complete sentences) appellations,183 arranged in some recurring patterns that mainly emphasise certain qualities of or modes of association with the mentioned creatures. As for the animal identities, the Apis bull and the Tntt-cows features prominently in the record, with other animals being scarcely represented.184 Apis displays a relatively high frequency of attestations (Table 3.3),185 as it occurs in about ten nameformations that especially convey the notions of veneration (dwA-Hp) and belonging (ny-Hp; ny-kA.iHp), or link the bull with specific attributes or entities (ny-mAat-Hp; mAat-Hp; ny-Hp-ra; ra-Hp.f?).186 All these patterns are well paralleled by other theophoric names, but some uncertain readings must be considered since they may affect the total number as well as the general characterisation of the figure. In particular, two names (ny-Hp-ra and ra-Hp.f) listed by Hermann Ranke187 among those Based on the term nTrt (‘Art-Schurz’; Wb. II: 365.13) Vandekerckhove and Müller-Wollermann 2001: 318 also discuss the possibility that the word designates a specific kind of bovines (nTrt-Rind), the hide of which was used to produce the nTrt-garment. 182 See infra § 4.1 183 See Vittmann 2013: 1. 184 The list of evidence here discussed (Tables 3.3-3.5) draws on the fundamental work of Ranke (1935, 1952, 1977), which still remains valuable for general discussion. It has been implemented via the review of the recent study of Scheele-Schweitzer 2014 and of the large (though still in progress) online databases AGÉA developed under the auspices of the IFAO. 185 The following discussion focuses mainly on name-types. In the tables, an approximative number of name-bearers is registerd but, since it was not always possible to check all the direct sources, this number is merely indicative. 186 Begelsbacher-Fischer 1981: 33 only counts 2 names: ny-mAat-@p and kA.i-Hp. 187 Ranke 1977: 93. 181

73

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt composed with Apis would suggest, if well understood, a very early association with the sun-god that would be relevant for interpretation. However, there is no further element supporting this explanation and it is most likely that the group Hp refers in fact to the Hp(t)-tool188 rather than to the living animal.189 The ambiguity is evidently due to the orthography of the bull’s name: in all cases, this is always recorded phonetically without the following bull determinative ( ), a feature that has already been noted above about the Early Dynastic onomastics. This point is probably relevant as it seems to be indicative of a regular and rather consistent trend limiting the occurrence of the bull taxogram in personal names. This choice might be compared to similar contemporary practices where rules of decorum removed the use of the logographic forms of certain theonyms (Ra and Horus in particular) from the writing of private theophoric names190 and, more in general, excluded the display of full images of gods in all but royal contexts. Accordingly, it could be supposed that such restrictions reflect, although indirectly, the acknowledgment of a powerful and effective religious position to the Apis bull, one that would have required appropriate strategies and modes of both written and visual presentation. Alternatively, one may think of practical-magical reasons related to the suppression or substitution of certain (fierce, predatory, or dangerous) animal hieroglyphs in funerary contexts, in order to prevent them from harming the deceased, a usage well documented in the Pyramid Texts. This, however, seems rather unlikely considering, on the one hand, the positive value attached to the bull’s image and, on the other hand, the fact that the sign is regularly retained in the writing of titles. As for the meaning of the names and the information that can be drawn from them, a salient aspect concerns the association of Apis with the Ka (of the individual) and is articulated in terms of correspondence between the two as well as of authority of the former over the latter. In such statements, which conform to rather common patterns, Apis features in the same protective role as other great gods (Ra; Horus; Ptah); no explicit detail, however, emerges about its figure and characteristics. Similarly, the name dwA-Hp may allude to a dimension of personal devotion that is not necessarily to be related to the participation in an official context of cultic activities. Both types of appellations simply stress a general positive value of Apis and most practically highlight the close relationship with the name-holder, but they are not very informative on the concepts and ideas shaping its role and functions. A seemingly partial exception is represented by a couple of names mentioning Apis together with Maat: ny-mAat-Hp (‘Maat belongs to Apis’) already appeared at the end of the Early Dynastic and possibly reveals the influence of royal models, while mAat-Hp (‘Maat of Apis’?) is now attested for the first time. The combination of the two elements in these onomastic formations may have originated from – and reflected – an actual ideological statement of some kind, but it remains difficult, from such brief allusions, to move beyond the bare registration of their occurrences, even more considering our ignorance of their broader religious background and framework of reference. The analysis of the geographical and chronological distribution of the data collected clearly shows that the large majority comes from the Memphite necropolis (Saqqara and Giza), spanning through the whole Old Kingdom, but being especially attested during the 5th and 6th dynasties. The picture that emerges confirms the situation already sketched for the Early Dynastic period and outlines a trend of both growth and regional circumscription in the use and circulation of Apis-based anthroponyms. It is also interesting to note that names of this kind appear equally distributed between men and women, a fact that could be of a certain significance if one assumes a Wb. III: 67: ‘ein Schiffsgerät’. Indeed, Ranke himself (1935: 173.3) interprets ny-Hp-ra as ‘Besitzer des Hp(-Gerätes) ist Re’, but then (1977: 93) list it in the final index under the Hp ‘Apis’ heading. No translation, instead, is provided for the other name. 190 The case of Hesy-Ra is likely the most representative of this kind of usage; see Kahl 2007a: 42. For recent discussion on Old Kingdom theophoric names mentioning the gods Ra and Horus, see also Hlouchová 2016: 73. 188 189

74

The Old Kingdom correlation with the queenship pattern – and thus the royal circuit – suggested above for the Early Dynastic material. On the other hand, however, the number of attestations at our disposal is not so remarkable to be considered highly representative of a general trend and might just be due to archaeological accidents in the preservation of the record. Finally, from the character and provenance of the sources, it can be incidentally noted that the social profile of the individuals whose names include reference to Apis represents the circle of the central élite, although with a certain degree of hierarchy and variation: it is perhaps significant, in this regard, that the major part of them is not the owner of the tomb but is affiliated to him through kinship or social connections, while not always inscriptions specify their exact status and position. Moreover, the fact that none of these persons displays (or is connected to people displaying) titles related to the Apis bull (e.g. mdw-Hp) is also noteworthy. In the light of this admittedly insufficient material, it is difficult to draw definite conclusions, but it can at least be proposed that ideas and beliefs around Apis circulated in the élite sphere, outside the strictly royal milieu of monumental representation, and were also adopted by its members for purposes of selfdefinition. The notions were evidently similar in both domains, but differently articulated and expressed. On the other hand, the absence of a substantial correspondence between individuals bearing Apis-based names and officials holding Apis-related titles should advise us to account for the possibility that the diffusion and adoption of those names not necessarily reflect a genuine religious force or relationship with the Apis bull, and convey no more than a vague penchant. Following the Apis bull, the Tntt-cattle is also well attested in the record, albeit with only three types of onomastic formation recorded (Table 3.4). All these appellations, in which Tntt is addressed as being perfect (nfr-Tntt) or having come (iy-Tntt), or is used as such (Tntt) without entering into compound constructions, fit into well-known theophoric name-patterns that express an action or quality of the mentioned deity,191 while the simple form may also be understood as an abbreviation of extended names. Graphically, the Tntt-element is usually written without any determinative (E1), but its identification with the group of cows belonging to the Hathor cult is made sure by some examples recorded in the tombs of el-Hawawish and el-Hagarsa, where the name Tntt is explicitly disambiguated by the use of the bovine classifiers E1 and F1.192 The anthroponyms thus built conveyed, accordingly, the idea of a positive association between the name-bearer and that special animal agency with its hathoric background, when not indicating a particular Hathor form or aspect.193 Despite the few documented name-types (3), they are distributed among a relatively high and compact number of individuals (20 ca). The general trend to include the Tntt in personal names is discernible as early as mid-late 4th dynasty, and becomes more evident during the following 5th and 6th dynasties, while the geographical distribution of the attestations centres on the Memphite necropolis, especially Giza, with some occurrences coming from provincial contexts (el-Hawawish, and el-Hagarsa). As expected, they all belong to female persons who were members of the central élite, as both the location of their monumental tombs and the associated materials recording their names demonstrate. The relevant point, however, is that, in those cases where the epigraphic record is well preserved, these women also display priestly titles strongly linked to the cultic domain of the goddess Hathor. While a detailed prosopographic enquiry is outside the scope of the present work, at least one example might be presented as particularly illustrative of such a pattern: it concerns the wife of Dwa-en-ra (DwA-n[.i]-ra), the owner of mastaba D 61 in Saqqara dating to the middle of the 5th dynasty. Named Tntt, she bears the very specific title of Scheele-Schweitzer 2014: 110-111; Vittmann 2013: 5. Scheele-Schweitzer 2014: 487 [2024]. In one case from Hawawish, the name seems to have been (over)written to add some hathoric details (a sun-disk between the horns) and girdle around the neck, which are interesting for the characterisation of the animal. See Scheele-Schweitzer 2014: 487, n. 336 193 This explain, perhaps, the habit of translating Tntt invariably as a singular: ‘Tn.tt-Vieh’ (Scheele-Schweitzer); ‘La vache sacrée’ (AGÉA database). 191 192

75

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt ‘priestess of Hathor, Lady of the sycomore’ (Hm[t]-nTr Hwt-Hr nb[t] nht), which expressly points to the Memphite sacred landscape. Since, as it has been shown above, the Tntt-cattle has an exclusive connection with Hathor, at least two points need to be remarked: (1) the possibility should be allowed that, contrary to the previous assumption of a local (Cusite and Denderite) origin based on the restricted geographic concentration of contemporary titles related to the Tntt-cows, these animals were actually integrated into the temple context and religious performances focused on the goddess at the capital; (2) the combination of Tntt-based names with hathoric titles may reflect a complex configuration of notions and beliefs to which these people (and their parents) had access, and which perhaps motivated their name choices. It is also interesting to note, incidentally, that such ideas appear to have a distinct élite character and dissemination while being absent from the strictly royal milieu, as no use is made of the Tntt-cattle in contemporary royal sources and monuments. Apart from Apis and the Tntt-cattle, other personal names composed of animal designations are more difficult to evaluate. Difficulties arise from a triple consideration: on the one hand, the large majority of the attestations consists of one-word appellations that use generic terms denoting a wide array of animal species; on the other hand, the socio-cultural background behind their adoptions remains quite elusive.194 Metaphoric, apotropaic, and symbolic mechanisms were certainly at work in most cases, and they might have been completely secular in character. For those names mentioning particular types of animals, like the crocodile or the hippopotamus, a religious explanation may be a possibility, but even so, the exact connection could have been differently understood (respectively as a reference to Sobek and the regenerative value of the hippo). Finally, the lack of significant comparative material from other archaeological, pictorial, and textual sources regarding the participation of such animals in well-defined contexts of ritual action, also represents negative evidence to be taken into account. In general, it seems that, while this group of anthroponyms can be related to a broad range of cultural ideas and notions on certain animals, it does not reveal any clear association with a special context of religious practice where those animals were actually involved as a central focus. A partial exception to this picture, one that needs to be discussed separately, is represented by names including the word bA ‘ram’ (Table 3.5). The latter recurs in different onomastic patterns displaying compound or fully developed sentence forms: the ram is addressed as ‘perfect’ (nfrbA), ‘noble’ (Spss-bA), ‘standing’ in support (aHa-pw-bA), ‘perfect of shade?’ (nfr-Swt-bA), ‘great of stability’ (wr-Ddd-bA); it is said to ‘protect’ (bA-xw.f), to have ‘appeared’ (bA-Ha.f) or ‘come’ (bA-iww), or is mentioned in complex (sometimes obscure) statements or puns (bA-bA.f; wr-bAw-bA), which apparently plays on the homophony between the words bA (‘ram’) and bA (‘ba/power’).195 A proper understanding of these anthroponyms and the (alleged) animal figure that they mention, however, is in part hampered by the orthography of the term itself. This is encoded logographically with the sign of the ram with curled horizontal horns (E10), usually accompanied by the sign of the incense bowl (R7), which helps clarify the reading. Therefore, when the latter is omitted, one cannot exclude the possibility that the ram-god Khnum was actually meant. A second, related issue concerns the identity and nature of the entity conceptualised as bA. It is reasonable to suppose an association with the figure of bA-nb-Dd, the major divine agency of Mendes with a prominent and well-developed cult already during the 3rd millennium BC;196 the provenance of two attestations (aHa-pw-bA and nfr-Sw-bA) from that site also supports this assumption. Hermann Ranke systematically translated the bA-element as ‘der (heiliger) Bock’, thus implicitly suggesting a reference to a living creature, and some of the listed names seem to allude For general discussion on this class of names, see Ranke 1925; 1952: 182-185; Scheele-Schweitzer 2014: 94-95. The orthography of the word anxw, with the triplication of the sign and (in one case) the final -w, would suggest an active plural participle rather than a pseudoparticiple, as implied in Ranke’s translation; see however the remarks in Ranke 1952: 624, n. 10. 196 See discussion in Redford 2010: 18-41. 194 195

76

The Old Kingdom to a context of maintenance and ritual manipulation of a real specimen. In this regard, (1) nfr-SwtbA, sAb.w(y)-bA and nfr-bA might be viewed as referring to the physical aspect of the animal;197 (2) bA-Ha.f could contain an allusion to the discovery/manifestation of the (new) special individual – something along the lines of what is more extensively described on the Ptolemaic Mendes Stela; similarly, (3) bA-iww may be linked to the same structured ceremonial framework, while (4) bA(m)-HAt would add the interesting detail of a processional episode. Finally, (5) Spss-bA may provide a rare hint about the distinguished character of the animal, and (6) bA-anxw, if one accepts Ranke’s interpretation (‘Der [heilige] Bock ist wieder aufgelebt’),198 would even contain a more complex and relevant theological formulation on its the status, again to be linked to a distinctive procedure and context for its identification. Although suggestive, this reading is far from certain on both orthographical and grammatical grounds,199 and an alternative understanding as anxw-bA/anxw-Xnmw is equally possible.200 As for the other names, bA-Ha.f and bA-iww match two common theophoric patterns belonging to the class of the so-called Festnamen, which specifically record and reflect exclamations spoken out at particular festive occasions when the presence of the god was (made) manifest (e.g. in the processional statue).201 If so, one might wonder whether in these examples a real animal presence was intended rather than a cult image; here comparison with later material mentioning special individuals like the Apis and Mnevis bull appears mostly informative, although some contemporary attestations may be identified in the form Hp-iw already discussed.202 To these parallels, one may also add the (admittedly) scanty iconographic pieces of evidence from the Early Dynastic period as well as the literary note of Manetho analysed above, together with the convincing archaeological evidence that a major religious building was erected at Mendes, at the same site of the later New Kingdom and Late Period temple; founded in late 2nd-early 3rd dynasty, this edifice – a massive mudbrick podium – remained in use during the whole Old Kingdom, although its spatial and architectural articulation can no longer be reconstructed.203 While circumstantial and indirect, such heterogeneous material can still contribute, at the very least, to reassess the association of the bA-element in the collected personal names with a living specimen participating in the local cult as a plausible hypothesis. 3.4 Funerary domains The significance of some individual animal figures is further remarked by their occurrence as part of the designations of funerary domains or estates in both royal and private contexts (Table 3.6). The animal agency conceptualised as bA, ‘ram’, and explicitly associated with the city of Mendes appears as early as the 3rd/4th dynasty in the inscription on the left panel of the entrance of the tomb of Metjen at Saqqara, which records a series of honours and land endowments granted to this official, and mentions the estate HAt-mHyt sAHt-bA, ‘Mendesian Nome: Endowment of the Ram’.204 As bA-Ddt (‘Ram of Djedet’) it also occurs in the fragmentary name of a funerary domain of Unas, While the patterns nfr + GN and sAb + GN are well-attested in the onomastic record as expressions denoting certain qualities or aspects of the mentioned deities, in the case of sacred animals these terms may be considered as allusions to the distinctive traits marking their physical appearance. Despite the later dating, this suggestion is supported by the use of the words nfrw (‘perfection’) and Abw (‘appearance’), appearing respectively on the Serapeum stela Louvre IM 3697 (Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1968: 21-22 [stela 22]) and on the much more celebrated ‘Mendes Stela’ (Urk. II: 48.14-49.3), to designate the special marks identifying Apis bull and the Ram of Mendes. 198 Ranke 1953: 275.29 and n. 2: ‘Auf das Fest des Wiederfindens eines heiligen Bockes (etwa von Mendes) bezüglich?’. 199 The orthography of the word anxw, with the triplication of the sign and (in one case) the final -w, would suggest an active plural participle rather than a pseudoparticiple, as implied in Ranke’s translation; see however the remarks in Ranke 1952: 624, n. 10. 200 See, for example, the translation in the AGÉA database (ID 938): ‘Les vivants de Ba/Chnoum’. 201 Ranke 1952: 216-219, especially pp. 217, 218. 202 Note however that the form GN + iw is also included by Ranke (1952: 222) in the pattern ‘Die Götter kommen (zu Hilfe)’, in which the notion of the coming of the divine agency is related to his/her protective role at the critical moment of the childbirth. 203 See supra § 2.3 and infra § 3.6. 204 Jacquet-Gordon 1962: 323 (3). This, together with a further mention in one of Metjen’s titles, is the first known attestation of the Mendesian nome standard. 197

77

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt listed among others on the northern wall of the Unas causeway, as well as in the procession of personified funerary domains displayed in the 6th dynasty tomb of Mehu at Saqqara, being marked as located in the 12th nome of Lower Egypt.205 Apis appears once among the names of the personified estates depicted in procession on the northern wall of the causeway of Pepy II’s pyramid complex at Saqqara, in the form nfr irt Hp n (P), ‘Perfect is what Apis has done for (Pepy)’.206 It should be briefly noted that here the name of the bull is marked phonetically without the accompanying determinative, according to the same writing usage adopted in personal names. Among other possibly relevant attestations of selected animals, it would be tempting to include the bnw-bird, which is mentioned twice in non-royal context: on the writing board CG 37734, from the Giza mastaba G 1011 dated to the 5th dynasty (Neferirkara or later), as part of the toponym Name mAat-Hp ny-mAat-Hp ny-Hp (?) ny-Hp-ra (?)

ny-kA-Hp

Persons Date M/F Provenance (≈) (dyn.) Maat of Apis 2 F Giza 5th, 6th Maat belongs to Apis 2 F Giza 5th F

Giza

M

Saqqara

ScheeleSchweitzer I: 145.6; II: 359 369, [1192] I: 172.19; II: 429 [1599] 364 5th-6th, I: 173.2; II: 364 432 [1623] 6th 5th I: 173.3; II: 364 432 [1626]

M

Giza

4th, 5th

I: 180.17

443 [1699]

M

Giza

Late OK

I: 219.13

512 [2203]

F

Giza

6th

I: 237.1

532 [2348]

I: 238.14

532 [2350]

Meaning

Who belongs to Apis 3 (?) Apis/the Hp-tool 1 belongs to Ra (Not an Apis-based name) My ka belongs to Apis 2

ra-Hp.f/Hp.f- Ra hurries (?) 1 ra (?) (Not an Apis-based name) Hp(t) Who belongs to Apis 2 (?) Hpw(y/t) Who belongs to Apis 3 (?) kA.i-Hp

Apis is my ka

10 (ca)

dwA-Hp

Worshipper of Apis

2

F/M S a q q a r a 6th (F), ElHammamiya (M) M Abusir, Giza, 5th, 6th Saqqara, ElHawawish, Sheikh Said, Unknown M A b u s i r , 5th Saqqara

PN

AGÉA 1413

I: 340.16; II: 705 [3493] 321.11, 392

I: 237.22; II: 744 [3771] 332:20

Table 3.3. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating Hp (‘Apis’). Name

Persons (≈)

Meaning

M/F

Date (dyn.)

Provenance

PN

iy-Tntt

Tjentet come

has 1

F

Giza

nfr-Tntt

Perfect Tjentet

is 3

F

Giza, el-Hawawish, 6 El-Hagarsa

I: 201.4

487 [2024]

Tntt

Tjentet

F

Giza, Unknown

I: 392.12

736 [3717]

19

5

ScheeleSchweitzer

Saqqara, 4, 5, 6

217 [130]

Table 3.4. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating Tntt (‘Tjentet-cow[s]). 205 206

Jacquet-Gordon 1962: respectively 182, and 424 (25). Jacquet-Gordon 1962: 194 (66).

78

AGÉA 158

295

The Old Kingdom Name

Meaning

Whom the (sacred) ram has made aHa.w(y)-bA How standing is the (sacred) ram aHa-pw-bA The (sacred) ram is standing iri.n-bA

bA-SmA bAk-n-bA ny-anx-bA nfr-bA

cf. 548

313 [792]

956

AGÉA

M Saqqara

6th

1

M Mendes

5th

1

M Abusir

5th

I: 80.26

326 [902]

1086

1

5th

I: 82.6

331 [935]

1116

2

M Qubbet elHawa M Saqqara

222 [172]

1195

2 3

M Saqqara 4th, 6th II: 275.29 M Giza, Saqqara 4th-5th, 6th II: 275.30

343 [1010] 343 [1012]

938 1197

1

M Saqqara

6th

343 [1014]

1198

The (sacred) ram has appeared The (sacred) ram protects

1

M Giza

6th

343 [1015]

1199

1

F Saqqara

6th

The (sacred) ram is a wander (?) Servant of the(sacred) ram

1

M Unknown

6th

2

M Saqqara

6th

Life belongs to the (sacred) ram Perfect is the (sacred) ram

1

M Saqqara

6th

I: 171.7

416 [1533]

2

6th

I: 418.9

467 [1880]

2

M Saqqara, Unknown M Saqqara

1

M Mendes

5th

1

M Saqqara

6th

2

M Giza, Saqqara 5th-6th, 6th I: 326.18

Great is the power of the (sacred) ram/Khnum wr-Ddd-bA Great is the stability of the (sacred) ram bA-iww/ The (sacred) ram has come/ iww-bA is coming bA-anxw(?)1 The (sacred) ram is revived bA-bA.f The (sacred) ram is powerful/ endowed with bA-power bA(-m)-HAt The (sacred) ram is in front

bA-xw.f

ScheeleSchweitzer 251 [394]

1

wr-bAw-bA

bA-xa.f

Persons M/F Provenance Date (dyn.) PN (≈) 1 M Saqqara 6th II: 265.26

Perfect is the face of the (sacred) ram nfr-Swt-bA Perfect of shade is the (sacred) ram sAb.w(y)-bA How colorful is the (sacred) ram Spss-bA Illustrious is the (sacred) ram nfr-Hr-bA

955

6th

343 [1016] I: 418.10

343 [1017] 345 [1030]

5th

1210

473 [1927] 2

635 [3018] 676 [3308]

1 

The alternative understanding as anxw-Xnmw (‘The living ones of Khnum’) cannot be excluded. See AGÉA ID 938 (‘Les vivants de Ba/ Chnoum’); Ranke 1935: 275.10; Scheele-Schweitzer 2014: 311 [778] (‘Die Lebenden des Chnum [?]’). 2  The name, which is not listed in the consulted repertoria, appears on a false-door described in Redford 2010: 28-30, figs 3.15a-b.

Table 3.5. Old Kingdom personal names incorporating bA (‘sacred ram’). Name HAt-mHyt sAHt-bA [///]-bnw (W) bA-Ddt [///]

Date dyn. 3/4 dyn. 5 (Neferirkara) dyn. 5 (Unas)

mr bnw anx (¦) mr bA Ddt anx (¦) nfr irt Hp n (P)

dyn. 6 (Teti) dyn. 6 (Teti) dyn. 6 (Pepy II)

Provenance Saqqara: mastaba L 6 Giza: mastaba G 1011 Saqqara: Unas’ pyramid complex Saqqara: tomb of Mehu Saqqara: tomb of Mehu Saqqara: Pepy II’s pyramid complex

J-G Domaines 323 (3) 262 (19) 182 422 (11) 424 (25) 194 (66)

Table 3.6. List of domains mentioning individual animal agencies.

[///]-bnw, […] of the bnw-birds’, where it is written logographically with the sign Gardiner G 31 tripled;207 in the Mehu’s list of funerary domains at Saqqara, where one of the endowments is named mr bnw anx (¦), ‘The bnw-birds wills that Teti lives’.208 These represent some of the earliest 207 208

Jacquet-Gordon 1962: 262 (19). For an exhaustive discussion on this object and its content, see Browarski 1987. Jacquet-Gordon 1962: 422 (11).

79

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt attestations of this special bird, which, according to contemporary information from the Pyramid Texts, appears to be strongly attached to the primeval sun-god and to have a marked topographical connection with the city of Heliopolis (infra § 3.5). Yet, there is no definite evidence, outside such limited epigraphic records and the mythological statements in the Pyramid Texts, indicating that one or more living specimens were actually kept in a restricted temple context for ritual or cultic purposes, so that is difficult to confirm this conjecture. Nonetheless, the assumption is here maintained on account of a rare anthroponym attested on a First Intermediate Period stela (bnwiw) which seems to show that a particular specimen played a certain role in the religious panorama of that time. Although later, this element might be used to support the idea that similar practices were already developed during the late Old Kingdom.209 Overall, given its brief and laconic character, and in absence of stronger material data, it remains difficult to evaluate this evidence, with the partial exception of the Apis bull. At the most, it indicates that these animal figures feature significantly in the roster of local divine agencies mentioned in the names of funerary estates and gives a sense of their importance in the process of acquisition and cultural construction of the provincial landscape, especially of Lower Egypt. Whether it reflects and gives monumental expression to a wider arena of religious performance in which such animal presence was actively mobilised and exploited, remains a crucial issue that must be addressed by setting this concise evidence against a large framework of contextual analysis. 3.5 Pyramid Texts Individual animal agencies occur also in the Pyramid Texts, sometimes in passages of difficult understanding for their obscure mythological/ritual contents. This is especially the case for Apis, which is apparently mentioned several times in three different spells: PT 254 (W165, T189), 539 (P486), 674 (P 312, M 258, N 409, Nt 246). Spell 254, which is known in the two variants from Unis’ and Teti’s pyramids, concerns the king’s presence in the sky and his entrance to the Akhet region. Apis is here mentioned in two sections: first (Pyr. 279d), in relation to the king’s passage through some sort of canal or water-lock, as part of a place-name of this celestial landscape: mAa nwH DA msqt sqD bD m r Hp

Throw out the rope, sail the Milky Way, strike the ball in the canal of Apis

Shortly after (Pyr. 286b-e), the bull appears in a rather difficult and enigmatic passage asserting the restoration of the king’s body and the preservation of his full person and state: gfwt.f snit tpw

His Female apes who cut off heads

swA (W) Hr Tn m Htp Tz.n.f tp.f Hr wsrt.f

May Unas passes by you in peace for he has tied his head on his neck

iw wsrt (W) Hr mkt.f m rn.f pw n Tz-tp

The neck of Unas is on his trunk in his name of ‘Head-tier’

Tz.f tp n Hp im.f hrw pw n spH ng(A)

He ties the head of Apis thereby (or on him), on that day of lassoing the long-horned bull

Differently from the previous and following cases, in both versions of this utterance the identity of the animal is made sure by the bull determinative accompanying the phonetic spelling of its name. The apparent identification with the ngA-bull – the term designates a particular class of bovines characterised by a tall, slender body and long horns210 – is also a significant morphological 209 210

See also Jacquet-Gordon 1962: 93. Montet 1954: 49; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 497-499, especially p. 499.

80

The Old Kingdom notation. On the other end, the exact meaning of this seemingly mythical image is not easily understandable: it describes the action of a presumably mythical episode occurring in a precise but remote time framework (‘that day of lassoing the long-horned bull’), which also carries a distinct ritual connotation. In this regard, Christopher Eyre observes that the mythologisation of the event builds on the motif of the severed head and the reversal of butchery, noting that ‘[d]ecapitation is primarily a symbol of the destruction of enemies who threaten the deceased, while the restoration of the head marks resurrection’.211 There remains a certain ambiguity whether the royal act of returning the Apis’ head concerns the animal or the king himself212 who, by assuming the identity (i.e. the head) of the bull, assimilates its power, but the correlation between the two figures is quite evident, and also crucial for the king to overcome the trial and advance in his journey as a transfigured being. That very association that has been already noted at the practice-ritual level (pHrr-Hp and Sed-Festival) appears here to be mythically articulated and projected on the sphere of royal renovation in the afterlife. Spell 539 is attested only in Pepy I and is related to the consecration of the statue placed in the vestibule.213 The utterance lists and identifies various parts of the royal body with specific deities or extra-human agencies, and among them one is labelled as Apis (Pyr. 1313c): Hnn n (P) pn m Hp

The phallus of this Pepy is Apis

The association clearly emphasises the strong sexual vigour of the creature – so that it is desirable to have it passed on to the king – although this feature does not necessarily imply an early (original) connection with the idea of fertility, as assumed by Otto.214 Moreover, the orthography of the name, written phonetically and followed by the Hp-duck (G 38) but lacking the bull determinative, does not make sure that the Apis bull was actually intended, although – it has been shown – the classifier is often omitted.215 Finally, Spell PT 674, which has parallels in the pyramids of the last three kings of the 6th dynasty (Pepy I, Merenre, Pepy II) and Queen Neith, also concerns the journey of the deceased king to the Akhet. Within this framework, Pyr. 1998a-c contain curious information that has arisen a certain interest for its assumed link with the cult of Apis:216 aHa.k xnti snw.ty mnw is

May you stand before the dual shrine as Min

aHa.k xnti km.tyw Hp is

May you stand before Kemtyw as Apis

aHa.k m pDw-S skr is

May you stand at the Pedjw-lake as Sokar

Two points should be remarked on these lines: The first one concerns the form of the name Hp, which is spelled again without the bull sign but is marked by the divine classifier of the falcon on the standard ( ). This graphic connotation points evidently to a divine conceptualisation of the entity it refers to, together with the fact that the latter is also listed among a series of deities with which the king is supposed to be identified. If the Apis bull was intended, this would be a significant (although not explicit) theological marker of the special status accorded to the animal, while also emphasising the strong association with the royal figure so that it was projected into the otherworld dimension. See Eyre 2002: 89-97, especially pp. 94-96 (cit. p. 95). The complement im.f at Pyr. 286e may well refer to both the Apis bull and the king. 213 Allen 2005: 205, n. 133. 214 1964: 12. 215 This orthographic form (with the Hp-duck) is the same as in the writing of the name of Hapi, one of the four sons of Horus (cf. Pyr. 1983b), so that the ambiguity remains here as well as in the other three lines where it recurs. Cf. Wb. III: 69-70. 216 For transliteration and translation, reference is made here to the hieroglyphic text of Pepy II (N) as transcribed in Sethe 1908-1922, II. 211 212

81

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt The second point relates to the term km.tyw which, as it is apparent from the following determinative , refers to a locality of uncertain identification. Scholars’ interpretations vary in this regard: Raymond Faulkner tentatively translates the place-manes as ‘the people of Athribis’,217 while more recently, James Allen understands it as ‘those of Blackland’, that is Egypt itself.218 Alternatively, Eberhardt Otto also adds the suggestion that it derives from a pun between km ‘Egypt’ and kmt, the standard technical name used in later periods to define the temple herd of calves associated with the Apis bull.219 Playing on such ambiguity, the phrase would thus mean that ‘Du (i.e. the king) stehst vor den Ägyptern wie Apis (vor seiner Herde)’.220 Finally, the suggestion has been repeatedly proposed to compare the word with the toponym km(y)t designating, in the Late Period, the Serapeum at Saqqara;221 accordingly, km.tyw would denote ‘Die zum Serapeum gehörigen’, i.e. the dead bulls. If so, this would represent the first and (so far) sole evidence about the early existence of a funerary complex or area designed for the burial of the Apis bulls. Both hypotheses, however, face the difficulty of relying on meanings of kmt that are attested only later in Egyptian sources. Despite the philological problem related to this toponym, the idea of an Old Kingdom Serapeum has encountered a certain interest, and attempts have been made to localise it, among which the earliest and most audacious one is certainly the proposal of Auguste Mariette to recognise this structure in the Step Pyramid of Djoser.222 More recently, other scholars, building on Mariette’s suggestion have proposed to identify it with the still largely unexplored system of galleries running on the western side of Djoser’s complex.223 There are two major issues – one practical, the other conceptual – concerning these hypotheses, however suggestive they may be: practically, there is no positive archaeological confirmation so far to the assumption of an early Serapeum complex, nor any other textual reference to a structure of this kind; theoretically, other possible arguments could be put forward to explain such lack of physical remains. One could argue, for example, that the corpses were buried within the temenos of the Ptah complex at Memphis, although – as already noted – no direct association is documented for this period between this god and the Apis bull. Alternatively, it is possible that the animal bodies received a different kind of treatment: it has been suggested, in this regard, that the bull’s remains were (at least partially) consumed by the king in a sort of ceremonial meal, and that this practice possibly lasted until the Ramesside or even the Late Period, when animal mummification fully developed and the use of monumental sarcophagi is clearly attested.224 To support the thesis, the so-called ‘Cannibal Hymn’ of the Pyramid Texts (Pyr. 393-414)225 is usually adduced as a useful textual reference to the ideological and ritual background underlying this practice.226 Using a precise and detailed vocabulary derived from the context of ritual butchery, the text describes a whole set of acts (capture, slaughter, manipulation, and consumption) performed by the king in order to assimilate the gods’ power and become identified with them.227

Faulkner 1969: 288, n. 7-8, where the author defends as certain the identification of the mentioned Hp with the Apis bull. Allen 2005: 122, 427. 219 Wb. V: 125. For discussion see Guilmot 1962: 366, n. 9; Otto 1964: 17. 220 Otto 1964, 17. 221 Vercoutter 1962: 17, Text B. The variants Km and Kmt are also attested (see Vercoutter 1962: 28, Text C; 35, Text D; 44, Text F); see also Otto 1964: 15. 222 Mariette 1857: 25-26. The scholar explicitly states that ‘dans mon opinion, la pyramide à degrés de Sakkarah a été bâtie pour des Apis, et (…) cette pyramide est le Sérapéum de l’ancien empire’, and that ‘[l]à reposait par conséquent un Apis, et la pyramide peut ainsi devenir la tombe de l’Apis des anciennes dynasties’. This bold interpretation basically relies on the occurrence, on a late Serapeum’s stela (Louvre IM 3036; Mariette 1857, 24-26, pl. 28; Malinine Posener and Vercoutter 1968: 93-94, pl. xxxiii.117) of the same royal protocol decorating the architrave of one the doors of the royal funerary apartments under the pyramid. See however the remarks in Baud 2002: 124, fig. 33. 223 See Ibrahim and Rohl 1988: 23. 224 Dodson 2005: 74; Ibrahim and Rohl 1988: 21; Mond and Myers 1934 I: 4-7. 225 See now Eyre 2002. This particular section is only known from the pyramids of Unas and Teti, where it was placed on the eastern wall of the antechamber. 226 Eyre 2002: 55-57, especially p. 55: ‘the Cannibal Hymn provides direct textual access to wider issues of ritual slaughter and of the mobilisation of sacrifice for symbolic ends’. 227 Eyre 2002: 146: ‘[t]his transfer of power asserts his (i.e. king’s) identity with and succession to the creator god’. 217 218

82

The Old Kingdom According to such perspective, in early times the body of the dead Apis bull would have been ritually slaughtered and eaten by the king to assume its ‘magic’ and ‘power’ (Pyr. 403c), while its remains would have been eventually buried in simple pits without any remarkable architectural feature. This, as a consequence, would account for both the substantial absence of monumental structures and the lack of textual references to them, as this kind of burial certainly leaves no trace on the ground and can easily have been lost considering their perishable content.228 Only in the New Kingdom, with Amenhotep III, buildings of more monumental character would be developed, while the ritual would remain unchanged – a fact that would explain the particular state of preservation of the animal bodies recorded by Mariette in the first tombs he excavated, including those whose funerary chambers appeared intact.229 Possibly, from this moment on, the ritual starts developing according to new modes, adopting some typical features of the human funerary tradition (like coffins and equipment), but the practice of the ritual consumption of the bull’s meat would remain in use until the 26th dynasty, when the systematic recourse to mummification and the first appearance of massive granite coffins finally marked a significant progress in the Apis’ burial.230 While it is certainly plausible that, over such a long period, changes and adjustments occurred in the technical and ritual apparatus related to the funerary treatment of the bulls’ corpses, it must be noted, on the other hand, that the suggested development is largely hypothetical and heavily based on Mariette’s account which, however, is incomplete and partial about the presentation of the animals’ corpses. After discussing the burials arranged by Ramses II’s son Khaemwaset, Mariette’s account stops describing the bulls’ remains and their status of preservation so that, from this moment on, we no longer have indications on the treatments of the bodies, while the complete lack of preserved bones or other physical remains does not allow confirming or further developing this hypothesis.231 From a theoretical perspective, considering the character and content of the available Old Kingdom sources on the Apis bull on the one hand, and, on the other, the substantial lack of positive evidence for any kind of mortuary and funerary practice, it becomes possible to argue a different interpretation of these data, i.e. that, at this time, the funerary treatment of the dead animal was not an actual focus in the religious configuration developed around the Apis bull but rather a later elaboration. Apart from those concerning the Apis bull, references in the Pyramid Texts to other specific animal agencies are more difficult to evaluate: while animal imagery is fully exploited, and a wide range of animal manifestations is mentioned, their correlation with a real presence, set in ritual contexts and manipulated in religious practice, remains a delicate issue. The Mnevis bull is not explicitly attested, but its likely mythological forerunner, the ‘bull of Heliopolis’, appears regularly in the corpus in association with the king, being specifically qualified as a wild smA-bull (Pyr. 486b, PT 307 = W 212, P 515; Pyr. 716e, PT 408 = T 285, P 372):

Mond and Myers 1934 I: 7. In Tomb D/E belonging to Horemheb, Mariette found at the bottom of the coffin ‘une tête de taureau, et sous cette tête une masse noirâtre qui lui servait de support (…). Il était de forme ovale, assez régulier (…). Quant à sa nature, je reconnus qui il était d’un amas confus de bitume et des gross ossements de bouf briés, le tout amoncelé sans ordre sous une enveloppe de mousseline. Tel était l’Apis inviolé d’Horus (i.e. Hormheb)’ (Mariette 1857: 11). Jars containing ashes and burned bones were also recovered, like in Tomb F of Seti I (Mariete 1857, 12), and Mond and Myers (1934 I: 6) wonder if these were the remains of the ceremonial feast rather than the offerings for the dead Apis, as Mariette tought. Finally, in Tomb G (Ramses II) the remains of Apis 19.3/IX consisted of just ‘[u]ne matière bitumineuse, très-odorant et qui (…) enveloppait une quantité de petits ossements déjà brisées à l’époque de l’ensevelissements du taureau’ (Mariette 1857: 14). 230 Mond and Myers 1934 I: 6, n. 2. 231 Gaillard and Daressy (1905: i), explicitly state that Mariette ‘n’y avait trouvé, dans les tombes des Apis, que des débris d’os qui n’ont pas été conserves’. 228 229

83

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt (N) py smA ty kA aA-Hr pr m iwnw (Pyr. 486b)

(N) is the wild bull of the savannah, a big-faced bull coming from Heliopolis

n-ntt (N) is pw kA iwnw (Pyr. 716e)

For (N) is the bull of Heliopolis

Similarly, Pyr. 701a-c (PT 403 = T 279, P 577, M 250, N 387) evokes the ‘bulls of Atum’ (kAw ipw nw tm) as powerful entities232 in a context of royal transfiguration and regeneration where primordial and solar motives are deeply interlaced: i kAw nw tm swAD (N) sAqH (N) r nt tpt.f r Agb tpy msAt.f O bulls of Atum, make (N) prosperous, make (N) fresher than the Red Crown which is on him, more than the flood which is on his lap

To this animal form, another distinctive cultic feature is associated, which is supposed to have characterised the early Heliopolitan religious panorama: a fetish consisting of a pole with a bull’s head (bucranium) on the top. The symbolic value and ritual use of this fetish would have developed slightly later than its animal correlate, but already at the time of the Pyramid Texts it would have merged with two most relevant cultic objects of solar meaning: the iwn-pillar from which the city of Heliopolis gains its own name so that the bucranium grew out of the pillar, and the obelisk. Proof of this early connection could be found again in Pyr. 486b mentioning the ‘big-faced bull coming out from Iwnw’, and in Pyr. 1178a where the word ‘obelisk’ (txn) is followed by the determinative of the bull’s head. The meaning of this association would still be effective in Ramesside and Late Period ceremonies performed by the king before Atum and Ra-Horakhty, where the two objects are explicitly assimilated to the ‘bull of Heliopolis’ in the legends accompanying the related scenes.233 It appears therefore that this early figure might have played a part in both the physical and ideological characterisation of the Mnevis bull such as it is known from later sources and materials. Commenting on these data, Stephanie Porcier concludes that ‘[l]e “taureau d’Héliopolis”, l’ancêtre mythologique de l’animal sacré du dieu Rê était un aurochs à la symbolique solaire très marquée’,234 while Eberhardt Otto confidently states ‘[d]er “Stier von Heliopolis” ist wohl Mnevis, auch wenn sein Name nicht genannt wird’.235 On the other hand, while the two entities still maintain their identities separated,236 there is no definite external piece of evidence indicating that the specific notion of the ‘bull of Heliopolis’ mentioned in the Pyramid Texts had an actual animal counterpart in the local religious panorama, or that an aurochs with distinctive features was kept there for religious-cultic purposes, although – it must be remarked – the concise information on the otherwise unknown ‘white bull’ and the other bovine figures of the Delta reminds us that such a possibility should not be dismissed so quickly due to the silence of the records. Hesat occurs four times in the corpus, being attested in three spells: PT 485 (P 337), PT 696A (N 460), and PT 688 (N 522, Nt 12). In all these contexts the maternal role of the figure is stressed. Spell 485 is part of a group centred on the presentation and the praise of the dead king to the gods. In Pyr. 1029a-c, the sun-god is addressed as follows:

It may be incidentally noted, in this regard, that in Pepy II’s (N) redaction of Pyr. 701a the word ‘bulls’ (kAw) is marked by the divine classifier of the falcon on the standard (G7). 233 See Porcier 2014a: 25, and n. 18. 234 Porcier 2014a: 25. 235 Otto 1964: 34; cf. also Moursi 1983: 251. 236 Porcier 2014a: 25. 232

84

The Old Kingdom iw.n (P) pn xr.k Ra

This (P) has come to you, Ra,

bHsw n nbw msw pt

a calf of gold born of the sky

xAD n nbw qm HzAt

a soft one (?) of gold which Hesat created

The passage identifies the king with a golden celestial calf and associates him with both Ra, with whom he shares the divine substance (gold), and Hesat as his mother. In PT 688, another ascension text describing the king’s climbing up to the sky by a ladder carefully prepared by the gods, it is said (Pyr. 2080d-e) that: smn smnw m gsw.s

The rungs have been fastened to its (the ladder’s) sides

m mskA m imy-wt ms.n HzAt

with the leather (skin) of Imy-wt born of Hesat

Finally, a ‘son of Hesat’ (zA HzAt) is mentioned in PT 696A (Pyr. 2167b), in a passage that is unfortunately fragmentary and does not allow a more precise definition of the identity of this alleged son. Two points can be briefly addressed about these texts: (1) graphically, all the spells show the name written in purely phonetic form, without the cow determinative. Only in the second case (Pyr. 2080e), it is marked by the divine classifier ( ), a graphic device that evidently reflects a theological statement on the status of the figure as well as its connection to the king; (2) thematically, as already noted, they all highlight the beneficial, maternal connection of Hesat with divine and royal figures, particularly articulating her role in terms effective regeneration and support within a cosmicsolar context. Through the act of giving birth, Hesat is openly associated with the rejuvenation of the dead king, and with the successful accomplishment of his celestial transfiguration. On the other hand, the animal character of the entity does not appear as a prominent focus, neither in the visual display of her name nor in the content of the passages, unless encapsulated allusively in the mother-child relationship (image/notion of motherhood). A final case might be considered, which is also the most problematic to evaluate for its dense symbolism and mythological elaboration: PT 600 (M; N) is among the oldest attestations of the bnw-bird, and the only one occurring in the corpus. The spell concerns the protection of the king and its tomb, and within this context it develops around a significant mythological event: itm xprr qA.n.k m qAA

O Atum-Khepri, you became high on/as the hill,

wbn.n.k m bnbn m Hwt-bnw m iwnw

you rose on/as the benben-stone in the Mansion of the benu-bird in Heliopolis

The passage (Pyr. 1652a-b) evokes the first appearance of the creator god Atum on the primeval hill. This mythic episode was memorialised in the temple of the bnw-bird in Heliopolis, where the primeval mound was symbolised by the conical benben-stone. Although apparently the bnw-bird is not directly identified with Atum, the geographical notion of a ‘Mansion of the bnw-bird in Heliopolis’ might reflect a distinctive cultic landscape, the contours of which remain, however, vaguely defined in their ritual articulation and historical configuration. The bnw-bird and the benben stone are meaningful icons summarising the cosmogonic process begun by the sun god, but one can only speculate about their material correlates in the Heliopolitan sacred landscape. Overall, the interpretation of passages of the Pyramid Texts as a source of information on the religious conceptualisation of specific animal individuals remains a difficult task, which requires caution and careful consideration of issues of textual genre, context of display, and ideological 85

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt formulation. These texts are certainly informative of the important role that these animal agencies assume as icons or symbols encoding and conveying religious values and mythical ideas within a cosmic/funerary sphere of signification. Accordingly, they are more indicative of a semiotic process of interpretation than of actual ritual performances, in which those animals were possibly involved. They reflect speculation and ideological discourse rather than action and religious practice: these two levels remain distinct, although dialectically correlated. Two remarks, therefore, are required in this regard: (1) the spells illustrate an articulated set (and net) of concepts and values that could have played a part in the ritual engagement with particular animal individuals, and in their construction as important religious objects; (2) the rich symbolism these animals were invested with should not hide the fact that their physical presence and ritual manipulation might have been a core part of religious practice. 3.6 Architectural evidence While pictorial and textual material points to the existence of specific areas and structures associated with selected animal individuals or groups, both as accommodations, ceremonial shrines, and (hypothetical) burial places, archaeological data corroborating this information are largely absent or very difficult to evaluate. The case of the so-called ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ discussed above is highly exemplificative in this regard: the inscribed relief suggests the possibility that a group of selected birds was kept within – or in a building linked to – the solar temple of Niuserre, but there is no direct archaeological confirmation of any installation of this kind. On the other hand, at Mendes, the excavations conducted since the early 1990s have brought to light convincing archaeological evidence that a major cultic building was erected as early as late 2nd dynasty or 3rd dynasty. It was located at the north end of the site, in the same spot as the later New Kingdom and Late Period temples, thus suggesting a long continuity in the cultic occupation of the area.237 The construction consisted of a massive mudbrick platform approximately 3 m high, and 41 m wide. The extension of its main, north-south axis cannot be determined with precision, due to the later cutting and arrangement of the great naos-court at the time of Amasis, but the identification of traces of a substantial Old Kingdom perimeter wall would indicate an overall measurement of the podium of about 60 x 41 m. Moreover, the presence of two rectangular depressions on the surface along the northern edge of the platform likely indicates that the original project featured piers as part of a colonnade surrounding the building. Finally, considering the orientation as well as the geographical location of the structure, Donald Redford concludes that the access to the temple was oriented southward. On the basis of the stratigraphic data and of the pottery collected, the project has been dated, most likely, to the early 3rd dynasty, and the building remained in use until the end of the Old Kingdom or the beginning of the First Intermediate Period when it was finally destroyed by fire. This chronological framework would fit well with the Manethonian entry for king Kaiechos of the 2nd dynasty according to which, under his reign, the cult of the ram of Mendes gained official recognition. If this assessment is thus correct, it would provide a significant (although not perfectly coincident) convergence between literary tradition and archaeological data, even more striking when one adds the earlier pictorial evidence given by the 1st dynasty label discussed above (supra § 2.1). More importantly, this evidence would support the idea that the Old Kingdom mudbrick platform – and the temple structure standing above it – was associated with a living animal presence, in a way that could be tentatively compared to what is explicitly stated in later sources concerning the integration of the ram into the local temple and religious landscape. Comparison between distant contexts is not straightforward, and it must be noted that in both cases no evidence that the animal resided in the temple proper or enjoyed any other accommodation 237

Archaeological description and analysis of the material in Adams 2007: 88-89, 135-136, 346-350. See also Redford 2010: 36-40.

86

The Old Kingdom has been identified on secure archaeological grounds so that the interpretation proposed is not conclusive. On the other hand, two elements can be used to redress, at least in part, the imbalance: (1) the geographical restriction, cultural homogeneity, and religious continuity between the two situations; (2) the possibility to contrast and integrate the data from Mendes with the information provided by other contemporary evidence (both textual and pictorial) focused on the ceremonial role of the Apis bull, which represents a better-known case study and a valuable parallel for discussion. While certainly not decisive, these arguments are valuably suggestive of a flourishing cultic scenario, in which ‘from an early period, one specific member of the species was selected and identified as the earthly manifestation of the god’.238 3.7 Summary Despite their sparse distribution and fragmentary state of preservation, a careful sifting of the Old Kingdom sources from both official (royal, temple) and private contexts allows us to identify some regular patterns of information about the mobilisation of specific animal agencies, both individual and groups, and to arrange them into larger configurations. Cattle is certainly the best-represented class of animals within the record, and encompasses a wide range of specifically selected bovids including the Apis bull, the ‘White bull’, the Hesat-cow, the four (differently coloured) calves driven in the homonym ritual, the Tntt-cattle from Cusae and Dendera, the nTrt-cows from Elkhab. Among these, Apis is the most prominent figure, being involved within a well-established ceremonial contex, the contourns of which appear now slightly better defined than in earlier times: royal annals and monumental relief confirm the regular organisation of the pHrr-Hp and the official engagement of the bull within the Sed festival, thus remarking his connection to (and significance for) the king’s role and ideology. The damaged passage from Debeheni’s biography seems to dwell upon the same theme, since it mentions a public ‘feastival of the Apis bull in the palace of the god’ (Hb-Hp m aH-nTr) that might be identical with the ritual parade attested on annalistic sources or even refer to a different episode and setting (like the selection or enthronement ceremony). In addition, titles and personal names point towards an official, institutional, and distinctively Memphite character of the bull and its related ceremonies. Whether such activities were related to an authonomous or royal-dependent cultic context remains an open and perhaps misleading question; while the royal connection undoubtedly appears as a powerful semantic pole, what is relevant from practice-based perspective is that the presence of a living selected individual (ostracon from Saqqara Tomb S3035; Figure 2.5) was fully structured and permanently integrated within the local milieu and religious tradition, acting as a meaningful focus of action for both the king and the court (including name-giving practices). The ’White bull’ and the Hesat-cow are more elusive, though their occurrence in titles, sometimes in association with Apis, indirectly suggest that these individual specimens could have been part of a similar context of practice and royal interest, a hypothesis that would be supported also by the inclusion of the ‘White bull’ among the divine recipients of royal endowments (PS v.III.1) under Sahure. The early episode of the ‘Driving of the four calves’, on the other hand, calls attention to a different ceremonial framework, in which a larger animal participation (rather than an individual one) was put at the core of the celebration and likewise carefully structured and designed to be(come) an effective target of religious action, reflection, and monumental display. The broader implication of this picture is that practices of ‘animal worship’ should be understood as more articulated and richer in forms and contexts than usually assumed on the basis of preconceived assumptions, since evidence for the ritual construction of the religious significance and status of specifically selected animals is not limited to single individuals and can be positively assessed and discussed 238

Redford and Redford 2005: 169.

87

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt without the need to rely on later literary confirmations (like with Apis and others). Accordingly, it is possible to include within this framework a number of titles and personal names that mention two special groups of cattle (Tntt, nTrt) connected with deities and temples in provincial contexts (Dendera, Elkab, Meir), meaning that the involvement of particular animal agencies was also a recurrent aspect of local traditions outside the Residence. Two further examples help expand this picture beyond the conspicuous class of cattle. One concerns a single specimen that, like the Apis bull, will gain great fame during the 1st millennium BC, i.e. the sacred ram of Mendes. Despite the lack so far of definite archaeological proofs, there is plausible evidence to believe that, from an early period, a special individual was selected and kept in a temple area for cultic purposes. The interpretation of some anthroponyms based on the word bA (‘ram’) suggests that they encode information about the physical aspect, selection, and maintenance of a particular ram, while the discovery of a monumental platform dated to the early 3rd dynasty at Mendes shows that the city was already an active religious centre and offers material support to the view that a living ram was part of this local tradition as early as we can tell from other relevant documentation (like Manetho’s account). The second case, illustrated by the so-called ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ from the sun temple of Niuserre, demonastrates that the ritual mobilisation of a selected group of animals (included white pelicans) could also become included within the institutional framework of the solar cult, inviting therefore to reconsider this exceptional monument as the pointer of a more common but scarcely attested religious practice rather than a bizzarre and exotic episode. Finally, both the designations of funerary estates and some passages of the Pyramid Texts yield further information which, while sometimes problematic to apply to the actual sphere of ritual, can at least help elucidate the broad religious system and cultural milieu surrounding certain animal agencies and their elicited participation in that sphere.

88

Chapter 4

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom Compared to both earlier and later times, there is a larger darth of readily identifiable evidence for modes and contexts of religious action and display that might be understood as ‘animal worship’ during the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom. With only one dubious exception,1 royal monuments are noticeably absent from the record of this time period, though this may be due to chances of preservation, and our principal sources of knowledge consist of (1) titles of individual officials; (2) private tomb inscriptions and administrative documents; (3) personal names; (4) short passages from the Coffin Texts. The evidence, therefore, is scanty and laconic while its provenance limited to the funerary sphere so that extrapolating positive information about the living context of practice is an arduous task. Nonetheless some clues are available, which appear culturally relevant in the face of the mutated historical circumstances, starting with the vigourous development in the provincial milieux and the growing regionalisation of the expression of the élite identity during the First Intermediate Period. Religious values and leadership become then an important theme of self-presentation and a source of legitimisation of local authorities, as the regular combination of the titles of ‘nomarch’ (Hry-tp aA) and ‘overseer of the priests’ (imy-rA Hmw-nTr) indicates.2 This fact leaves room for the idea that local religious traditions including the mobilisation of specific animals could also have been part of this strategy of display, and the growing visibility of certain animal groups (mainly bovines) in the epigraphic record from provincial towns of Upper Egypt as early as the late Old Kingdom seemingly support the suggestion. The case of the Tntt-cattle discussed before is particularly indicative in this regard.The chronological framework, therefore, includes the 12th dynasty while overlapping the upper end (6th-9th dynasties) for the sake of clarity. 4.1 Titles A group of possibly significant titles occurs in the funerary epigraphic record (stelae, walls, and sarcophagi inscriptions) from the provincial context of Naga ed-Deir and the Thinite nome that mention a breed of black cattle (kmt) associated with the temple and cult of the local god Onuris (Table 4.1). The latter was certainly active by the late Old Kingdom, and although nothing is known about the exact location of the temple building, its physical appearance, and spatial organisation, inscriptional evidence clearly indicates that it was endowed with a full range of religious and administrative personnel as well as with ample resources, including lands and herds.3 The word kmt used to identify this herd is written phonetically and usually marked by the bull determinative (E1) and the strokes of the plural. Clearly, it refers to the distinctive colour of the bulls hide, but it migh also reflect a sacred-symbolic connotation, although it cannot be – written phonetically, and usually marked by the bull determinative (E1) and the strokes of the plural – is apparently derived from their colouring, but might also reflect a symbolic connotation, while possibly having already acquired a specialised use as a technical term denoting sacred temple

It is the fragmentary relief New York MMA 14.125a-b from the pyramid temple of Sesostris II at Lahun showing a procession of three anthropomorphic deities, of which the first one is depicted with a bull head and has been thus tentatively interpreted as Apis. See Duarte 2010: 99. 2 Fischer 1968: 114; see Brovarski 1989: 138-139, 965-966, 969, n. 19. 3 For an overview on the figure of Onuris, see Schenkel 1982: 573-574. An extended discussion on the temple organisation based on the available epigraphic material is provided by Brovarski 1989: 93-116. 1

89

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt herd, as it is certainly the case in later sources, and especially in connection to the Apis and Mnevis bulls.4 Noted as such, this black-cattle enters title-formations which, as already observed above for those composed with Tntt, relate to administrative rather than strictly religious positions, while on the other hand, circumscribe this animal presence to the local, cultic landscape of the 8th Upper Egyptian nome. Comparison with the cases of Dendera and Meir is also instructive from a chronological perspective in as much as the Thinite evidence displays similar patterns of distribution. Thus, while it is generally assigned to the full of the First Intermediate Period, the dating of some tombs and texts could be shifted back to the end of the Old Kingdom, while connections can be established with sparse Middle Kingdom attestations. Since however the inscriptional material appears quite homogeneous in nature, thematic unity has been privileged over neat chronological distinctions, and so overlapping with earlier and later periods have been included. The kmt-herd first appears – as already noted – in the title of ‘herdsman of the black cattle’ (mniw kmt) of the 6th dynasty Thinite nomarch Gegi buried at the Memphis, which however is no longer displayed by any of his successors. Rather, it occurs in another kind of formation, imy-rA kmt (‘overseer of the black cattle’), which is fairly common at Naga ed-Der, and is attested with slightly different variants from the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom.5 According to Brovarski – who follows Fischer’s interpretation – it can be deduced from the titles imy-rA kmt xnrw and imy-rA kmt Htp-nTr that the temple cattle were intended to provide both offerings for the god and compensation for part of the temple’s personnel.6 This understanding, which relies on the explanation of the titles as ‘overseer of the black cattle of the musicians’ and ‘overseer of the black cattle of the divine offerings’, evidently implies a sacrificial role of the animals. However, they could equally be interpreted as ‘overseer of the black cattle and of the musicians’ and ‘overseer of the black cattle and of the divine offerings’, thus reading the second part of each title as a sequence of two genitives juxtaposed in parallelism, both depending from imy-r.7 Moreover, the extended form imy-rA xa m Sayt m kmt nb.f inHrt is informative on two points: on the one hand, as Fischer remarks, in explicitly referring to the cult of Onuris it gives a precise indication of the cultic context for the kmt-cattle, and ‘justifies Dunham’s translation of kmt as ‘sacred black cattle’’.8 On the other hand, it mentions a specific toponym, Sayt, which was a well-known cult place of Onuris near Hagarsa and possibly a site particularly associated with such a distinctive animal group.9 This topographical association, however, was not exclusive as we know of another place name – int-kmt, ‘valley of the black cattle’ – which recurs in contemporary name-formations and likely indicates a sector or district in the area of This.10 Finally, in the title just discussed as well as in a couple of attestations of its short form (imy-rA xA), the numeral xA (‘thousand’) clearly suggests that the temple herd was numerically considerable, even though the use of the word is rather technical (‘thousand’ denoting the whole herd) and the figure is not to be taken at face value.11 Wb. V: 125, 5-9, explicitly noting ‘Bez. Für heilige schwarze Rinder’, and remarking the association with Apis, Mnevis but also other divine entities like Min and Thot. The occurrence of the term in connection with the Apis bull is also stressed by Otto 1964: 17. Finally, on the symbolic-religious value of the colour, see Kees 1956: 475, where the scholar comments on ‘Schwarz, als Farbe heiliger Tiere’. 5 Note that sipt is the only other Thinite nomarch to be associated with the kmt-cattle via the title imy-r kmt. see Brovarski 1989: 462. 6 Brovarski 1989: 102; Fischer 1981: 60. 7 See Ward 1982: 52 (406): ‘Overseer of Herds and Conscript Labourers (?)’. The other title is not listed. 8 Fischer 1981: 60; cf. Dunham 1937: 117 (17-20) 9 Wb. IV: 420 (15); see Brovarski 1989: 66: 103; Fischer 1981: 61, n. 25. All other known attestations date to the Late Period. 10 The relationship between the two place-names is not certain; Brovarski 1989: 66, n. 38, 281-282. He suggests that the int-kmt could be a variant of int-tA-wr (‘Valley of the Thinite Nome’), thus located near This. On the other hand, he admits that they might actually refer to distinct locations, in which case int-kmt could be placed in the area of Hagarsa. 11 Brovarski 1989: 102-103; Fischer 1981: 61. 4

90

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom As for the status and social profile of the individuals titled as imy-rA kmt, the whole inscriptional evidence shows that the title was usually held in association with purely ranking titles that simply identify them as members of the elite: xAty-aA (5), xtmw-bity (6), and smr waty (6) recur more frequently, both singularly or combined, while iry-pAt is also attested (2). The remaining few of them highlight more specific functional roles in the local bureaucracy and temple administration in the Thinite nome (Table 4.2). Later in the Middle Kingdom, under Sesostris I at Akhmim, a nomarch of the Panopolite nome and overseer of priests bear the title of imy-rA xmt xnrw (‘overseer of the [sacred?] xmt-cattle and of the musicians’), which provides an interesting comparison to the Thinite imy-rA kmt xnrw.12 Additionally, a stela from Abydos dating to the reign of Amenemhat II was dedicated by a high priest of Hermopolis, who is also identified as imy-rA kmt nfrt nt DHwty nb xmnw (‘overseer of the perfect black cattle of Thot Lord of Hermopolis’).13 A second context in which a notable animal presence is related to temple cult is provided by the Tntt-cattle at Dendera. Since it has been extensively discussed above, it suffices here to recall here that the four attestations of the well-known title mniw-Tntt range from the late Old Kingdom to the First Intermediate Period, thus showing a substantial continuity in the participation of this particular herd to the local religious horizon and practices. Shifting from groups to individuals, on the other hand, we must admit an unfortunate lack of information. The Apis bull, in particular, is attested twice in the epigraphic record of the Middle Kingdom, with the old title mdw-Hp being mentioned in the sequences of two local rulers of Asyut: (1) the mayor Meseht(i) (mzHt/mzHti), living in late 11th/early 12th dynasty (likely under Montuhotep II-Amenemhat I);14 (2) the nomarch and governor of Asyut Djefai-Hapi I (DfAi-Hp), serving under Sesostris I. The former is best known for his remarkable funerary assemblage, which includes two large and richly inscribed coffins,15 the latter for his monumental tomb (Tomb I)16. They both belong to the highest social level and occupy a leading position in the administrative and religious governance of the city, as their tombs, funerary objects, and inscriptions monumentally display. The group mdw-Hp appears twice on the back of the outer coffin of Mesehti, in the fourth pair of columns of the exterior decoration as well as in the decorative upper band inside. It must be remarked that, while sometimes the two attestations have been misunderstood, respectively, as an otherwise unattested imy-rA Hm-nTr Hp and as a rather uncommon Hm Hp,17 in both cases mdw-Hp appears as a more fitting and correct interpretation.18 In the first occurrence, the name of Apis is written phonetically and followed by the determinative of the bull which, as noted by Lacau himself, ‘est représenté courant la queue dressée’19, thus encoding pictorially the distinctive feature of the animal. The second attestation, on the other hand, displays the identity of the bull in pure logographic form. This is also the case in the tomb of Djefai-Hapi I, where the title mdw-Hp recurs in the sequence of offices and functions inscribed on the south side of the main entrance of

CG 20024. As for the Thinite parallels discussed above, a different reading of the title is given by Ward 1982: 39 (295): ‘Overseer of Cows and Conscript Labourers (?)’. Cf. Brovarski 1989: 104. 13 CG 20025. For discussion, see Brovarski 1989: 104; Kessler 1995: 235-237. 14 For an overview on the debate about the dating of the objects, see Arquier 2013: 14-16. 15 PM IV: 265. For a brief presentation of the tomb (Hogarth, Tomb III), see Kahl 2007b: 82-83 with further bibliography. An updated and extended discussion of the coffins in Arquier 2013. 16 PM IV: 261-262. See Kahl 2007b: 86-92, with detailed references. 17 Most recently Arquier 2013: 26, 45, n. 168, 54, n. 197. 18 Judging from the transcription of signs, the long and unusual form results from the erroneous combination of two titles: imy-r Hm-nTr and mdw-Hp. The second occurrence is also to be red as mdw-Hp, despite the unusual shape of the transcribed hieroglyph; cf. the correction annotated in Lacau 1904-1906, II: 207. The same is true also for the attestation from Djefai-Hapi’s tomb. 19 Lacau 1904-1906, II: 131, n. 1. 12

91

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Official Sn-sTi

Titles

Monuments

mniw Tntt

n y - i b w - mniw Tntt nsw/bbiqr mrri mniw Tntt idw/wHAi HAgi

mniw Tntt imy-rA kmt dSrt mAa

sipt

imy-rA kmt xnrw

SmA Hni

imy-rA xA m Sayt m kmt nb.f inHrt imy-rA kmt

sfxi

imy-rA kmt xA

iTAi

imy-rA kmt xA

iAmw isr

mniw Tntt imy-rA kmt Htp-nTr

nxty

imy-rA kmt xnrw

ipw

imy-rA kmt nfrt nt DHwty nb xmnw

Legend A: Abydos D: Dendera Gi: Girga

Provenance

Date (dyn.)

PM

Ward Index 795

Jones Index 1602

Inscribed block Cairo JE 1664 Lintel MMA 98.4.2a-c Inscribed blocks

D

6th-8th

V: 112

D

6th-8th

1602

D

9th

Inscribed block Coffin Accession No. 23-12-188 Stela Boston MFA 25.628 Stela Steiner Collection Inscribed tomb SF 5015 Stela from tomb N 3567 Stela Leiden RMO F 1969/2.1 Stela Stela Chicago OI 16952 Stela Kansas City 33.16 Stela Cairo CG 20025

D NeD

9th 6th-8th

V: 112- 795 113 V: 112- 795 113 V: 114 795

NeD

9th

V: 27

956

U

9th

NeD

10th-11th

V: 27

956

NeD

956

NeD

6 t h / 1 0 t h - V: 27 11th 10th-11th

D Gi

11th 11th-12th

V: 115 V: 27

A(?)

12th

A

12th

V I I I / 3 : 406 155 V: 265 405

1602 1602 957

Cf. 692

956 795

1602 956 956

NeD: Naga ed-Deir U: unknown

Table 4.1. First Intermediate Period/Middle Kingdom officials and titles related to multiple animals.

Officials HAgi Sipt SmA Hni sfxi iTAi isr nxti

imy-rA kmt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1: zS Htp-nTr; 2: sHD Hmw-nTr; 3: Hry-tpaA n tA-wr; 4: imy-rA Hmw-nTr; 5: HqA-Hwt; 6: imy-rA wHaw nw n spAt; 7: imy-rA Sn-tA nb n spAt; 8: imy-rA SnT; 9: imy-rA mSa; 10: imy-rA xnty-S pr-aA iry-pAt

xAty-aA

xtmw-bity x x

smrwaty x

Table 4.2. Conspectus of the main titles of the ‘overseers of the black cattle’ (imy-rA-kmt). Official mzhti

iry-pat

HAty-a

DfAi-Hp

iry-pat

HAty-a

xwfw-anx iri-n-wr

xtmw-bity mdw-Hp iry-pat

ppy-anxHry-ib iry-pat 1 

Sequence of main titles1 xtmw-bity smr-waty imy-r Hm- mdw-Hp r p nb nTr xtmw-bity smr-waty imy-r Hm- zAw-nxn Hry-tpnxb nTr r p nb mdw kA-HD MdwHzAt Imy-r kAtnb smr-waty

xtmw-bity

mdw-Hp

HAty-a

zAw-nxn

zAw-nxn

r p nb

Hry-tpnxb xtmw-bity

mdw-Hp

r p nb

smr-waty

HAty-a

Hry-tpnxb

mdw-Hp

r p nb

imy-r Hm- smr-waty nTr

The strings listed in the table are not complete but include only the relevant titles for the present discussion. Table 4.3. Comparative view of the sequence of main titles associated with mdw-Hp.

92

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom the complex.20 Here, the Apis bull is again visualised as a running animal with the tail bending over its back without any phonetic complement.21 In both contexts, the interpretation of the group as mdw-Hp is corroborated by the general composition of the string, arrangement, and combination of titles. In this regard, it is particularly interesting to remark two points: first, it is usually associated with high-rank titles; second, although its position may vary in the sequence, mdw-Hp is regularly followed by r p nb (‘mouth/ spokesman of every Boutite’),22 a pattern that can be contrasted, with some variations, to a general Old Kingdom configuration well attested in both Memphite (e.g. Khufu-ankh; Iri-en-wr) and provincial (e.g. Pepy-ankh the Middle) areas (Table 4.3). Overall, considering the provincial context in which the two officials operate, and the parallelism with earlier attestations, it seems that mdw-Hp should be understood as an old honorific title (originally associated with relatives of the king) that was maintained to mark the social prestige and to denote a particular distinction of its holder, without being connected to a real function. The occurrence of the title in the inscriptional record of an early Middle Kingdom province, however, does not necessarily imply – nor it says anything specific about – any form or domain of religious practice centred on a living bull so that the information must be treated cautiously and contrasted with further evidence to properly assess the question. 4.2 Private inscriptions Apart from short titles and title strings, very few explicit and informative statements from nonroyal monuments and sources refer to the possible roles and activities performed by specific individual or collective animal agencies within a restricted ritual setting. While the context of provenance is essentially funerary, the limited inscriptional record includes narrative sections and self-laudatory epithets from biographies, and captions of pictorial scenes, to which one may add an indirect reference in an administrative document. The information gained from such material is potentially valuable, although the interpretation of some texts remains difficult and the exact understanding of certain passages or specific meanings is still a matter of debate. This complexity is especially illustrated by the biography of Henqu II (Hnqw) from Deir el Gebrawi (Tomb N67), which is well known for its original features (both in content and form) and is generally dated to the beginning of the First Intermediate Period, or possibly to the end of the 6th dynasty (Figure 4.1).23 In the text, Henqu, who presents himself as vizier and nomarch of the 12th Upper Egyptian nome, celebrates his success in re-establishing order and prosperity within the province. Of particular interest, in the initial ‘evenemential’ section of the biography, is a statement on his management of the local landscape and its fauna, for it might imply a meaningful connection with local religious practices and highlight his personal relationship with the divine sphere:24

For the inscriptions see Griffith 1889: pls 1-10, 20; Urk. VII: 53-66. The title at issue is recorded respectively in Griffith 1889: pls 9, 20, and in Urk. VII: 65.3 (332). 21 Judging from the copy made by Griffith 1889: pl. 20 (332a-b). Note that both the shape of mdw and the pose of the animal do not correspond to Sethe’s transcription (Urk. VII: 65.3) nor to the entry of the title as listed in Ward 1982: 97 (811). Here the name of Apis is recorded phonetically with the biliter Hp complemented by the p-sign and the determinative of the bull, the latter oddly depicted almost as rearing on its hind legs. 22 For the title see Jones 2000: 490 [1831] with further bibliography. For discussion see Fischer 1996: 44-45, n. 8, 16; Helck 1954: 23. 23 PM IV: 242. See Davies 1902: 27-31, pls. XXIV-XXV; Kanawati 2005, 68-78; Urk. I: 76.5-79.14. For translation and comments on the text, see Lichtheim 1988: 23-24 (6); Schenkel 1965: 41-44 (34); Strudwick 2015: 366-369 (269). As for the chronology, while many scholars favour a date later than the 6th dynasty, Kanawati (2005: 63) suggests assigning the tomb to the reign of Pepi I. On this issue, see the brief summary and discussion in Kloth 2002: 44; she excludes the text from her analysis of the phraseology of Old Kingdom biographies, and firmly remarks that ‘Hnq dürfte demnach in die Erste Zwischenzeit datiert sein’. 24 Cols 14-15; see Urk. I, 77.12-14. For the translation, see the following discussion. I follow here the interpretation of Grunert 2008: 136137. 20

93

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt iw gr(t) ssA.n(.i) wnSw n(y)w Dwt Drwt I satisfied the jackals of the mountains n(yw)t pt m xAw / n(y) awt i:mr(.i) bAqn and the kites of the sky with the (n)ty im.s(n) carrion / of small cattle for I loved the ba of the strong one that is within them

The passage apparently draws on the topos of ‘giving bread to the hungry’ but extends it to animals and mentions two specific classes: the jackals and the kites. The meaning is not of immediate understanding and has been usually given a rather mundane and administrative interpretation, with no distinctive religious nuance.

Figure 4.1. Passage of the biography of Henqu II from Tomb N67, Deir el-Gebrawi. After Davies 1902: pl. XXIV.

Recently, Bernard Mathieu has given a more articulated interpretation of the broad cultural horizon behind the animal imagerie exploited, which also includes the large and small cattle (mnmnt and awt) mentioned in the previous passage.25 He argues that the ecological configuration presented in the text reflects a precise Weltanschauung that ‘combine ainsi la vision du gestionnaire, qui présente un territoire structuré et hiérarchisé (…), et celle du défunt glorifié qui ne conserve de son univers quotidien que ce qui est susceptible de concourir, par un jeu de références textuelles, à l’accomplissement heureux de sa destinée’.26 Accordingly, the jackals and the kites would fit the liminal landscape evoked (the Dwt-mountains at the borders of the valley, where the necropolis is also located) and would allude to a specific funerary constellation (Anubis, Isis and Nephthys). In this perspective, ‘[l]e chacal embaumeur se voit ainsi rejoint par le milan pleureur, pour former avec lui un couple rituellement signifiant. Tout en affirmant avoir rassasié leurs hypostases animales durant sa vie, Henqou évoque discrètement les bons offices d’Anubis et des pleureuses’.27

Both the general comment and the specific remark on the two ‘hypostases animales’ highlight a significant religious dimension, often overlooked, which Stefan Grunert has further articulated in his reappraisal of the text.28 Moving from the basic assumption that jackals and kites represent ‘vergöttlichte Symbolträger’, and based on content as well as syntactic arguments, he proposes a different restoration of the second part of the passage (i mr[.i] bAqn [n]ty im.s[n]), which should be understood as a kind of explanatory note of the numinous character of the animals (‘da ich den Ba des Starken, welcher in ihnen ist, liebe’) and, as a consequence, of the reasons behind Henqu’s action of feeding them. It might be noted here – as Grunert himself recognises – that a similar interpretation of this section had been already tentatively suggested by Schenkel, with a slightly different nuance in the characterisation of the ba-agency as ‘hoher Geist’.29 Regardless of the two specific alternatives, two crucial points descend from this understanding:30 (1) on the one hand, the passage provides one of the rarest attestations, and certainly the earliest in a narrative context, of a group of wild animals (rather than of a single specimen) addressed to as religiously meaningful and powerful beings. (2) On the other hand, it also offers the first known attempt to articulate discursively that value, thus representing the earliest (though informal) Mathieu 2015: 264-266. Mathieu 2015: 266, Figure 4. 27 Mathieu 2015: 266. 28 Grunert 2008: 135-137. 29 Schenkel 1965: 43: ‘Weiterhabe ich die Schakale im Bergland(?) / (und) die Weihen am Himmel mit Aas(?) von Kleinviehgefüttert, da ich den hohen Geist (??) liebte, der sich in ihnen baufhält (??)’. His translation ‘hohen Geist (??)’ implies a restoration of the group as bA qAi (noun + adjective), which Grunert refuses on palaeographic grounds (2008: 136: ‘ein Problem mit der Hieroglyphe des sitzenden Mannes nach qAi entsteht’), thus taking the group as a noun phrase in direct genitival construction (noun + noun: ‘Ba des Starken’). 30 Cf. Fitzenreiter 2013a: 68. 25 26

94

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom antecedent of the bA-theology as it will develop later in the New Kingdom. Following this line of interpretation, the use of the bA-predication to verbally express the status of that specific animal collective agency (‘the jackals of the mountains and the kites of the sky’) appears as a remarkable strategy to interpret and sustain religious practice, and as the most notable feature of the text. Reference to the bA-power ‘which is within them’ outlines an appropriate ideological framework into which the engagement with those animals can be set and explained, presenting them as the visible, living manifestation of an extra-human agency. On the other hand, its lexical specification is rather unusual – compared to later formulations – and possibly reflects an early stage of that intellectual process: the bA is either marked as ‘high’ (Schenkel) or it is connected to an undefined, numinous (‘strong’) person (Grunert). Arguments may be put forward to support both interpretations: the notion of ‘being high’ is occasionally employed as a meaningful qualification of the bA, though the actual writing of the term (qAi) here is dubious.31 Conversely, the association of the bA with the noun qn (‘the strong one’) is rather unique (though the general idea of the bA as a powerful entity is a well-established theme), while the writing possibly fits better the layout and the palaeographical features of the inscription.32 Be that as it may, the two understandings clearly reveal an emerging interest in the discursive and interpretative aspects of religious practices focused on specific animals. Moreover, differently from other contexts in which selected groups are mobilised, like the pelicans displayed on Niuserre’s reliefs or the temple herds mentioned in titles, here we do not have a ritually structured or spatially circumscribed situation, as vaguely alluded as it might be. Yet, the reference to the mountains and the sky (both peripheral environments) still marks a liminal context, where the numinous power of the animals becomes apparent and approachable through specific actions (nourishing). It is precisely such liminal context that allows recognising – and thus constructing – the sacral connotation of the group through ritual practice. What lacks here is a fully formal(ised) conceptualisation of the role of the animal agency according to a distinctive ideological vocabulary and phraseology, which will be a major achievement of later times. While the passage from Henqu’s biography indicates that forms of religious engagement with multiple animals were an early important focus of religious practice and thought as such to be thematised in a private monument, confirming that they were part of an articulated domain of religious experience not limited to single specimens, and expanding (both geographically and chronologically) the picture sketched for the 3rd millennium, a brief section of the biography of the First Intermediate Period local ruler Ankhtify (anx.ty.fy) from his tomb at Moalla remarks the cultural preeminence of certain individuals.33 The inscription running on one of the pillars (no. 13, V γ, 1-2) consists of a praise of the deceased and informs us about the special role of the Apis bull and (possibly) of the Hesat cow as relevant figures within contemporary funerary discourse:34

Wb. V: 2 (B); see Grunert 2008: 136 for palaeographic analysis. The idea of the bA being high is expressed in both funerary and nonfunerary texts and also, sometimes, in personal names, even though in most cases such quality is referred to the plural form bAw. For general discussion on these examples see Zabkar 1968: 60, n. 47, 74, 117. 32 Wb. V: 44, 10-11. There are no specific attestations of this kind of combination, but the term can used in relation to gods and kings. Note that qn is treated as a noun due to the classifier (A1), yet there is at least one attestation, the Middle Kingdom stela of Mentuwoser at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (12.184), where it displays a similar writing but is used as an adjective (see Wb. V: 42, 14). 33 The literature on this character and his tomb, which are crucial for the understanding of this transitional period, is now conveniently collected in Kloth 2018: 153 (Text 26). The standard publication on the tomb and its texts remains Vandier 1950, but see also the reappraisal of the topic by Godenho 2007, with a valuable contextualisation of the monument, and an archaeologically and textuallyinformed discussion of the main related issues (dating; socio-historical significance; ideology). For general translations of the text, see Lichtheim 1973: 85-86; 1988: 24-26 (7); Schenkel 1965: 45-57. The chronological position of Ankhtify is not certain (Godenho 2007: 130, n. 342): Vandier 1950: 39-40 dates to the 10th dynasty but an earlier attribution to the 9th dynasty has been reasonably argued by Spanel 1984. While this interpretation has encountered a certain consensus among scholars, Kanawati (1992: 157-162) has proposed a further shift back to the 8th dynasty. For a penetrating analysis of the cultural semantics of Ankhtify’s biography, see Assmann 2002, 94-105. 34 Vandier 1950: 242-243, pl. xx; cf. Godenho 2007: 190, 248, Figure 16, pl. 15. 31

95

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt ink SpS nb Spsw

I am a dignitary, lord of dignitaries

ink Hp nb mnmnt/kAw (?)

I am Apis, lord of cows/bulls (?)

s[x]At-Hr/[H]sAt (?) nbawt (?)

Sekhat-Hor/Hesat (?), lord of flocks/herds (?)

nprA nb it-Sma

Nepri, lord of (Upper Egyptian) grain

tAyt nb Hbsw

Tayt, lord of clothing

The passage strongly proclaims the prestigious, effective status of the deceased by eliciting identification with a roster of extra-human and divine entities that are listed as different predications of his ego (ink-sentence). Significantly, even their different gender identities (SekhatHor and Tayt are goddesses) are perfectly integrated into the self-presentation by the masculine form of the epithet nb (‘lord of ’) repeated in each string, which always refers to Ankhtify endowing him with qualities and attributes of the evoked powerful figures. In this regard, the reference to Apis appears noteworthy not just for the attestation per se but also for some suggestive implications and, above all, for the compositional, semantic, and functional aspects of the textual framework where it occurs. At a basic level, the epithet following the name of the bull has been taken by some scholars as an allusion to a particular aspect of its management, i.e. the custom, which would have been already established at that time, of assigning Apis with his own court of bovines.35 This interpretation certainly relies on Vandier’s reading of the epithet as ‘lord of cows’, thus implying that the bull was surrounded by a harem of cows according to a practice that is certainly known only from later sources. There would be also an implicit allusion to the sexual capacity of Apis, which was, according to Vandier, the crucial aspect upon which the identification was built in order to ensure the deceased ‘la jouissance de sa puissance créatrice’.36 An understanding as ‘lord of cattle’ (nb mnmnt), on the other hand, probably fits better in the structure of the whole list,37 but even so, it could contain a clue to a hierarchical relationship between the single Apis bull and a restricted entourage of bovines, likely in a temple context. Here, however, issues of genre and textual format must be taken into account. Two points are particularly relevant: (1) the existence of parallels to this passage; (2) the intellectual framework and the finalities behind its construction. A close parallel is represented by the 12th dynasty stela of the official Montuhotep, where, except for Apis, the same other deities (Sekhat-Hor, Nepri, and Tayt) are arranged within a similar comparative structure.38 In both texts, the association with those divine powers is part of a selfcelebratory section that, on the one hand, exploits traditional topoi of the ideology of ‘vertical solidarity’ (providing and sustaining the weak ones) and, on the other hand, is predicated according

See Duarte 2010: 67. Vandier 1950: 245. 37 Different understandings may be suggested as equally possible alternatives: iHwt (‘cows’), kAw (‘bulls’), mnmnt (‘cattle’). The same is true, in the next sentence, for the word designating the group of animals linked to Sekhat-Hor, which can be restored as gHsw (Vandier 1950: 302: ‘gazelle [peut-être un chèvre?’]) or (tentatively) awt. The reading proposed by Godenho (2007: 190, 248), who interprets the two terms respectively as kA and mnmnt, reflects well this uncertainty. The question cannot be answered on purely orthographic grounds as the word is written ideographically with the sign of the bull/cow (E 1) followed by the strokes of the plural. Moreover, since the surface of the pillar is effaced and partially damaged in that part of the inscription, exact form and details of the sign are no longer appreciable. However, considering the content and the composition of the passage, which couples Apis with the Sekhat-Hor, it seems that the two classes of mnmnt and awt, i.e., large and small cattle, are respectively mentioned in association with these two figures. Otherwise, if one accepts the reading gHsw for the latter, it is possible to restore iHw(t) or kAw in the former case as a generic reference to cattle herd. It is evidently question of nuances. In any case, however, it seems reasonable to consider that the two terms are combined to denote both bovines and caprovines as markers, together with grain and clothing, of the wealth and equipped status of Ankhtify. 38 Stela UCL 14333, ll. 7-8: ‘I gave bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked. I was a son of Nepri (grain-god), a husband of Tayt (cloth goddess), one for whom Sekhat-Hor (milk goddess) made cattle exist, a possessor of riches.’; Stewart 1979: 20 (86), pl. 18; Vandier 1950: 243-245. 35 36

96

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom to a distinctive (though not identical) phraseology that emphasises direct, privileged relationship (identification; closeness). This reveals the artificial, literary elaboration of the text and leads us to the second point. As a powerful affirmation of the deceased’s preeminent status, the comparison, which is an original aspect of Ankhtify’s inscription illustrates, according to Susanne Bickel ‘the proximity between biography and aretology’.39 As such it concerns with a rhetorical and sophisticated strategy of self-presentation that, in the monumental setting of the tomb, aims to establish and project the owner’s personal and social identity into two integrated levels of his post-mortem existence: the earthly domain of human community, where he was re-incorporated through memory and the performance cult activities, and the otherworld domain of the gods, which he aspired to join through empowerment and acquisition of divine qualities.40 In this perspective, the extra-human agencies are mobilised as suitable identities for the deceased to assume, and thus as meaningful signifiers by means of which he can express, assert, and secure his position in both human and divine society. Accordingly, the aretological identification of Ankhtify with them relates on the one hand to the legitimation and commemoration of his unique position as a resourceful, successful individual (almost a king-like figure) who cared and acted for his community by providing material sustainment (food and clothing) – here, as noted above, aretological and biographical modes of description overlap as the ideal motif of feeding the hungry demonstrates –, and, on the other hand, to the achievement of a superior, fully transfigured status that was adequate to his new form of existence among the gods, in so far as it relies not just on his possession of the material requirements that those deities are responsible for (food offerings and garments) but on his actual embodiment of such divine features and capacities.41 Ultimately, the text tells us more about the mobilisation of Apis within a funerary discourse as a mediator of Ankhtyfy’s self-projection in future reality than about actual performances or specific cultic aspects. The two levels (the cultic and the verbal) may not be mutually exclusive – a real situation may rest at the core of the epithet – but it is precisely the semantic value of the bull’s figure (sexual capacity, power, royal symbolism) as well as the social implications (wealth, ownership, and success) and the ritual efficacy (transformation into a divine being) of the association with the deceased that are crucial, and thus they are merged into a meaningful rhetoric image. Still, it remains indicative of the prestige of this animal figure as well as of the range of ideas and values surrounding it, showing that it was well-integrated into the system of funerary beliefs and expectations. Comparison with the Coffin Texts will prove particularly instructive in this regard and will help to set these seemingly unusual statements in a wider cultural background. This last point, i.e. the participation of the Apis bull in an articulated intellectual tradition, is also exemplified by a somewhat later piece of evidence that belongs to the full Middle Kingdom: a relief scene from the funerary chapel (B1) of Senbi (snbi) at Meir, dating to the reign of Amenemhat I and representing a confrontation between to two bulls (Figure 4.2).42 The caption running above identifies one of them as ‘male rival’ (msD-Hr TAt) while the other, likely the main challenger, is labelled as ‘strong (or victorious) bull like the Apis bull whom Hesat has suckled’ (kA nxt mit Hpw

Bickel 2019: 39. She aptly remarks that ‘[t]hrough its characteristic introductory jnk-sentence “I am a god so and so”, the aretology is formally associated to the biography’ working ‘as a form of divine biography’. The passage from Ankhtify’s inscription perfectly exemplifies the combination of these two modes of self-presentation. For an overview of Egyptian aretology, cf. Assmann 1975, 425-433. 40 See Bickel 2019: 32-40. 41 On the legitimising strategy of the Ankhtify’s inscription and its themes, within the archaeological context of his monumental tomb and the general framework of the FIP shifted socio-cultural conditions, see Godenho 2007: 235, 279-286. For discussion on the new ideological model of patronage and its rhetorical formulation, see Assmann 2002: 94-105, especially pp. 104-105. Specific on the passage at issue, Godenho (2007: 189-190) argues that it could allude, together with the images of cattle within the tomb, to Ankhtify’s ownership of herds, and also links this aspect to the configuration of the forecourt as an arena for ritual activities mostly related to butchery. Vandier (1950: 245) notes the symbolic value of the mentioned figures, while Bickel (2019: 39) most aptly emphasises the double perspective (earthly and otherworldly) of the comparison in the (re)construction of the deceased identity after death. 42 PM IV: 25 (2, 3). See Blackman 1914: 33, pl. XI; Galán 1994: 82-83 (3), figs. 2a-b. 39

97

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Figure 4.2. Relief Relief scene from the funerary chapel (B1) of Senbi, Meir. After Blackman 1914, pl. XI.

Xnm.n HsAt). This epithet is a unique feature with apparently no correspondence in the other wellknown attestations of this particular motif. The theme of the bullfight appears in the decorative programme of several provincial tombs (27) of Middle and Upper Egypt from the late Old Kingdom (6th dynasty) until the early New Kingdom (reign of Thuthmosis III). Traditionally regarded as a simple episode of bucolic daily life, with just entertaining purposes, it has been convincingly suggested that the scene has indeed a distinctive religious connotation and symbolic character concerning the afterlife expectations of local leaders, and thus it suits well its location and display in the elite funerary context.43 By comparison with contemporary funerary texts (Pyramid and Coffin Texts), where the metaphor of the fighting kA-bull is mobilised to express the crucial idea of facing and overcoming hostile forces in order to establish one’s superiority (both of gods and deceased) and to achieve full regeneration, Emanuel Galán argues that the representation of the bullfight scene within the tomb formulates the same range of beliefs pictorially.44 The final goal is to facilitate the transformation of the tomb owner into a powerful divine being by means of symbolic identification with the ‘victorious bull’ and appropriation of those essential qualities (strength and sexual vigour) for him to defend and maintain his earthly prominent status in the otherworld,45 ensuring the transposition of virility and authority. In this perspective, two issues are noteworthy, one related to the specific epithet qualifying the ‘strong/victorious bull’, the other of more general interest about the possible ritual dimension of the action depicted. Concerning the joined reference to Apis and Hesat, the inscription records for the first time an explicit ideological association between the two animals, which so far had been mentioned separately in priestly titles. Furthermore, it confirms the funerary symbolism of both the Apis-bull and the Hesat-cow, a relevant aspect that matches the attestation in the biography of Ankhtify and, on the other hand, is diffusely illustrated in passages of the contemporary Coffin Texts, in which the deceased is addressed as the ‘Apis-bull who is in heaven, high of horns’ (CT III, 140e-f), the ‘white kA-bull whom Hesat has suckled’ (CT III, 61c; cf. also CT IV, 350a-351d), and the ‘son of Hesat’ (CT VI, 218j).46 Already attested in the earlier Pyramid Texts, this maternal, nurturing role of the Hesat-cow, which she performs by providing milk as a means of empowerment and

An updated review of the known attestations (27 tombs) and a full reassessment of the funerary symbolism of the scene is provided by Galán 1994, with further bibliography. See also Kanawati 1991, who however maintains that this type of iconography concerns the representation of ‘the “useful” and the “entertaining”’ (Kanawati 1991: 54). 44 Galán 1994: 91-94, especially p. 93: ‘The bullfight scenes on tomb walls represent the same process as is described in these texts: in his struggle to maintain his leadership in the Netherworld, and all that the highest social position implies, the deceased is symbolically identified with a bull who has defeat another who challenges him. This challenge is meant to prove that the deceased entitled to be the lord of the herd and fields, i.e. of the Netherworld’. 45 For this competitive picture of the afterlife and the related rhetoric of power in the Coffin Texts see also the remarks in Bickel 2019: 36-38. 46 Galán 1994: 93. 43

98

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom rejuvenation, appears particularly fitting the pictorial/inscriptional programme of the tomb and its finalities. Graphically, the identity of Hesat is marked by the determinative (E4) representing a recumbent cow with the sun-disk between the horns, wearing a ceremonial necklace and a long robe that wraps the entire body in a mummy-like shape.47 Differently from the simple sign of the standing cow with no distinctive attribute appearing in Old Kingdom titles, this form denotes the special status of this individual animal agency and likely indicates shared characteristics with the Hathortype (celestial and protective qualities). It thus reflects, iconically, the growing complexity and semantic stratification in the process of conceptualisation and elaboration of a highly sophisticated ideology around the religious value of specific animal agencies. Ultimately, though employed as part of the decorative programme and rhetoric strategy of a private tomb in a provincial area, the caption seems to affirm a direct, maternal relationship between Hesat and Apis, which would be of the greatest significance if one were to understand it as documenting the actual and deliberate formulation of strong theological connections linking the two animals, with their symbology, into a meaningful constellation. Considering the fact that they appear in Old Kingdom titles, usually alone but occasionally combined in the same string, this statement would represent an important development, reflecting a (re)configuration of their roles and significance, which however is difficult to articulate in detail. Two factors suggest a more cautious approach: (1) while the association might be informative of a mythical dimension, mobilised in the funerary context to provide effective assistance on behalf of the deceased, we cannot tell if it was expanded via more explicit, discursive formulations; (2) in addition, the possible practical implications of this relationship in terms of the local cultic dimension (ritual actions and performances) remains completely obscure and conjectural. Overall, the funerary setting and context of display of the inscription should not be overlooked in historical reconstruction: they highlight the general religious-cultural relevance of these single animal figures, integrating them into a specific type of Egyptian ‘monumental discourse’ (tomb inscriptions and decorations), but the message is entirely concerned with the deceased’s otherworld expectations. Very little information can thus be obtained on the forms, modes, and settings of the actual participation of these animals in contemporary religious practice, though their attestation confirms at least an ongoing intellectual engagement, which certainly resonated with cultic activities and events, probably on a local scale. As for the possibility to set the bullfighting scene into an animal-focused ritual framework perhaps rooted into the local religious landscape, as a stage of a more complex cultic scenario that might be evaluated in terms of ‘animal worship’, two pieces of evidence are usually brought into discussion to support this interpretation. The first is Strabo’s account of the Hephaesteion (the temple of Ptah) at Memphis, which was placed near the Temple of the Apis bull and is described as the location of a particular event: In this dromos it is the custom to organise contests between bulls which are bred by certain individuals for that specific purpose, after the fashion of horse-breeders; for they let them loose and get them to fight and the one considered the strongest wins a prize.48

The description of the sign in Blackman 1915: 32 is interesting for it records the preserved colours. It is stated that the hieroglyph represents a ‘[r]ecumbent white (?) cow with a red solar disk between the horns, and a blue collar round the neck (…)’. The presumed white colour, if really is that the hide and not of a blanket put on the cow, could possibly refer to the main physical mark for the identification of the single specimen. The name of Apis, on the other hand, is written in purely phonetic without the final classifier. The full depiction of the bull on the right side of the scene, which the caption identifies with Apis, could possibly explain the absence. 48 Strabo, Geog. XVII 1, 31 (C807). A full analysis of this account, and two similar passages of Aelian (NA XI, 10-11), is given in Lloyd 1978, whose translation is here followed. 47

99

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Figure. 4.3. Relief scene from the tomb Ukh-hotep son of Senbi (B2), Meir. After Blackman 1915, pl. XV.

The passage has been compared with the Egyptian bullfight scenes in general, and with that from the tomb of Senbi (B1) in particular, mostly on the basis of the apparent similarity between the two episodes and of the alleged reference to Apis.49 Despite the analogy, however, the association seems questionable, not just for the chronological and geographical distance (early Roman vs Old to New Kingdom; Memphis vs provincial areas) separating the two types of sources and the situations they illustrate, but especially for the differences in the contexts evoked: Strabo explicitly states that the Memphite contest occurs within the temple-complex of Ptah while, confronting all the scenes and considering their distribution and iconographic associations, it clearly results that the occasion for bullfighting is related, on the one hand, to the inspection of cattle and properties by the deceased and, on the other hand, to the selection of the strongest bull for breeding purpose.50 Alan B. Lloyd, discussing Strabo’s account, dismisses the comparison with the pictorial material as ‘not particularly helpful. Alleged points of contact with representations in tomb-chapels of bulls fighting have proved to be irrelevant (…)’.51 The second case at issue limits the ritual interpretation of the episode to the restricted regional area of Cusae. Aylward M. Blackman argued that the bullfight represented in the tomb Ukh-hotep (wx-Htp) son of Senbi (B2) at Meir, dating to the reign of Sesostris I, was related to the Hathor cult and was specifically intended to designate the partner for the single cow selected as the avatar of the goddess (Hathor Mistress of Cusae) and likely held within the local temple (Figure 4.3).52 His assumption relies on some visual and inscriptional features of the wall decoration as well as on comparison with epigraphic material and textual references from earlier and later sources. Linking the scene with the hathoric ceremonies depicted in the registers above, considering the appearance of a cow behind the bull on the right side and of a high official identified as the ‘overseer of the temple-land, Henu son of Rensi’ (imy-rA w n Hwt-nTr sA rnsi Hnw) on the left side, and adding to all this the well-attested occurrence of the Tntt-cattle in the titles of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period (Tables 3.2, 4.1), Blackman concludes that ‘[i]f the bull-fight is (…) indeed connected with the cult of the sacred cattle, that would account both for its association with a scene depicting a Hathor ceremony and for the presence of ‘the Superintendent of the Temple-land’’.53 The hathoric rites and the presence of the ‘overseer of the temple-land’ would thus provide the official setting for the episode, while the reference to the Tntt-cows would emphasise the religious nuance of the breeding. To reinforce this argument, he also mentions the appearance of Hathor as a cow in the relief programme of the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari and cites Galán 1994 : 81. See Montet 1957 : 33, 34, n. 1, referring to the bull fight scene from the tomb os Senbi (B1) at Meir as proof that ‘la coutume des combats de taureaux où le vainqueur est déclaré Apis remonte aussi à cette époque’. Note, however, that while the Apis bull is mentioned in the caption of the scene as part of a simile, Strabo’s account does not establish any explicit connection between the bullfight and Apis; Lloyd 1978: 610. 50 Cf. Galán 1994: 91, n. 76-77. 51 Lloyd 1978: 623. 52 PM IV: 250 (6). See Blackman 1915: 24-27, pl. XV; Galán 1994: 83-84 (4), Figure 3. 53 Blackman 1915: 25. 49

100

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom Ramesside papyrological evidence for the practice of assigning a court or ‘harem’ of bovines to the single specimen (Apis and Mnevis in the quoted parallels).54 The hypothesis is suggestive, and sparse inscriptional data (mostly titles) certainly indicate that a specific group of cows was integrated into the local cultic horizon, which was strongly based on the central figure of the goddess Hathor. To this one might add the classical note of Aelian, according to which Aphrodite Urania was the city-deity of Cusae and a sacred cow was worshipped there, thus revealing the strong and long-lasting continuity of this association.55 Yet, this interpretation cannot be proved as conclusive, rather it poses some methodological issues: first, its ad hoc character, as it discounts the parallels to this scene; second, it largely rests on speculative data and external information to the scene itself (titles, classical sources, etc.) and not on internal elements of its composition (nowhere in the legend is expressed any reference to an hathoric or ritual setting for the confrontation). Finally, by looking at the pictorial structure of this theme as a whole, with its associated captions and its combination with the adjoining motifs, a different context could be outlined for the action depicted, a context that focuses, as already stated above, on the display of social status through the depiction of the wealthy and sportive lifestyle of a local leader and, possibly, on a secondary, symbolic level of meaning (fighting and mating as metaphors of dominance and regeneration in the afterlife) connected to such iconography.56 Still, considering the mediating role of (more or less) canonised pictures, one cannot exclude that ‘die entsprechenden Veranstaltungen mit religiösen Feierlichkeiten in Zusammenhangstanden und gerade die medial verarbeiteten Affirmationen dieser Veranstaltungen –also die Bilder– auf den Zeichencharakter bestimmter Objekte und Handlungenabheben’.57 In the end, while different circumstantial data point to the likely existence of cultic performances focused on the local goddess Hathor and its association with specific animals, the possibility of comparing this level of ritual action with the pictorial level of the bullfight representation in the tomb of Ukh-hotep cannot be proved decisively in absence of stronger evidence and unambiguous textual material. A final source is worth discussing, which on the one hand does not belong to the funerary discourse as the other evidence presented so far but to the sphere of private administration, and, on the other hand, contains an incidental and rare reference to a multiple animal agency, in the form of crocodiles, conceptualised as religiously significant. In this regard, together with the passage of Henqu’s biography, it features among the few attestations before the New Kingdom concerned with sacralised animal groups other than cattle,58 apparently mentioning them outside a restricted, official temple context, and thus alluding to more diffuse and articulated modes for their integration into religious practice and perception than usually admitted. The document at issue belongs to the so-called Heqanakht Papyri, a collection of letters and economic account written by and for a low official named Heqanakht in the early 12th dynasty, likely at the beginning of the reign of Sesostris I, discovered in the unrelated debris from the tomb of Meseh cut on the east side of the large courtyard of the major tomb complex of the vizier Ipi at Deir el-Bahari (TT 315).59 While offering an ‘unparalleled view’ of the contemporary living society ‘through the eyes of a fairly ordinary individual from the lower levels of the landed gentry’,60 with a strong focus on economic aspects and everyday concerns, the papyri also provide important information on cultural geography.

Blackman 1915: 25-27. For discussion on this material, see infra Chapter 5. Ael., NA X, 27. 56 Galán 1994: 91; Lloyd 1978: 622; van Walsem 2006: 305. 57 Fitzenreiter 2013a: 70. 58 See supra § 3.1 the case of the pelicans from the ‘Room of the Seasons of Niuserra’. 59 The two fundamental editions of the documents are Allen 2002 and James 1962, with detailed studies on the various aspects (archaeological context, economics, society, language, geography, etc.) of the papyri. 60 Allen 2002: xv. 54 55

101

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Heqanakht account VI, 4, a list of debts in grain from different localities, mentions the place-name swnw n sbkw, ‘Pool of the Sobeks’ ( ).61 Apparently, the toponym is also attested in letter III, 7, where however it displays a slightly different writing ( ) and has accordingly been interpreted as iw n sbk.62 There can be no doubt that these two names are in fact identical, for three reasons: (1) three out of the four place-names listed in Heqanakht VI, including swnw n sbkw, recur in the same order in Heqanakht III; (2) the two forms of the name share the final element sbkw; (3) they are both associated with the same individual Ipi the Younger (III, 7; VI, 4-5). This indicates clearly that the two names do not refer to different places, but are variant designations of a single site, with the initial element written ideographically in III, 7 and phonetically in VI, 4.63 Conceptually, the most striking and meaningful feature of the toponym is the plural sbkw (lit. ‘Sobeks’), which is most likely to be understood as ‘eine Bezeichnung der Krokodile nach dem krokodilsgestaltigen Gott Sobek’.64 Although rather unusual, the form sbkw occurs in sources of different types and periods, suggesting that its use was not casual but reflected conscious ideas, precise interests, and articulated cultural dynamics. The concept appears already in the Coffin Texts, with attestations of various provenance, and then in Chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead as well as in the later Demotic teaching of the P. Insinger, while an inscription from the temple of Kom Ombo mentions the presence of ‘crocodile-gods’ in Pathyris.65 Not to mention, finally, the classical accounts of Herodotus (II, 69) and Strabo (XVII, 1, 38, 47) on the veneration paid to the animal in various areas of the country. On the basis of such evidence, scattered over ca. two millennia, it seems that the notion of multiple crocodiles was part of a lively tradition with various conceptual and material expressions related to different geographical, social, and cultural milieus. The placename swnw n sbkw might fit well in this tradition and allude to a distinctive religious landscape. As for the identification of the site on the field, it has been proposed to locate it both in the area south of Thebes66 or to the north, in the Fayyum region.67 In this regard, Ludwig Morenz has convincingly proposed to understand the toponym swnw n sbkw as a folk etymology (Volksetymologie) of s(w) mnw,68 an Upper Egyptian site known as early as the late First Intermediate Period down to the Roman era, and the seat of the most prestigious temple of Sobek before the vigorous promotion granted to its cult in the Fayyum by the kings of 12th dynasty, whose exact identification has been confirmed by archaeological excavations conducted at the modern settlement of Al-Mahamid Qibli, 14 km south of Armant.69 Two major arguments support his hypothesis, although with different degrees of confidence: (1) the possibility to connect swnw n sbkw with other toponomastic data known from other sources and related to the religious geography of the Gebelein region. Among them, there is the placename iw-swt mentioned in the biography of Ankhtify of Moalla (no. 13, V α, 5), a site of uncertain identification but probably to be located north of Gebelein, according to the information given in the passage. The toponym consists of the ideogram iw (‘island’) combined with a second element swt, written phonetically and disambiguated by the crocodile determinative, which accordingly may represent a euphemistic orthography for ‘crocodile’. The term would designate a temple area dedicated to the cult of Sobek and the crocodile(s) situated north of s(w)mnw, and likely to be Allen 2002: pl. 44,4; James 1962: pl. 13,4. For swnw ‘pool’, see Wb. IV: 69, 5. For discussion on the toponym, see Gomaà 1986: 127-128; Morenz 2003: 85-90; 2010: 133-136. 62 James 1962: 131. 63 For the understanding of the hieratic sign as (‘lake’, ‘pond’) rather than (‘island’), see Allen 2002: 123, n. 16; Morenz 2003: 87. As for the semantic connection between swnw (‘pool’) and the god Sobek, it is interesting to remind that in P. Ramesseum VI, 3 the deity is addressed as Hn zwnww, ‘He who sails the pools’. 64 Morenz 2003: 85; 2010: 134. 65 For an informed overview on these sources, with further references, see Morenz 2003: 85-86; 2010: 134-135. As for the Coffin Texts, to the passage in CT V, 218b, discussed in detail by Morenz, one might add CT IV, 122g; V 187a; VI, 107j, 171l. Cf. Allen 2002: 123, n. 16. 66 James 1962: 7, 63, 65, n. 3, 132 suggests identifying swnw n sbkw with a locality between Thebes and Rizeikat. 67 Allen 2002: 124: ‘If the place names (…) are suggestive of any particular area, it is the region around the Fayum’. 68 Morenz 2003: 87; 2010: 135. For discussion on the place-name s(w)mnw, Morenz 2010: 131-133. 69 For a valuable assessment on the history of the site, its archaeological exploration and significance, see Betrò 2006. For the final report on the investigation of the temple remains, see Bakry 1971. 61

102

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom found around the modern settlement of Nag ed-Dimuqria.70 Moreover, this toponym resembles another site, iw-sbk ‘island of Sobek’, which is mentioned in a couple of Old Kingdom inscriptions, and could tentatively be located in the region south of Thebes. If so, Morenz argues, the two placenames could be equated and, more importantly, would outline a fitting cultic landscape, dominated by Sobek and the crocodiles, for the location of swnw n sbkw: ‘Insel (jw) und Tümpel (swnw) können nämlich Aspekte desselben Bereiches bezeichnen, in demsich Krokodile (die ‘Sobeks’) aufhielten’.71 While uncertainty and open debate on exact geographical interpretations of ancient place-names should be remarked here, (2) comparison with the archaeological material from the site of AlMahamid Qibli/s(w)mnw offers a better argument to the identification of swnw n sbkw and its understanding. Although no evidence of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom phase of the temple has been recovered yet, several New Kingdom stelae of uncertain provenance but likely coming from this area depict rows of smaller crocodiles under one larger and marked specimen, which is identified as the god Sobek.72 Now, these multiple crocodiles might be interpreted as the pictorial equivalent of the sbkw mentioned in the Heqanakht Papyri and the whole toponym (swnw n sbkw) would encapsulate a distinctive topographical feature, designating the specific area where the living animals associated with the cult of the god were kept. The possibility that such area was already at that time formally defined and architecturally developed, including suitable structures for the keeping and care of the animals, cannot be ruled out and is indeed supported by the actual discovery of a curious architectural monument at Al-Mahamid Qibli, which gives a solid archaeological confirmation to the textually attested ‘pool of the Sobeks’ and to the idea of a particular spatial setting, within the sanctuary, designed for the keeping of and ritual engagement with living crocodiles.73 Considering the lack (so far) of contemporary evidence, these objects provide valuable comparative material to contextualise and evaluate the meaning of the toponym swnw n sbkw. Yet, even admitting a more cautious interpretation of the name as alluding to morphological features of the local landscape rather than to architectural installations, the information encoded reveals two relevant implications for historical reconstruction: (1) it refers to a living animal presence perceived as religiously significant and aptly conceptualised via the predication sbkw of the crocodiles; (2) it likely concerns a local cultic dimension that, for the period at issue, apparently did not receive a monumental elaboration as in the subsequent New Kingdom phase. While this situation might be imputed to the archaeological chance, and further explorations could improve our knowledge of the earlier sanctuary, one cannot exclude reasons of decorum, related with a relatively scarce interest of the royal court toward the monumental thematisation of this particular (animal) aspect of the cult. 4.3 Personal names First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom animal-based anthroponyms appear consistent with those of the Old Kingdom, both in formal structure and content (Table 4.4).74 Formally, the record includes simple, compound, and full-sentence names75 that mainly display well-attested patterns. As with the earlier period, the interpretation of the onomastic data remains ambiguous due to difficulties in reading and uncertainties in understanding the possible religious significance of the mentioned animal figures. Relevant exceptions consist of individual cases for which other external sources allow us to strengthen certain identifications and clarify, to some extent, their role and character.

Cf. Gomaà 1986: 126-127. Morenz 2010: 136; cf. Morenz 2003: 90. 72 The stelae will be discussed in detail later on; infra § 5.7. See Morenz 2003: 88-90; 2010: 135-136, with references. 73 Bakry 1971; Betrò 2006: 96-99, figs. 1-2. For discussion see also infra § 5.7. 74 The bulk of the material collected comes from Ranke 1935, 1952, 1977. It has been compared and implemented, whenever possible, with the onomastic data currently available on the online database ‘Persons and Names of the Middle Kingdom’ (PNM; see Table 4.4), which however is still under construction (). 75 See Vittmann 2013: 1. 70 71

103

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt In this regard, while continuity can be acknowledged, one should remark at least two further points: (1) personal names mostly emphasise the role of bovine figures (Apis; Tntt-cattle; kmt-cattle), thus positively integrating the information coming from contemporary textual and material evidence; (2) original and specific aspects also emerge from the record available, concerning both the types of name-formations and the animal identities addressed. With the highest number of attestations, Apis could be well-represented in the record, yet the phonetic writing of the lemma Hp/Hpw without the bull determinative, while possibly reflecting an established orthography of respect, leaves some doubts as to the actual identification of the group as the name of the bull: Hapi, one of the four sons of Horus, could be an equally acceptable possibility, and phonetic alterations could even suggest completely different interpretations.76 Of course, the problem can be extended back to Old Kingdom onomastic data, but the quantity and distribution of the evidence, as well as contextual arguments about the role of the Apis bull in that period, counter at least in part those difficulties. On the other hand, the limited and sparse character of Middle Kingdom evidence highly affects the analysis and makes it harder to assess the impact of Apis on contemporary anthroponymy. Such an ambiguity also results from Ranke’s detailed study, in which an etymological understanding of Middle Kingdom anthroponyms as linked with Apis is made explicit only in few cases, though the motivations for doing so are not apparent or explained. Ultimately, the issue cannot be solved conclusively, and so names clearly indicated in scholarly literature as based on the Apis-element can only be discussed as guesswork, by comparing them with earlier and later material. Circumstantial evidence might also be used to build or reinforce hypotheses. Two name patterns – Hp/Hpw and kA(.i)-Hp (‘Apis is my Ka’) – have parallels in the Old Kingdom repertoire and have been already considered, so they do not need further comments. It should be remarked that the former is more problematic for the orthographic reasons presented above and that Ranke does not include it in its final list of Apis-based names. Nonetheless, in one case (PN I: 238.14) he records a later variant written with the bull sign so that one might take this as a hint that a reference to Apis was intended. The name kA(.i)-Hp, on the other hand, recurs since the late Old Kingdom and belongs to those designations that establish the identity of the individual Ka with special entities (gods, kings, or abstract concepts).77 Two other formations are worth mentioning: the name sAt-Hpw reflects a typical Middle Kingdom pattern (sA/t + GN, ‘son/daughter of the god NN’), which uses the theme of the filial relationship to a deity as a way to emphasise the special affinity with the name-holder and the exclusive protection bestowed upon him/her. Comparison with a Late Period attestation of the same name on a Serapeum stela78 supports the identification of Apis while the female connotation of the attestations recorded is also a remarkable aspect, although difficult to assess properly. Even more interesting and original is the second anthroponym (nyt-Hpw-anx, ‘She who belongs to the living Apis’), which is also female in gender but has only one single mention on an unprovenanced stela stored in Turin, as it appears to encode a possible meaningful detail about the conceptualisation of the Apis bull. The use of the epithet anx (‘living’) in association to the Apis bull has already appeared on the Palermo Stone (supra § 2.1) and, as noted above, represent a well-established feature of the late theology of sacred animals so that one could take these parallels as supporting evidence for both the general understanding of the personal name and the suggestion that the animal was the object of a developing interest towards a discursive formulation of its religious position and meaning. Careful consideration of the references to Apis in contemporary funerary texts shall provide some insight in this regard. Ranke 1952: 127: ‘In anderen Fällenist das t des so häufigen Namenelements Htp ausgestoßen worden’. He lists, among other examples, Hpw as ‘Stummelform’ for imn-Htpw Danjiela Stefanovich (personal communication) confirms the difficulty. 77 Scheele-Schweizer 2014: 102. 78 Ranke 1935: 291.24. The name sAt-Hp also appears on the Serapeum stela Louvre IM 4062 (PM III/2: 811). 76

104

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom Due to the relatively restricted number of attestations and to the problematic identification of the animal agency, as well as to the uncertain provenance of some evidence, it is difficult to assess the geographical distribution of the anthroponomy properly; it can just be noted that some materials come from Abydos but this is not particularly significant as it is related with the votive character and the Osirian context of the monuments. The Tntt-cattle appears in the characteristic personal name of nfr-Tntt (‘perfect is Tntt), following a well-known Old Kingdom pattern and displaying in a few cases the bovine determinative E1, which makes sure its identification. As already commented above, both the name-type and the orthography do not give any particular indication about the conceptualisation of the animal identity, apart from a vague association, which one might assume, with a general historic context. As expected, they all belong to female individuals (with one exception), although not much can be said about their social identities due to the lack of detailed textual and contextual information. Finally, the kmt-cattle recurs in two compound name formations (irw-kmt; int-kmt) of uncertain meaning,79 though int-kmt seems to evoke some geographic area associated with the animals. There is no correlation between such individuals and those bearing titles related to the kmt-cattle and, in general, the former display no titles except for that of ‘count’ (HAty-aA) appearing on the stela N 3603, which could very tentatively suggest a circulation of this name-type among the local élite; it is also noteworthy that father and son share here the same name. Finally, the provenance of the monuments from Naga ed-Der also confirms the local, provincial character of the animal figure and its religious significance. Among the newly attested onomastic formations, two names (bnw-iw; s-n-bnw), dating respectively to the First Intermediate Period and the early Middle Kingdom (11th dynasty), mention the Heliopolitan bnw-bird. The first one is the most remarkable as it belongs to Ranke’s class of Festnamen, which commemorate festive events, and displays the notion of the arrival of the bnw-bird (‘the bnw-bird has come’).80 Both its structure and content compare with those of some earlier onomastic evidence (bA-iww; Table 3.5), but especially with later appellations referring to the Apis bull, and likely alludes to the appearance or the presentation of this special bird within a ceremonial (temple) context in Heliopolis. If so, it would enrich further the picture of the cultic landscape in the Memphite region, pointing toward an early and structured religious configuration based on the integration of a single living specimen according to ritual forms that, unfortunately, cannot be reconstructed in details but only supposed to invest the animal with a prestigious status, similar to that of the Apis bull. In this regard, considering the link of the bird with Heliopolis and the sun cult, one might also look at the so-called ‘scene of the pelicans’ in the Niuserra sun-temple for broad perspective on how an avian presence could be exploited within a temple context, while contemporary funerary texts (Coffin Texts) provide precious information on the symbolic background of the bnw-bird. The religious significance of the bird also emerges from the other personal name, s-n-bnw (‘the man of the bnw-bird’), which emphasises the idea of belonging and personal connection of the name-bearer with the sacred bird, but do not offer material on its conceptualisation or possible cultic context. 4.4 Coffin Texts The Coffin Texts, just like the earlier Pyramid Texts, offer the opportunity to examine the occurrences of specific animal agencies in the corpus, and to recognise aspects and patterns of their conceptualisation and cultural characterisation. Short passages and obscure expressions, however, makes sometimes difficult to grasp a full appreciation of the underlying religious meanings. 79 80

Cf. Dunham: 1937: 45 (32): ‘the translation of the name is unclear’. Ranke 1943; cf. Ranke 1952: 216-219.

105

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

int-kmt

Persons M/F Provenance (≈) Valley of the kmt-cattle 1 F Naga ed-Deir

Date (dyn.) 6th-8th

irw-kmt

irw of the kmt-cattle

3

FIP

I: 40.24

bA-mkt(.i)

1

12th

I: 89.10

bnw-iw nt-Hpwanx(?)

The (sacred) ram is my protection The bnw-bird has come Who belongs to the living Apis (?)

nfr(t)-Tntt

Perfect is Tntt

7

Name

Meaning

1 1

sAt-Hpw

Daughter of Apis (?)

15

kA(.i)-Hp

Apis is my Ka (?)

2

s-n-bnw

The man of the bnw-bird

1

M Naga ed-Deir M Unknown (Abydos?) M Saqqara F Unknown (Memphis-Fayyum region) M/F Abydos, Assasif, Girga, Meir, Naga ed-Deir (M), Thebes, Unknown F Abydos, Lahun, Memphis-Fayyum region, Unknown M Saqqara; Akhmim M Unknown

PN

PNM

Not in PN, PNM1

FIP I: 97.10 5682 12th-13th I: 181.6 6162 FIP, MK

Notes

bA: E10 + R7 PNM: bnw Apis-based name in PN III: 93-94

I: 2629, 201.4, 3360 202.15

(11th12th) 12th-13th I: 566, 559 Apis-based name 291.23 in PN III: 93-94 MR 11th

I: 340.16 II: 311.24

Apis-based name in PN III: 93-94

The name is preserved in the inscription from her tomb (N 248) and especially on the stela Cairo JE 88889. See Brovarski 1989: 266-287 (tomb decoration), 572-574, fig. 127 (stela). 1

Table 4.4. First Intermediate Period/Middle Kingdom personal names incorporating the name of sacred animals.

Once again, bovine figures take the lion’s share. The Apis bull appears in nine spells attested in different versions:81 CT I 63a (Spell 21), I 98b (Spell 31), II 394a (Spell 162), III 138a (Spell 203), III 140e (Spell 204), VI 198x (Spell 581), VI 231r (Spell 619), VI 236a (Spell 622), VII 485g (Spell 1139). Apart from CT VI 231r and 236a, which reuse a corrupted section of Pyr. 279d mentioning the ‘canal/meadow of Apis’, the other texts apparently deal with certain qualities or attributes of Apis, though not easy to understand or contextualise. In Spell 21, which describes the deceased’s ascension to the sky with Ra, Apis is addressed in relation to his purification: iw.kw ab.ti sp 2 anx Ra iw.kw ab.ti HAty.k m abw pHwy.k m twr iw st-wab.k m Hsmn m snTr

You are pure, you are pure. As Ra lives, you are pure. Your front is in purity, your back parts are in cleanness, and your cleanliness is by means of natron and incense, milk of Apis and beer of Tjenem.

(m) itrt Hpw Hnqt Tnm

The milk of Apis is referred to here as a means of purification, and it evokes (though not directly) the image of the Apis bull being suckled by the Hesat cow in the funerary chapel Senbi (B1) at Meir.82 Raymond Faulkner restores the sentence as ‘milk Apis’, i.e. Hesat, as ‘[m]ilk of Apis (…) is a physical impossibility’,83 but it seems also reasonable to assume that the bull features as the consumer rather than the producer of the liquid, so as to stress the ideas of empowerment and strength. Accordingly, it represents an effective substance for the deceased’s rejuvenation. For the list of occurrences see Van der Molen 2000: 329. See supra § 4.2. 83 Faulkner 1973-1978, I: 13, n. 13. 81 82

106

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom Spell 31 (CT I 98a-b), instead, focuses on the extraordinary procreative force of the bull: I will make N see the offspring of Apis in the stables of the dappled cattle

ix rdi.i mAA N pn mswt Hpw m sAw sAbt

The exact meaning of the passage is not entirely clear but there are some interesting points: the term mswt could equally mean ‘birth’,84 and thus refers to the birth of the Apis bull rather than to his offspring; the latter option, however, is more likely also in view of a certain consonance between this text and the mention of ‘Apis lord of cattle’ in the biography of Ankhtify quoted above. The reference to the dappled cattle (or cows), as well as to the ‘white (HDt) cattle (or cows)’ attested in some variants,85 is noteworthy in this regard and is suggestive of the later practice of assembling a sort of entourage around the bull. Yet, the funerary function and the mythical framework of the spell reveals that this section is part of a symbolic discourse finalised to the integration of the dead into the otherworld domain by means of the adoption of several powerful identities: here as elsewhere, identification with the vigorous Apis bull means successful rebirth. Be that as it may, the notions of sexual capacity and prominent status of the bull over a surrounding group represent relevant and recurring concepts in the characterisation of the animal. Accordingly, Spell 162, which is about ‘Having power over the four winds of Heaven’, describes the east wind opening a celestial path for Ra that he may pass through and, within such context, expresses similar ideas of renewal in terms of movement and nourishment of the bull (CT II 394a): nDr Ra a n N pn

Re shall grasp the hand of this N

di.f sw m sxt.ftw Hr-tp iArw

and put him in this field of his in the midst of rushes,

Ax xA.f m.s a.f is Hpw stS

so that he may flourish on it like the condition of Apis and Seth

Likewise, in Spell 203 (CT III 138a), Apis appears again coupled with Seth granting support and provision to the deceased so that he can become an Ax: One will thresh for me as Apis who presides over Nesau,

Hw.tw n.i m Hpw xnty nsAw pys.tw n.i m stS nb pt mHtt

One will tread in seed for me as Seth lord of the northern sky

While nsAw is likely a mythical place, the threshing activity associated with Apis is possibly centred on the marching character of the figure, and one might only wonder whether it had an actual ritual counterpart analogous to the ceremonial episode of the ‘Driving of the calves’ already discussed. More relevant, perhaps, is Spell 204, which is similarly concerned with the right form of survival in the afterlife, and where the deceased fiercely proclaims his/her identification with the Apis bull (CT III 140e-141b): I am Apis who is in the sky, long of horns, perfect of names, far-sighted, far-striding

ink Hpw imy pt qAi wpt nfr rn wp Dirty wsx nmtt

The passage apparently lists a number of physical qualities and conceptual attributes that characterise the animal. Among these, ‘high/long of horns’ and ‘far-striding’ (wsx nmtt) seem 84 85

Wb. II: 140, 11-13 (‘Nachkommenschaft’), 140, 16-141,13 (‘Geburt’). Faulkner 1973-1978, I: 20, n. 6.

107

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt to reflect real traits of the bull’s appearance and behaviour: the latter might be related to the marching/running posture typical of Apis and likely encoded in his own name (Hp = ‘the running bull’), while the former seems to indicate that the length of the horns was a distinctive mark in the selection and identification of the specimen. Interestingly enough, while such a feature is not matched by those recorded much later by Classical authors, it however finds a certain visual correspondence in earlier pictorial material, like the Early Dynastic ostracon and sealing from Saqqara or the relief in the Niuserra’s solar temple. Of course, this interpretation does not exclude that it could have – and certainly had – a particular religious nuance, certainly linked with the notions of strength and leadership.86 The other epithets deal with the ideological sphere, but are, in part, more difficult to evaluate: apart from a celestial (solar?) association (imy pt), ‘perfect of names’ (nfr rnw) could allude to a discursive process around the Apis bull, while ‘far-sighted’(pD irty) has been intended as suggestive of the perceptive, prophetic capacity of the animal, in line with what is known about the later oracular performances.87 It remains dubious, however, whether and how this statement actually relates to an otherwise unattested cultic dimension. Graphically, the name of Apis is regularly followed by the combination of the bull and seated god determinatives (E1 + A40): the former sometimes depicts the bull in running pose, thus visually encoding and emphasising his main characteristic, while the latter marks the belonging of Apis to the category of extra-human entities, which is well-expected in the mythological framework sketched by funerary texts, and addresses him in terms of divine persona according to an anthropomorphic conceptual scheme which is prominent in the Coffin Texts.88 From an ideological perspective, since we lack other external sources concerned with the religious role and position of the Apis bull, it remains dubious whether his inclusion in the divine sphere is context-dependent or reflects a more permanent aspect of his understanding. The Coffin Texts also provides the first certain mention of the Mnevis bull (mr-wr), which appears in three spells (CT V 191b, Spell 404; CT V 205k, Spell 405; CT VI 414e Spell 784)89 concerning the ascension and the celestial journey of the deceased. In Spell 784, the bull is also mentioned together with the bas of Heliopolis, which confirms his local association with that centre and its religious landscape. Overall, however, the passages are not particularly informative on the role and character of the animal, nor one can get more information from the orthography of the name, which, as for Apis, is generally marked by the double classifier of the bull and the bearded god (E1 + A40). Beside Apis and Mnevis, the Hesat cow is attested in different versions of nine spells:90 They mostly consist of brief mentions and some of them are fragmentary, but they all focus on the maternal, nurturing, and protective role of the cow: Hesat features in connection with suckling (Spell 175, 343, 344, 826), with the Field of Offering and milk as a substance of sustenance and renewal (Spell 467, 468, 826), or is presented in a mother-son constellation with Anubis (Spell 546). Of particular interest is a passage of Spell 175 (CT III 61b-c), where the deceased identifies himself with various divine beings in order to ascend to the sky and join the god Ra: ink Hr xnty S pt DHwty xnty sH-nTr kA-HD snqw HsAt

I am Horus who presides over the lake of the sky, Thot who presides over the divine booth, the White Bull whom Hesat has suckled

This emerges clearly from S10C, which reads: ‘who is among the bulls, who is in the sky, mighty of horns, […] of horns’. So Faulkner 1973-1978, I; 167, n.6: ‘pD irty synonym of pD Hr “far-sighted”, “prescient”’. 88 See Shalomi-Hen 2000: 50, 62. 89 van der Molen 2000: 173. 90 List of occurrences in Van der Molen 2000: 356. 86 87

108

From the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom The text is noteworthy as it mentions the rather obscure White Bull (kA-HD), attested since the early Old Kingdom but scarcely documented, and associates him with the Hesat cow as his mother. While not very illuminating on the identity and character of the bull, the attestation clearly emphasises his close relationship with Hesat, and insists on the theological position of Hesat as the embodiment of maternal care and solicitude. Finally, the corpus of the Coffin Texts includes also a short passage (CT VI 137g-138b, Spell 542) that explicitly focuses on the relationship between the Tntt-cattle and the goddess Hathor: ink wa m Tntyw.T

I am one of your sacred cattle (Tntyw)

Hnwt.i Hwt-Hr

O my mistress Hathor

wnm sStAw sdbw [nS]nw

One who eats the hidden things and chews the nSnw

sDr Hr wab-sn

who spends the night in their priestly service;

rdi.n Hwt-Hr awy.s r.i

Hathor has put her hands on under the branches of the itnws-tree

Xr smAw nw iTnws

The spell, which identifies the deceased with ‘one of your Tntyw-cattle (Tntyw.T)’, has an outstanding hathoric connotation and contains few remarkable details. First of all, although written slightly differently, the correct understanding of the word Tntyw as the sacred cattle of the goddess (variant of Tntt) is rendered unquestionable by the following determinative (E1).91 Secondly, the association animal-Hathor is clearly one of belonging (Tntyw.T), meaning that the cattle fits in the sphere of action of the goddess. Lastly, the curious reference to a special kind of food (‘the secret things and the nSwnw-grain’) and place for the Tntyw-cattle also remarks its special value, setting them apart from common cattle and possibly alluding to an exclusive context for their maintenance. 4.5 Summary Usually neglected in any discourse about ‘animal worship’, textual and pictorial evidence from the First Intermediate Period to the Middle Kingdom offers, contrary to the expectations, a valuable chanche to expand the scope of our perspective beyond individual figures (like Apis or Hesat), focusing attention on multiple animals and their ritual engagement in local temple contexts. Cattle in particular, is well-represented in the record, with the two groups of the kmt-bulls and the Tntt-cows being attested in titles and onomastic formations that are characteristic of this period but tend to disappear after the Middle Kingdom.92 Both designations have a distinctive collective connotation and identify these animals as special groups of cattle that are connected with particular deities and temples in provincial areas, thus framing their presence within the regional landscape of Upper Egyptian towns (Dendera; Thinite nome). Physical marks, especially the colour of the hide, played a part in the selection of these animals and while the reference to such a distinctive appearance can be immediately appreciated in the name kmt, a similar attention to physical traits can be reasonably assumed for the Tntt-cattle as well, especially considering the ethymology of the word (Tni, ‘to [be] distinguish[ed]). Colour and colur symbolism were notably important for the identification, characterisation, and theological interpretation of the role of animals in religious contexts, as it is best illustrated by later sources, but the concise character of the earlier material offers only limited insight on how such a meaning was shaped and practically articulated for Tntt and kmt-cattle. An exclusive hathoric connection is 91 92

van der Molen 2000: 764. Cf. Fitzenreiter 2013a: 70-71.

109

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt recognisable for the Tntt-cows, and it is strongly (re)affirmed in Spell 542 of the Coffin Texts, while the kmt-cattle seems to display a slightly wider range of associations (with Onuris in particular, but also with Thot and, in later times, Apis), which is more elusive and hard to assess. In this regard, the participation of black bull calves into the rite of the ‘Driving of the calves’ since the Old Kingdom is not usually taken into consideration but could be tentatively proposed as a potentially meaningful frame of reference for the ritual mobilisation of the kmt-cattle (or part of it) with its various associations. Although only hypothetical, this suggestion has the merit of acknowledging complexity, diversity, and flexibility in practices of ‘animal worship’ against the monolithic view of an Egyptian belief in ‘animal as gods’, urgig us not to limit a priori the range of legitimate interpretation. Similary, the sbkw-crocodiles mentioned in the Heqanakht Papyri evoke another scenario in which a collective animal presence actively participated in the cultic tradition of ‘Sobek lord of Sumenu’, near Armant, perhaps being already installed within a well-defined architectural setting (of which the New Kingdom remains at Al-Mahamid Qibli provides a later counterpart) and certainly becoming memorialised in the local toponymy as ‘The pools of the Sobek-crocodiles’ (swnw n sbkw). Sparse titles and some (not always surely interpreted) personal names mention Apis, but it is in the sphere of the funerary ‘monumental discourse’ (biographic statements, tomb decoration, Coffin Texts) that prominent individual figures (the Memphite bull and Hesat in the first place) receive particular attention being mainly exploited as prestigious cultural referents within a growing religious speculation. Of course, it is possible that at least some of such statements, and more in general such intellectual efforts, were related to an actual dimension of religious practice, but this cannot be confidently asserted.

110

Chapter 5

The New Kingdom The New Kingdom marks a phase of decisive development in the history of ‘animal worship’, in terms of both standardisation of specific ritual forms and expansion of the available archaeological record. Already in earlier periods focused engagement with, and manipulation of selected animals in ritual settings can be recognised or tentatively assumed, together with their inclusion in the repertoire of religious items belonging to temples, and their cultural and social significance can be guessed on the basis of meagre textual evidence and especially on name and title patterns. Yet, it is only during the New Kingdom that new stable and well-defined conceptual frameworks and contexts of actions emerge that have a remarkable impact on the material record. Changes in the patterns and distribution of the sources can be characterised at two levels. On the one hand, the quality and quantity of the material reflect important developments in the system of decorum of what could be now included in texts and iconography, widening the boundaries of what have been deemed acceptable so far and expanding the possibility of pictorial display of animal-based religious practices. On the other hand, previous scattered evidence coalesces now into well-structured configurations of clear monumental form, of which two in particular stand out: (1) necropolises specifically planned for the burial of sacr(alis)ed animals, and (2) votive stelae dedicated to them and decorated with newly designed and highly distinctive iconographic motifs. Commenting on this, Martin Fitzenreiter aptly remarks that ‘[a]us einer kulturhistorischen Perspektive betrachtet stellen diese Objekte – es sind Bestattungsanlagen und Kultstelen – kulturspezifische Installationen der Bedeutungsvermittlung dar’.1 Differently from other indirect attestations, such as those recorded for earlier periods, these new configurations do not just incidentally mention practices of ‘animal worship’, but actually belong to those practices, locating and materialising them. From this monumentalisation ‘animal worship’ gains a stronger visibility in relation to both local contexts and distinct animal figures (the Apis bull at Saqqara; the Mnevis bull at Heliopolis; the canids at Asyut; the crocodiles at Sumenu). The following exposition, therefore, will arrange the material according to these criteria, focusing discussion, for each context, on necropolises and stelae as the two main categories of the corpus. Other pieces of evidence, including royal monuments, relevant textual attestations, title sources will also be treated to integrate the general picture. 5.1 The Apis bull at Memphis Early sources unquestionably show the strong connection of the Apis bull with the royal institution and ideology on the one hand and, on the other hand, with the Memphite area – the two facts may well be correlated (cf. supra Chapters 2, 3). Due to their sparse and laconic character however, they are not very informative about the cultic organisation nor about the possible funerary treatment or theological associations of the bull. From a historical perspective this absence appears significant, unless it is interpreted as the result of a mere chance of preservation. The mid-18th dynasty saw important developments in this regard: (1) the theological position of the Apis bull was more clearly defined, being associated with the god Ptah during its lifetime and transformed into an Osiris after death; (2) a funerary cult was officially established, and ‘[w]hatever arrangements had previously existed, they underwent dramatic revision in the reign of Amenhotep III, with the construction of the first of a long series of burial places, known collectively as the Serapeum’2. Both aspects reinforced Apis’ link with the religious landscape of Memphis, while evidence comes from the most part from the newly (?) founded necropolis.

1 2

Fitzenreiter 2013a: 75. Dodson 2005: 74.

111

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Figure 5.1. One of the New Kingdom ‘Isolated Tomb’ as shown in Mariette’s reconstruction. After Mariette 1882: 117, fig. 1.

Figure 5.2 Mariettes’s drawing of the Greater Vaults of the Serapeum. After Mariette 1882: 119, fig. 3.

5.1.1 The Serapeum during the New Kingdom Memphis continued to play a not secondary role during the whole New Kingdom and witnessed the planning of important building activities by the kings of the time. The foundation of the Serapeum under Amenhotep III, in the area north-west of Djoser’s pyramid at Saqqara, fits the general trend and inaugurates a monumental tradition of lasting consequences for the (ancient) characterisation and the (modern) understanding of the cult of the sacred bull of Memphis. The complex remained in use until the end of the Ptolemaic era, and went through a number of transformations which progressively changed and expanded its layout.3 The earliest burials consisted of individual internments within the so-called ‘Isolated Tombs’ (A-H; cf. Table 5.1), extending from the reign of Amenhotep III to year 30 of Ramses II.4 Located approximately in the centre of the later enclosure of the Serapeum, their exact emplacement has been lost and their architectural form can only be indirectly reconstructed on the basis of Mariette’s The basic account on the archaeological history of the Serapeum is that of Mariette 1857 and 1882. Valuable assessments of his work and data are given by Dodson 2005; Ibrahim and Rohl 1988; Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1968: vii-xvi. 4 The nomenclature here adopted for both the burial chambers and the sequence of Apis bulls follows that established by Dodson 2005: 91-92 (Table 1), 102, n.5. On the ‘Isolated Tombs’ and the early history of the Serapeum, see also Devauchelle 1993; Dodson 1995; 2005: 76-79; Pasquali 2011. Detailed references are provided in Table 5.1. 3

112

The New Kingdom drawing and report (Fig. 5.1).5 They comprised two basic elements: underground, a rectangular burial chamber, which was accessible via a sloping passage oriented toward east, contained the body of the deceased bull and the associated funerary equipment. On the surface, placed on a stone-built platform surmounted by a cavetto-cornice and approached by a flight of steps, there was a naos-roofed cult chapel supported at the corners by columns;6 the internal walls were likely decorated with relief scenes,7 while on the basement votive stelae were affixed. The layout just described does not seem to show great variations, apart from the addition, in some tombs, of a side-room accommodating part of the funerary apparatus. A major structural transformation occurred after year 30 of Ramses II when, under the direction of the crown prince Khaemwaset, multiple burials started to take place within a newly erected underground complex known in literature as the ‘Lesser Vaults’.8 The new arrangement, which remained in use until the reign of Psamtik I, was accessed via a ramp cut north-west of tomb G/H, and consisted of a long central passage running northward, with funerary chambers opening on each side.9 At the same time, the earlier individual chapels were replaced by a large temple, of which however nothing remains on the ground: a number of fragments inscribed with the name and titles of Khaemwaset, including part of the dedicatory inscription of the temple, belong in this context (cf. Table 5.1). In this regard, the Ramesside project expands and monumentalises the earlier bipartite scheme (upper cult chapel and lower funerary chamber) introduced with the ‘Individual Tombs’. Judging from Mariette’s notes, it appears that, after the burial of the bull with all its paraphernalia, the chamber was sealed.10 The numerous votive stelae, instead, were placed outside, being deposited near the blocked entrance or installed directly in the masonry closing the vault and in the walls of the central gallery (Fig. 5.2).11 The archaeological situation of the ‘Lesser Vaults’ was greatly disturbed by both ancient tomb robberies and modern penetrations, while inconsistencies in Mariette’s account and plans pose some problems in the identification of some burials as well as in the reconstruction of their sequence and in the chronological interpretation of the recovered materials.12 Thus, the poor preservation and documentation of the burials give us only a partial idea of both the decoration and the content of the monuments (cf. Table 5.1).13 As for the first issue, while it seems that the earliest tombs were left plain, the walls of Tomb D had been plastered and painted with religious scenes, one of which showed Apis accompanied by the Four Sons of Horus and other gods (Fig. 5.3). Similarly, the burial chamber of Tomb G had been sumptuously decorated: on the south wall, Ramses II and Khaemwaset were shown offering before an anthropomorphic Apis while a band of gold leaf run along the lower part of the room (Fig. 5.4). The image of the bull in Tomb D is especially significant because, when compared to earlier visual evidence (mostly small determinatives, fragmentary reliefs or uncertain pictures), it is the first clear representation of the animal and its physical traits. Apis appears as a black and white spotted bull, with a black head, back, and buttocks, while the rest of the body is white, including a small blaze on the forehead and a (crescent-like?) strip on the neck. A red rectangle on the flank may be a taken as a cloak while the horns are straight and grey in colour, a fact which may suggest they were covered in silver sheets.14 The image resembles, in a partial and more formalised way, the Mariette 1857: 3; 1882: 117, fig. 1. Judging from Mariette’s sketch (Fig. 5.1), it cannot be excluded that the top of the chapel was shaped as a pyramid, similarly to the private Theban tombs of the New Kingdom. 7 As can be deduced from a block now in Munich (SMÄK Gl.93) coming from Tomb A. Other known fragments were inscribed with royal names (see Table 5.1). 8 See Dodson 2005: 79-84; Mariette 1882: 56-60. 9 The galleries did not result from a unitary plan but developed gradually through subsequent additions and enlargements. 10 Mariette 1857: 5; 1882: 60 (i). 11 See Mariette 1857:5; 1882: 57 (d), 59-60 (g-i) 12 This is especially true for the five burials dated to the reign of Ramses II. See Dodson 2005: 79. 13 The table gives a quick overview of the main material correlates from each tomb. The stelae are treated separately. 14 So Dodson 2005: 73. 5 6

113

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Figure 5.3 Wall painting from Tomb D (Horemheb) showing the Apis bull and the four sons of Horus, Saqqara. After Mariette 1857: pl. 3.

Figure 5.4. Wall painting from Tomb G (Ramses II) showing the king and prince Khaemwaset before Apis. After Mariette 1857: pl. 8.

one appearing on Den’s ostracon, though this is not enough to confirm the latter as an image of the Apis bull. On the other hand, it corresponds with the paintings of the bull in contemporary and later sources, including stelae, sarcophagi, and papyri.15 This also raises an issue about the accordance with the classical accounts, and some scholars have highlighted incongruences with the Graeco-Roman literary tradition, especially with Herodotus’ statement that Apis was a black bull with a white mark on its brow.16 The discrepancy has been interpreted in terms of change in the physical patterns of the bull.17 The argument mainly relates to later sources and will not be examined in detail, as it is not the focus of the present analysis.18 The contradiction, however, needs not be taken too neatly. First of all, many authors emphasise the spotted hide of the Apis bull,19 while Egyptian sources themselves may describe the bull as totally black. Moreover, René Vos has clearly demonstrated that ‘[t]he colour attributed to a sacred animal needs not always correspond with reality (…). The symbolic meaning is not only determined by the intrinsic value of a colour (…) For the stelae, see Mariette 1857, pls 25 (upper left, 22nd dynasty), 26 (right, 22nd dynasty), 35 (middle, 25th dynasty); Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1968, 27-28 (no. 28), 28-29 (no. 29), 29 (no. 30), 86-87 (no. 107), 97 (no. 122), 106-107 (no. 134), 112 (no. 142), 130 (no. 169), and passim. For the sarcophagi, see Gunn 1926: 83-84, fig. 3A. Finally, one can mention the picture of Apis in the ‘sacred animal’ section of the Tanis Geographical Papyrus (British Museum EA 10673; Griffith and Petrie 1889, pl. X.16). In all these cases, the preserved traces of colour confirm the black and white pattern of the bull’s hide. 16 Hdt. III, 28; see Hopfner 1913: 78. 17 Dodson 2005: 73. 18 For full discussion of the topic see Vos 1998. 19 For example, Ael., NA XI,10; Lucian, Deor. Conc. 10; Ov., Met. IX, 962; Plin. NH VIII, 184; Strabo, Geog. XVII 1, 31. 15

114

The New Kingdom but also by the context in which it is used’20. The sacr(alis)ed animals, as it will be explained later (Chap. 6), were transformed into cultic-objects (Kultobjeckte) to be manipulated and interpreted i.e., through their selection and installation they were cut off from ordinary experience, made available for theological speculation, and so imbued with multiple meanings according to different times and contexts. In the Late and Graeco-Roman periods, the marks of the Apis bull and the symbology behind them, mostly centred on the moon cycle and the notion of cosmic regeneration, had developed into a complex matter of sacred science (máthema as Helian puts it).21 It is likely that a similar knowledge – possibly but not necessarily having the same content – was already at work during the New Kingdom (if not earlier). In any case, the crucial point is that the bull exhibited a highly distinctive and recognisable appearance that was certainly the product and the focus of a well-established and codified process of identification or, to be more precise, of building identity. The funerary equipment recovered from the clearance of the tombs appears comparable to that designed for human dead including wooden sarcophagi, canopic jars and ushabtis, items of jewellery and amulets in various stones, to which one can then add the vast profusion of votive stelae.22 An interesting aspect concerns the disposal of the bull’s body, as it can be supposed from certain material patterns and deposits recurring in some of the tombs. At least three chambers (E, G, K) accommodated four (relatively) intact burials that contained animal remains and other organic residues belonging to the alleged ‘mummies’ (cf. Table 5.1).23 In chamber E (reign of Horemheb), probably the original cinerary room of the tomb, a panelled, vaulted lid wooden sarcophagus had been placed in an outer stone coffin; it held a defleshed bull’s head resting upon a resinous black mass wrapped in linen, and composed of broken bovine bones and fragments of golden leaf mixed together. Moreover, excavation under the floor produced a dozen large crude pottery jars filled with ashes and burnt bones. Rather than as mummification, these traces have been interpreted as the result of a ceremonial feast where the bull’s body was at least in part consumed before its burial.24 Likewise, the two Ramesside internments in tomb G (year 16 and 30 of Ramses II) produced a similar sequence of nested wooden sarcophagi (the innermost of which with a gilded anthropoid lid) containing a resinous core made of fragmentary bovine bones (apparently with no skull) combined with amulets and jewels, some inscribed with the names of the king and of his son Khaemwaset. Finally, the so-called ‘mummy of prince Khaemwaset’ from tomb K (Ramses II, year 55) consisted of a combination of odorous resin, scattered bone fragments (again with skull) and jewels placed within a wooden coffin, the whole mixture being roughly shaped in human form and covered with a golden mask, while a full range of jewellery and funerary items was associated with it. The fact that some of these pieces displayed the name of the Ramesside prince together with the human appearance of the ‘mummy’ induced Mariette, and others after him, to identify the remains as belonging to Khaemwaset and the chamber as his tomb, a fitting burial and a great honour for he who dedicated much efforts to the promotion of the cult of Apis.25 However, such an assemblage more likely reminds of those in tombs E and G, and thus is better explained as the actual burial of a bull prepared in similar way.26 All these patterns point toward a growing complexity in the funerary treatment of the Apis bull in terms of both scale and techniques, and, while it is not sure whether and how they relate with possible earlier antecedents (cf. Chapter 3), comparison with later tradition seems to indicate Vos 1998: 712. Vos 1998: 712-716. 22 The canopic equipment has been studied by Dodson 1999. For the ushabtis, see Aubert and Aubert 1974: 85-86, 90-92; Schneider 1977 I: 282-283. On the jewellery, see Ziegler 1996; 1999. 23 Two in chamber G and one in the other two. Tomb D/E is usually assumed to have held two Apis bulls but only chamber E has yielded some remains of the treated body. Given the distribution of the material in the two chambers, Stéphane Pasquali (2009) reinterprets the situation as the result of a later violation of the tomb, with a following reinternment of the deceased bull, thus considering ‘qu’un seul Apis fut inhumé dans cette tombe’ (Pasquali 2010: 59). 24 Following the suggestion of Mond and Myers 1934 I: 5-7. Similar deposits of jars containing ashes were also found in tombs A, C, F, though no physical remains were identified. See Dodson 1999: 63, n. 38; 2005: 77; Ibrahim and Rohl 1988: 21. 25 Mariette 1857: 16; 1882: 59, 146. In both cases, however, Mariette openly admitted his hesitation in taking a neat position. See Kitchen 1985: 109. 26 Dodson 1999: 66; 2005 80. 20 21

115

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt that mummification was fully adopted only with the 26th dynasty,27 a passage marked by the introduction of monumental granite sarcophagi under Amasis28 and codified in the ‘Apis embalming manual’ (P. Vindob. 3873).29 On the other hand, it should be noted that, after those recovered from the burials supervised by Khaemwaset, Mariette did not record other remains while none of the bony fragments that he collected appear to survive, thus making the evaluation of the funerary practices and the identification of the New Kingdom specimens (likely Bos africanus) problematic.30 Overall, decorative elements and funerary assemblage reveal an elaborate ritual configuration, and provide interesting material on the appearance of the animal, though it remains difficult to correlate them with actual physical data. They also inform us on the contemporary developing of theological constructions on the Apis bull encoded in epithets and predications (Table. 5.2). A quick look at the table shows some recurring patterns, namely: the Osirian form wsir-Hp, possibly followed by other funerary epithets (xnty-imntt/imntyw; mAa-xrw; nb nHH, etc.); the wHm-predication linking the bull with the Memphite god Ptah; a number of syncretistic associations with major deities like Atum, Horus, Sokar. A focused analysis of these designations will be presented in the final discussion (see infra Chapter 6), but one general remark can be proposed here to assess the historical value of the phenomenon: in displaying a refined web of divine connections, the various appellations articulating the religious identity of the Apis bull reveal a complex theological framework that appears already fully established at the time of 18th dynasty i.e., at the very beginning of our documentation. This is especially the case of the association between Apis and Ptah, which emerges de facto in its distinctive formulation as early as the reign of Amenhotep III. The point is significant because, despite general assumptions, there is no evidence connecting these two figures before the New Kingdom. Although this represents a major achievement of the New Kingdom, the predications documented only give us the final product but do not inform about the process that generated it and, considering the lack of textual records for earlier periods, it is difficult to properly evaluate the exact times and modes according to which those relationships were built and the system developed.31 A final comment stemming from the reviewed material and its monumental setting concerns the socio-political dimension of the Apis burials. This statement can be briefly qualified on two levels. First of all, the quantity and quality of the grave goods prove that ‘burials in general were often carried out under the auspices or with support of members of the royal family and other high dignitaries’.32 A large number of inscribed items distributed in the funerary chambers, and even placed within the ‘mummified’ corpses of the bulls belonged to officials and members of the inner court as well as to people involved in the preparation of the tombs or in the funerary rituals. This is especially apparent from the objects deposited in the almost intact tomb G/H of Ramses II. Leaving aside Khaemwaset, the individuals there represented included, among the others, the royal son Ramses and the famous vizier Paser, the royal scribe and steward Ptahmose,33 the mayor of Memphis Huy, together with three high priests of Ptah (Huy, Hory, and Iyry), the mourner of

The regular occurrence of canopic jars, however, attests to the practice of evisceration. It seems therefore that the viscera were removed though no procedures had been developed so far to grant the preservation of the entire animal body. 28 Charron and Farout 2008. 29 Vos 1993. The manuscript was probably written in the late Ptolemaic times, but its archetype might well date back to the Saite period. 30 Commenting on Mariette’s discoveries, Gaillard and Daressy (1905: i) mention ‘des débris d’os qui n’ont pas été conservés’. Similarly, according to Lortet and Gaillard (1905: 55) ‘[o]n ne sait malheureusement ce que ces restes précieux sont devenus’. A skull at Lyon and a mummified head in Louvre are explicitly referred to as belonging to Apis bulls, while on the basis of the osteological analyses conducted on skeletal remains from Saqqara held at both Cairo and Lyn museums, and on comparison with monumental evidence (sculptures and reliefs), these scholars conclude that the Apis bull was a Bos africanus (Gaillard and Daressy 1905: 17-18; Lortet and Gaillard 1905: 52-57, figs. 31-35). 31 Otto 1964: 24. 32 Jurman 2010: 228. 33 He is likely identified with mayor and treasury official Ptahmose, who owned a tomb in Saqqara and also dedicated a stela (Louvre IM 5269) in the passage outside the tomb G/H; PM III/2: 713-715, 784. See also Frood 2016: 70-71 with further references. 27

116

The New Kingdom Apis Horsiaru, the wab-priest and goldworker of Ptah Neferhor, the chief sculptor Hatiay, and the draughtsman Khaemwaset.34 Elizabeth Frood notes, in this regard, that ‘[t]he range of offices represented among these votives is comparable with those held by people depicted on the stelae which were setup outside the chamber’ while priestly titles are relatively rare in the published record.35 The impression one can get from this evidence is that the entombment of the Apis bull was the occasion to display social prestige within a semi-public large-scale ceremonial context by emphasising, through the deposited votives, the privileged access and agency of specific individuals and groups. Within such a context, the personalities of the two crown-princes Thutmosis and Khaemwaset stand out in the material and textual record as they played a decisive role in the promotion and development of the new cultic and monumental programme of the Serapeum during the New Kingdom. Eldest son and royal heir of Amenhotep III, prematurely dead and succeeded by Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaton, Thutmosis ‘is perhaps the best attested non-regnant prince of his line’.36 His figure and career appear strongly related to Memphis, where he was appointed as high priest and sempriest of Ptah (wr xrp Hmw, sm), and was extremely active as the main representative of his father’s interests and building programme in the region.37 Understandably, given is prominent position in the local cult and administration, almost all of his known monuments come from the Memphite area,38 and it was certainly in this capacity that he was involved in the renovation of the Apis cult that took place at that time. Whether or not he (on behalf of king Amenhotep III) was the actual founder of the ‘Isolated Tombs’ and sponsor of such a fundamental change in the religious tradition regarding the bull, under his direction the earliest known tomb (A) was established. Despite the pillaging, his presence was well represented inside it (cf. Table 5.1): a relief scene from the chapel, still visible at the time of Mariette’s discovery, showed Thutmosis and Amenhotep III offering before the deceased Apis while, among the objects excavated in the burial chamber, ‘the only name found was that of the prince, inscribed upon a number of calcite and pottery vases’.39 Of course, these monumental initiatives in favour of the Apis bull should not be viewed in isolation but set against three general movements: (1) the development, within the broader religious sphere, of a focused attention toward the visible aspects of the divine in terms of content (animal forms; solar beliefs; royal ideology) as well as of architectural and sculptural elaboration – all strands in which the reign of Amenhotep III was exceptionally prolific; (2) the king’s programmatic approach to the major national cults and cult centres; (3) the growing importance and consideration that all the rulers of the 18th dynasty awarded to the city of Memphis and its sacred landscape as the ancestral seat of pharaonic kingship. The career of prince Khaemwaset, fourth son of Ramses II, is well-documented and, like his predecessor, he is especially noted for his high religious position and his extensive works in the Memphite region.40 He was installed as sem-priest of Ptah (sm/sm n ptH) around year 16 of Ramses’ The majority of this people is documented by votive ushabtis, the main class of object recorded by Mariette, and 80 different individuals have been identified out of the 247 statuettes recovered from the floor of chamber G. See Aubert and Aubert 1974: 85-86, 90-92; KRI II: 369 (F.i-ix), 372 (D, E.i); Schneider 1977 I: 282-283. The items belonging to vizier Paser, on the other hand, consists of several ushabtis (including the two groups Louvre N 772-773 of 13 figurines), pectorals (Louvre E 68-69), amulets (Louvre E 70, 75), and beads (Louvre E 71). All these objects are conveniently collected in Donhoue 1988: 109-110 (VIII, 1-22; IX, 2-5; XI, 1); specifically, on the ushabtis see Aubert and Aubert 1974: 95 and Schneider 1977 I: 283. 35 Frood 2016: 71. 36 Dodson 1990: 87. 37 A recent overview on Amenhotep III’s Memphite building activity is given in Garnett 2011 with further bibliography. 38 Among these there is the famous stone sarcophagus for his pet-cat tA mit (Cairo CG 5003, JE 30172), stated to come from Mit Rahina, which gives us the full titulary of the prince: sA-nsw smsw imy-r Hmw-nTr m Smaw tA-mHw wr xrp Hmw sm, ‘Crown Prince, Overseer of the priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, High Priest of Ptah, sem-priest (of Ptah). For a review of the other known monuments of Thutmosis, see Dodson 1990: 97-88; Kozloff 2012: 118-119. 39 Dodson 1990: 88. 40 Fisher 2001 I: 89-105; II: 89-143; Gomaà 1973. Synthetic overview in Gomaà 1975; Kawai 2013; Kitchen 1982: 102-109. 34

117

118

19.1/VI

F

18.3/III

C

18.4-5/IV-V

18.2/II

B

D/E

18.1/I

Apis

A

Tomb

Isolated Tombs

Seti I

Horemheb

Tutankhamon

Amenhotep III/ Amenhotep IV

Amenhotep III

Date

Chapel - Relief fragment inscribed with the name of Seti I

Chapel - Stone block inscribed with the name of Horemheb: unknown location Burial chamber D - Plastered and painted walls showing: (a) the Apis bull with the Four Sons of Horus (west wall); (b) the Four Sons of Horus with Anubis Isis and Nephtys (side walls)

Chapel - Relief fragment with Amenhotep III and prince Thutmosis offering to Apis: Munich SMÄK GL 931 Burial chamber - Fragment of inscribed doorjamb: Louvre N 425

Decoration

Burial chamber - Canopic lids: Louvre N 400, AF.1730 - 14 pottery jars containing ashes and burnt bones

Burial chamber D - Canopic lid: Louvre N 394 3 Chamber E (annex) - Wooden inscribed sarcophagus placed within a lidless stone coffin - Bull’s ‘mummy’: skull resting on a black mass wrapped in linen and composed of broken bovine bones and fragments of golden leaf - Canopic jars: Louvre N 394 4A-D + lid AF.1731 - Dozen pottery jars containing ashes and burnt bones

Burial chamber - 3 faïence pendants inscribed with the name of Tutankhamon: Louvre N 2271 A-C - Canopic jars: Louvre N 394 2A-D - Fragments of decorated wooden coffin

Burial chamber - Canopic jars: Louvre N 394 5A-D

Burial chamber - Canopic jars: Louvre N 394 1A-D - Set of magic bricks: Louvre N 842 - 2 Stone and 5 pottery vessels inscribed with name and titles of Thutmosis: Louvre N 482, N 482 (sic), 484 A-B, 455, 455 B, AF.153

Equipment

PM III/2: 782 Dodson 1999: 63-64, fig. 6 Dodosn 2005: 77, Mariette 1857: 12. Pl- 7.3-4 Mariette 1882: 137

PM III/2: 781-782 Dodson 1999: 62-63, fig. 4-5 Dodosn 2005: 77, fig. 4.1 Mariette 1857: 8-11, pl. 3-4 Mariette 1882: 66-67, 126-129 fig. 4 Pasquali 2009 Pasquali 2011: 59-60 (A.118)

PM III/2: 781 Dodson 1999: 62, fig. 3 Dodosn 2005: 76 Mariette 1857: 8, pl. 2 Mariette 1882: 125-126, fig. 4 Pasquali 2011: 51 (A.103)

PM III/2: 781 Dodson 1999: 61-62, fig. 2 Dodson 2005: 76 Mariette 1857: 11, pl. 5-7.1-2 Mariette 1882: 131-135, fig. 7 Pasquali 2011: 69 (A.144)

PM III/2: 780-781 Dodson 1990: 88, n. 8 Dodson 1999: 59-61, fig. 1 Dodson 2005: 76 Mariette 1857: 8, pl. 1 Mariette 1882: 124-125. Pasquali 2011: 32 (A.59)

Bibliography

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

H

G

Tomb

Isolated Tombs

119

Ramses II (year 30)

Ramses II (year 16)

Date

Canopic room of Apis 19.3/IX

19.3/IX

19.2/VII

Apis Burial chamber - Plastered and painted walls: double scene of Ramses II and prince Khaemwaset offering before anthropomorphic Apis - Golden leaf covering the lower part of the walls

Decoration

Burial chamber - Canopic jar: Louvre AF.10997

- Wooden rectangular sarcophagus, painted in black, inscribed with the names of Khaemwaset and Apis; lower part covered in gold foil. Contained 2 nested rectangular coffins (uninscribed) and (b) an anthropoid coffin lid (inscribed) with gilded face - ‘Mummy’: black resinous mass containing fragments of bovine bones (no skull) mixed with (a) 15 bull-headed ushabtis, (b) jewels, (c) amulets and (d) votive ushabtis dedicated by Khaemwaset and other dignitaries - Life-size gilded wooden figure of Osiris

Burial chamber - Niches in the walls occupied with: (a) painted quartzite ushabtis of Khaemwaset (Louvre AF 6.794795); (b) 2 magical bricks (Louvre N 842:3597-98) (c) pair of pottery ushabti-boxes in the shape of jackals (each one containing 4 faïence ushabtis of the vizier Paser); (d) amulets and flakes of gold - 247 ushabtis in hard stones, calcite, faïence on the floor - Wooden rectangular sarcophagus, painted in black (uninscribed); lower part covered in gold foil. Contained (a) 2 nested rectangular coffin and (b) an anthropoid coffin lid - ‘Mummy’: black resinous mass containing fragments of bovine bones (no skull) mixed with (a) a pectoral bearing the name of Ramses II (Louvre E 79) and (b) 6 bull-headed ushabtis - Canopic jars: Louvre N 396 A-D

Equipment

PM III/2: 782-784 Dodson 1999: 64-65, fig. 7-8 Dodosn 2005: 77-78 Mariette 1857: 12-15, pl. 7.510, 8-18 Mariette 1882: 61-65, 137-142

Bibliography

The New Kingdom

Lesser Vaults

120

Apis 20.1

3/L (?)

Ramses III (?)

Siptah (year 1?)

Ramses II (ca. year 65?)

Apis 19.8/ XIII

Apis 19.9

Ramses II (year 55)

Apis 19.7/ XIV

Ramses II

Ramses II

Apis 19.6/XII

Ramses II

Apis 19.5/XI

Date

Apis 19.4/X

Apis

2 (?)

K

1 (?)

I

Tomb

Burial chamber - Inscription on a wall mentioning year 55 of Ramses II

Temple of Apis (unknown context) - Dedicatory text by Khaemwaset - Naophorus statue of Khaemwaset - Base block for Apis bull statue dedicated by Khaemwaset - 6 fragments of doorway and adjoining walls with personifications, offering scenes, and inscriptions mentioning Ramses II and Khaemwaset: Vienna ÄOS 5081-5083, 50955097

Decoration

Reused in Tomb M (infra) - Cylindrical jar inscribed with the name of Siptah: Louvre N 442 - Faïence vase inscribed with the name of Siptah: Louvre N 5418 No known material (hypothetical reconstruction)

No exact context - Bull-headed ushabti - Canopic jars: Marseilles MAM 301 (= AC Luc3M?), 302 (= AC Luc3X?), 303 (=AC Luc4Q?), AC Luc 3H, D, Q, AC Luc 4M, H, D (hypothetical attribution after Dodson 1999: Tab. 1-2) Burial chamber - Wooden sarcophagus - ‘Mummy’: resinous mass containing fragments of bovine bones mixed with jewels, covered with a golden mask (Louvre N 2291), and associated with amulets in precious stones and ca. 20 ushabtis No exact context - Canopic jars: AC Luc2M, AC Luc2D (hypothetical attribution after Dodson 1999) No exact context - Canopic jar: Louvre N 5438 (hypothetical attribution after Dodson 1999: Tab. 1-2)

No exact context - Bull-headed ushabtis - Canopic jars: Marseilles MAM 301 (= AC Luc3M?), 302 (= AC Luc3X?), 303 (=AC Luc4Q?), AC Luc 3H, D, Q, AC Luc 4M, H, D (hypothetical attribution after Dodson 1999: Tab. 1-2)

Equipment

Dodson 2005: 81

PM III/2: 784 Dodson1995: 26-27 Dodson 1999: 66-67, fig. 9 Dodson 2005: 80 Mariette 1857: 15, pl. 19.4, 21 Mariette 1882: 145-146 PM III/2: 785 (b) Dodson 2005: 81 Mariette 1857: 16, pl. 22.6-7 Mariette 1882: 147-148

PM III/2: 784 Dodson1995: 26-27 Dodson 1999: 66 Dodson 2005: 80 Mariette 1857: 15-16, pl. 19.5, 20 Mariette 1882: 58-59, 145-146

PM III/2: 784 Dodson 1999: 65-69, fig. 9-13 Dodson 2005: 79-80 Mariette 1857: 15, pl. 19.3 Mariette 1882: 145

PM III/2: 784 Barbotin 2001 Dodson 1999: 65-69, fig. 9-13 Dodson 2005: 79-80 Mariette 1857: 15, pl. 19.1-2 Mariette 1882: 145

Bibliography

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

1

Apis 20.4/ XVII

M

Lesser Vaults

121

Apis XXIXXIII

Ramses XI (?)

Ramses XI

Ramses IX

Ramses VI

Ramses III (year 26)

Date

No exact context - Jar: Louvre, N.5415 - Bull-headed ushabtis

The source of Mariettes date for the burial is unknown

Equipment

Burial chamber - Cylindrical jars inscribed with the names of Ramses IX and Siptah: Louvre N 442 - Faïence vase inscribed with the name of Siptah: Louvre N 5418 - Faïence djed-amulet of Ramses IX: Louvre E.1064 - Ushabtis dedicated by the Second Prophet of Onnuris Bakenptah Burial chamber - Ink drawing showing priest Bakenptah (supra) following the king - Bull-headed ushabtis Mariette’s attribution is not certain and the bulls in Tomb N may belong to the following 21th dyn.

Decoration

Table 5.1. Conspectus of the New Kingdom burials of the Apis bulls (‘Isolated Tombs’ and ‘Lessere Vaults’).

This was part of a larger inscribed scene, of which Mariette (1882: 125) recorded the text.

N

Apis 20.3/ XVI

L (?)

Apis 20.5/ XVIII

Apis 20.2/XV

Apis

L

Tomb

Dodson 2005: 82 Mariette 1857: 16 Mariette 1882: 150

Dodson 2005: 82 Mariette 1857: 16, pl. 22.8-11 Mariette 1882: 151, n. 1

Dodson 2005: 81 Mariette 1857: 16 Mariette 1882: 147 PM III/2: 785 (a, b) Dodson 2005: 81 Mariette 1857: 16, pl. 22.1-3 Mariette 1882: 147 PM III/2: 785 Dodson 2005: 81-82 Mariette 1857: 16, pl. 22.4-7 Mariette 1882: 147-148

Bibliography

The New Kingdom

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Relief scene (Mariette 1882: 125)

Source

18.1/I

Apis

Amenhotep III/Tomb A

Date/Provenance

Predication Hp anx-wsir nb pt-tm abwy.f tp.f

Doorjamb Louvre N 425

18.1/I

Amenhotep III/Tomb A

wsir-Hp wHm n ptH

Canopic jars Louvre N 394 18.1/I 1A-D

Amenhotep III/Tomb A

Canopic jars Louvre N 394 18.2/II 5A-D

Amenhotep III/IV/Tomb B

wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH (N 394 1A) wsir-Hp anx (N 394 1B-D)

Canopic jars Louvre N 394 18.3/II 2A-D

Tutankhamon/Tomb C

Painting

18.4-5/IV-V

Horemheb/Tomb D/E

Hp anx wHm n ptH (N 394 2A, C-D) Hp anx nb km(y)t (N 394 2B) Hp anx wHm n ptH nTr aA nb pt

Wooden sarcophagus

18.4-5/IV-V

Horemheb/Tomb D/E

Hp-wsir nTr aA xnty imtt nb anx Dt

Painting

19.2/VII

Ramses II (year 16)/Tomb G

Canopic jars Louvre N 396 19.2/VII A-D

Ramses II (year 16)/Tomb G

wsir-Hp-tm-Hr n sp nTr aA Hp anx wHm n ptH wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH (mAa-xrw)

Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 7.7-10)

19.2/VII

Ramses II (year 16)/Tomb G

Canopic jar Louvre AF.10997

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb H

Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 11)

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G

(wsir-)Hp anx wHm n ptH wsir-Hp mAa-xrw

Amulets (Mariette 1857: pl. 11)

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G

wsir-Hp anx wsir-Hp wHm n ptH

Khaemwaset Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 13)

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G

Hp anx wHm n ptH

Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 19.1-2)

19.4/X

Ramses II/Tomb I

wsir-Hp anx wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH wsir-Hp-tm abwy.f tp.f wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH

wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH (N 394 5A) wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH sar mAat n nfr-Hr (N 394 5B, D) wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH nfr Hry-ib km(y)t mrr ra ra nb (N 394 5B)

wsir-Hp xnty imntt Hp anx wsir-Hp nTr aA nb rA-stAw wsir-Hp wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH

Khaemwaset Relief Louvre E.25497

Ramses II/Chapel (?)

Khaemwaset Dedicatory Text

Ramses II/Serapeum temple

Hp anx Hp-skr nTr aA

Khaemwaset Naophorus statue

Ramses II/Serapeum temple

Hp anx wHm Hp anx wHm n ptH

Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 19.5)

19.7/XIV

Ramses II/Tomb K

wsir-Hp xnty imntt nTr aA nb nHH hqA Dt wsir-Hp xnty imntyw nTr nfr

Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 19.4)

19.7/XIV

Ramses II/Tomb K

wsir-Hp

Canopic jar Louvre N 5438 19.8/XIII

Ramses II/Tomb K (?)

wsir-Hp anx

Jar Louvre N 442

19.9

Siptah/Tomb M (reused)

Hp anx wHm n ptH

Vase Louvre N 5418

19.9

Siptah/Tomb M (reused)

Hp anx wHm n ptH

Jar Louvre N 5415

20.3/XVI

Ramses VI/Tomb L (?)

wsir-Hp anx

Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 22.1-2)

20.3/XVI

Ramses VI/Tomb L (?)

Hp-skr-wsir wsir-Hp

Jar Louvre N 442

20.4/XVII

Ramses IX/Tomb M

wsir-Hp anx

Amulet Louvre N 5416

20.4/XVII

Ramses IX/Tomb M

wsir-Hp

Ushabtis (Mariette 1857: pl. 22.1-2)

20.4/XVII

Ramses XI/Tomb M

wsir-Hp anx wHm n ptH wsir-Hp

Table 5.2 Main epithets and forms of predication of the Apis bull attested on the inscribed material from the New Kingdom tombs of the Serapeum.

122

The New Kingdom reign, just in time for the burial of Apis 19.2/VII (tomb G/H), and then promoted to the office of high priest of Ptah (wr xrp Hmw) in year 25.41 Both titles, which recur in pair by the New Kingdom and are the same held by Thutmosis, fully integrated him in the major cult establishments of Memphis. Accordingly, ‘he is best represented in the archaeological record as a result of his leading role in a major programme of building new monuments, and reactivating/remodelling old ones, at Memphis, including the Memphite necropolis’.42 Among his duties as high priest of Ptah there was the supervision of all the activities related to the cult of the Apis bull, including the burial and funerary ceremonies, where he was in charge of performing the ‘Opening of the Mouth’. 5.1.2 The stelae of the Serapeum The New Kingdom material recovered during the excavations of the Serapeum also includes a number of inscribed and decorated stelae. (Table 5.3).43 They are votive monuments that were dedicated by a range of individuals who participated in the burial of the dead Apis bulls, and their installation was itself part of the set of practices associated to the funerary ceremony. The major part of the stelae come from the area of the ‘Isolated Tombs’ and, differently from the items of the burial equipment, they were placed outside the burial chamber, though their exact location can only be conjectured on the basis of the few indications given by Mariette. Fully integrated into the ritual dimension surrounding the Memphite bull, these objects, with their visual and textual apparatus, were intended to enable renovated participation in ritual performance, while also commemorating the event and communicating the status of the donors within that social context. On the whole, they round out the picture sketched so far on the basis of other media. The stelae display religious devotion in conventional forms according to the rules of representational decorum. Almost all depict Apis as a bull standing on podium (in few cases set within a shrine) and sometimes marked by solar features (sun-disk between the horns; uraeus), an iconography that may evoke temple statues and thus suggest a possible larger ceremonial context, while the gods Osiris and Ptah often recur on the same or on a separate register.44 The textual composition is usually reduced to the minimum, including captions with names and titles and brief offering or laudatory formulas. Despite their standard form and content, these texts are however informative of both the social identity and roles of the people depicted, and of contemporary ideological patterns in the conceptualisation of the animal religious value. Many of these stelae refer, both textually and visually, to larger groups than the individual donors (family members and colleagues), and their titles or poses variously relate to their involvement in the burial ceremony. Most interestingly, some of the titles explicitly belong in the sphere of the funerary cult of Apis, and are among the few known attestations in this regard. Thus, for example, on the stela dedicated by Sekhmet-nefret (sxmt-nfrt; Stela 4), the devotee is depicted while offering lotus flowers to the Apis bull in her capacity of ‘mourner of Apis’ (Tst n Hp). On the lower register of the same monument, the ‘lector priest of Apis’ Hotep-Ptah (Xry-Hbt n Hp Htp-ptH) is followed by two untitled offering women represented in a clear gesture of respect. Similar female figures displaying grief appear on other stelae (e.g., Stelae 7 and 9), pointing to a well-established presence. Priestly offices are scarcely represented, except for that of the above-mentioned lector priest, which also recurs elsewhere in connection with different places and institutions (cf. Stelae 4-7). Gomaà 1973. Snape 2011: 465. 43 These are just a small fraction of the corpus but one has to remember that much of the material originally recovered by Mariette got lost or awaits full publication; see Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1962: viii. This is the standard work of reference, from which the data showed in Table 5.3 have been collected. Also, the numbering of the stelae followed the one established by these authors. 44 On four stelae (no. 12, 15-17), Apis is represented in human form with a bull’s head. Solar features can be recognised on stelae 4, 10-11, 14 (bull form) and 12, 15-17 (mixed form). The gods Osiris and Ptah appear respectively on stelae 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, and 9. 41 42

123

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Other titles, instead, seem to refer to a provisioning role in the burial and generally emphasise the connection with the temple of Ptah: ‘chief of the magazines of Ptah’ (Hry at n ptH; Stela 12), ‘temple scribe of Ptah’ (sS Hwt-nTr n ptH; Stela 13), ‘chief of merchants’, ‘servant of Path’ (sDm-aS n pTh; Stela 12). Finally, some stelae were dedicated by people connected to the king’s court and palace (cf. the titles of ‘royal scribe’, ‘follower of his majesty’, and ‘overseer of the royal apartments of the harem at Memphis; Stelae 10-11, 15-17), including the prince and future king Merenptah (Stelae 14). As for the theological characterisation of the status of Apis, the epithets and designations attested on the stelae match those recurring on other funerary items: the wHm-predication is ubiquitous within the record, thus highlighting its relevance for the religious interpretation of the bull, while syncretistic associations as well as the Osirian form recur less frequently. Overall, the Serapeum stelae confirm the impression of a theological background that was fully in place and operative since the beginning of our documentation. Of all the New Kingdom stelae, three were dedicated by the royal scribe lector priest Piay (Stelae 4-6), who was active under Ramses II, and they are as remarkable as ‘distinctive in their more elaborate depictions and the inclusion of long texts detailing ceremonials surrounding the burial of the Apis, especially the Opening of the Mouth’.45 Elizabeth Frood has recently provided an insightful analysis of these highly complex monuments, exploring the interplay of image, text, and context, and setting them within a broad framework of self-presentation, which she refers to as ‘group biography’.46 What is primarily relevant for the present discussion is, of course, the extensive and detailed presentation of the funerary treatment reserved to the dead bull. Both textually and pictorially, the three stelae illustrate scenes of the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ rite, and despite variations and differences among them, ‘each stela seems to display distinct phases in the preparation of the bull’s body’, thus integrating each other.47 This is one of the first clear attestations of the performance of such an ancient and long-lasting rite on dead sacred animals, a practice that will become a regular component of the late funerary tradition.48 The content of main inscription, which is likely connected with the papyrus roll that Piay is holding in the main scene on his first two stelae (Stelae 4 and 5), offers a vivid description of the process: On this day, the majesty of Apis has proceeded to kbHw in order to rest in the embalming hall (wabt) before Anubis imy-wt. He (Anubis) mummified his (Apis’) corpse, he removed his fluids, he cut off his putrefaction for his birth/fashioning upon the pure alabaster (Ss wab) before the mansion of gold (Hwt-nbw), in order to open his mouth (r wpt r.f) with natron (bd) and incense (snTr), to cause that myrrh (antyw) mix with his body, to cense/make divine him with the eye of Horus (irt-Hr) on the day of the opening of the mouth (hrw n wpt-r), to cause that he rest in the body of Nut (Xt nwt) like the Ba of the lord of the necropolis every day, within the arms of his mother […] his body being in cloth (mnxt) and garments (Dbaw) of the one who is in Sais, the wrapping of the Resenet and Mehnet shrines – the offerings of the Field of Offering and cool water of the West side for your Ka in peace, for the uraeus (?), for your body and your heart, O Osiris-Apis. May you grant bread and water, breeze, libations, wine, incense, milk, and every good thing.49

The text mentions a number of places and installations, actions, and items that are well-known from sources of the 1st millennium BC belonging to the sphere of the Apis burial,50 and evokes a rich symbolic and mythological framework (e.g., ‘the body of Nut’ for the sarcophagus; the god Anubis likely identified with the performer Piay) to enhance the efficacy of the ritual acts through Frood 2016: 76. Frood 2016. She observes that ‘Piay’s stelae present more people as having roles in the events while foregrounding him as chief actor’ (Frood 2016: 83). 47 Frood 2016: 76. 48 Assmann 2005: 310-329. Otto 1960; Vos 1993. For an earlier representation of the rite on a sacred bull, see infra. 49 This is the text on the first of Piay’s stelae (Stela 4); see KRI II: 370, 5-9; KRITA II: 202-203. The texts on the other two monuments (Stelae 5 and 6) follow a similar pattern but display some variations in details; see KRI II: 371, 1-7; 372, 1-5; KRITA II: 203-204. For an informed comparative discussion of the three stelae, see Frood 2016: 76-82. 50 These sources include the Late Period biographic stelae from the Serapeum (Vercoutter 1962) and the manuscript of the so-called ‘Apis Embalming Ritual’ (Vos 1993). 45 46

124

The New Kingdom Apis 18.2/II 18.2/II 18.2/II 19.3/IX (+ Mnevis)

Date/Provenance Amenhotep III/IV/Tomb B Amenhotep III/IV/Tomb B Amenhotep III/IV/Tomb B Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

5

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

6

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

7

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

8

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

9

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

10

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

11

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

12

19.3/IX

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H

13 14

19.3/IX 19.7/XIV

Ramses II (year 30)/Tomb G-H Ramses II/Tomb K (?)

1 2 3 4

Stela

15

Ramesside/Tomb Q

16 17

Ramesside/Tomb Q Ramesside/Tomb Q

Donor(s): Titles may: bAk n imn

Predication Hp nTr aA nb pt wHm n ptH Hp anx wHm n ptH nb pt Hp anx wHm n ptH Hp anx wHm n ptH 1. piAy: sS-nsw, Xry-Hbt Hry-tp, imy-r wabt Xrt Hrt, imy-r Htmty-nTr, Hm n Hp wsir-Hp imy-r wt 2. Dhwty-ms/ra-ms:Xry-Hbt Hry-tp m pr-nfr 3. ptH-iy: wab, Xry-Hbt m pr-nfr, imy-xnt m st Hp, imy-is m st mr-wr 4. ipw: wab, Xry-Hbt m xnt n prnsw 1. piAy: sS-nsw, Xry-Hbt, Hry wDb, Hm n Hp imy-r wt 2. riA: wab, Xry-Hbt, wt m pr-nfr 1. piAy: sS-nsw, Hry wDb, imy-r wt Hp anx [///] Hp anx tmxprw tpy n wnnm pr-nfr, imy-r wabt Xrt Hrt nfr bA DSr im(y) imntt wsir 2. yiy: wab, Xry-Hbt, wt m pr-nfr ity dwAt Hp anx wHm n ptH 1. xnsw: Hry-SAyt (?) Hp-tm ab.wy tpy.f 2. nDt: nbt pt 3. ryA (nbt-pr); imn-m-ipt (XryHbt); Hnwt (nbt-pr); sxmt; wr-nry; pA-mr-Snwt; Hwy-nfr; pt 1. sxmt-nfrt: Tst n Hp Hpw anx wHm n ptH 2. ptH-Htp: Xry-Hbt n Hp 3. in-ht-m-wiA; Hnw-ry [Hp] anx wHm n ptH 1. ptH-ms: sS-ns, imy-r pr 2. yw-Hbt: nbt pr 3. Ha-sy; tA-dnit-Sw (nbt-pt) 4. skr-wy; tA-dnit-Sw (nbt-pt); Hnwry; iry-Hr imn-ms: imy-r ipt-nsw n xnr m Hpw anx wHm n [ptH] mn-nfr 1. mr-iHw: Smsw n Hm.f Hpy anx wHm n ptH (x2) 2. Effaced names and titles Hpy anx wHm n ptH 1. nHH-n-di-sw: Hry at n ptH 2. nfr-rnpt: sDm-aS n pTh 3. tAsAHti-nfr: nbt pr ipy: sS Hwt-nTr n ptH Hm Hp 1. mr-n-ptH: sS-nsw, iry-pat, imy-r Hp anx wHm n ptH tm Hr n sp mSa wr, sA-nsw smsw n Xt.f 2. TAy:sS n p Airy-pat 3. tA:sS 4. smn-tAwy: Smsw n p Airy-pat 1. DHwty-m-hb: sS Hpw anx wHm ptH (x2) 2. TAy:sS n p Airy-pat TAy Hpw anx wHm ptH imn-m-hb

Table 5.3. Conspectus of the Apis stelae from the New Kingdom tombs of the Serapeum.

‘sacramental explanation’51 and association with the realms of the gods. The crucial point is that the reference to a ritually structured spatial and temporal setting as well as to a formal sequence of actions highlights a strategical, liminal context of performance where the animal – its religious identity and relationships with the other actors (both human and divine) – was effectively transformed into a powerful being of high status, and addressed accordingly. Apis is therefore identified as Osiris-Apis on Stela 4, while the fragmentary Stela 6 records an unusually long set of 51

Following Jan Assmann’s terminology; see Assman 2005: 349-368.

125

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt epithets to designate the empowered, sacralised state acquired by the bull: ‘living Apis complete of forms, foremost of Wnennefer, sacred Ba who is in the west, Osiris, sovereign of the underworld’. While being part of the general ritual performance, the dedication of these stelae had also a social impact, as it has been already noted above for the deposition of votive items inside the burial chamber. These monuments objectify an exclusive level of religious knowledge and cult access within a context of (partially) public participation (the funerals for the Apis bulls), thus remarking hierarchy and distinction, and permanently establishing the privileged status of the donors through the physical deposition of the stelae within the inner secluded space of the bulls’ necropolis. What is noteworthy, and it is made quite explicit by the Serapeum record, is the relevance of contexts of ‘animal worship’ (here the burial ceremony) for this mechanism of social affirmation. In the end, this material combines with the rest of evidence (architectural setting; burial equipment) into a large configuration of monumental scale and funerary character that offers a unique way of access into such a complex, well-orchestrated, and highly symbolic arena of lived religious practice and social display surrounding the Memphite bull. 5.1.3 Other attestations This section includes sparse monumental and textual evidence that does not belong per se to a specific Apis-related context but indirectly informs us about both ritual and conceptual configurations focused on the bull. A first relevant group of sources dates to the early New Kingdom, namely to the reign of Hatshepsut. Two scenes, depicted respectively on the north and south walls of the so-called Red Chapel in Karnak (Fig. 5.5), shows the queen performing the royal rituals of the ‘dedication of the field’ (wdt sxt sp 4) and the ‘running of the Apis bull’ (pHrr Hpw) before a shrine containing Amun’s sacred barque.52 Apis is represented as a young bull with a characteristic striding pose, but no particular attribute or distinctive morphological feature can be distinguished. On the other hand, the general iconographic pattern can be compared with earlier representations, and the ritual is well-known for its strong royal connotation since the 3rd millennium BC. The relevant point is that the two scenes are part of a larger sequence of episodes, including the consecration of the mrt-chests and the receiving of the barque procession of Amun, which sit within a larger ceremonial framework represented by the Opet Festival (south wall) and the Beautiful Festival of the Valley (north wall). It appears therefore that the ritual mobilisation of the Apis bull through its race could take place in multiple contexts and be integrated within different celebrations. Figure 5.5. Relief from the Red Chapel of Hatshepsut showing the ‘Running of the Apis bull’. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli.

A similar scene has been also identified on some relief fragments in red quartzite recently

Blocks 102 (N) and 128 (S). Burgos and Larché 2006 I: 63, 110; Lacau and Chevrier 1977 I: 194-198; II: pl. 9. The building, named mn-mnwimn (‘established is the monument of Amun’), is identified with the restored bark shrine of Amenhotep and Thutmosis I, now displayed in the Open-Air Museum at Karnak. 52

126

The New Kingdom discovered in Dra’ Abu el-Naga.53 The parallel with the blocks from the Red Chapel is clear, so the scene can be safely reconstructed as focused again on the Opet or Valley Festivals, while it has been suggested that these blocks originally belonged to ‘barque shrine of Hatshepsut on the West Bank, related to the processional way leading to Deir el-Bahari’.54 How however all these depictions of important Theban festivals relate to an actual presence of the famous Memphite bull cannot be established with confidence. The Hathor chapel of the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari also contains valuable information on the special status of Apis and on its integration into the New Kingdom royal cult on the Theban west bank. In general, cattle reference is prominent in the decoration of the building, starting with the representation of the goddess Hathor, who bears the epithet of ‘Mistress of Dendera’, as a nourishing cow licking the hand of the enthroned queen.55 It is certainly because of the wellestablished association between the Theban and the Tentyrite form of the goddess, that Hathor can be labelled as the Tntt-cow, with reference to that distinctive animal presence within the sacred landscape of Dendera.56 Apis features in that context being addressed as ‘Tn-Apis, the bull that impregnates the young cows’ (Tn-Hp kA sT Hr nfrt); in the text, he is presented in his protective role toward the queen, ‘my beloved daughter whom I generated’, while his sexual vigour is emphasised through the combined motifs of procreation and multiplication of cattle resources:57 wAh(.i) n.T pHw mnmnt

I set down for you the marshes of the herds

swr(.i) n.T Tnwt.T

I increase for you the numbers of your cattle,

wtt n HsAt

the offspring of the Hesat-cow

Overall, the inscription gives us a vivid idea of the continuous participation of Apis in contemporary religious discourses, especially in the articulation of royal ideology, as well as of the mythical constellation (Hathor, Hesat) in which the bull was set. Less monumental but equally important from the perspective of the conceptualisation of the bull and of the institutionalisation of its cult, are some brief attestations coming from Ramesside papyri. A ritual composition written in hieratic on P. Chester Beatty IX (British Museum EA 10689) and aimed at granting general protection to the beneficiary, includes both the Apis and Mnevis bulls in a list of divine couples evoked to purify and protect the individual, referring to them as ‘Mnevis in Heliopolis’ and ‘Apis in the house of Ptah’.58 Apart from the association of the two bulls, which will also become a recurrent combination in religious texts, the passage is explicit in linking Apis with Ptah and his temple, pointing again to an established institutional, topographical, and theological framework that, as already noted, becomes increasingly visible and prominent starting with the New Kingdom. The same consideration applies to the analogous mention of ‘Apis in the house of Ptah’ (Hp m pr-ptH) as part of a list of Memphite gods that recurs in a private letter preserved on P. Sallier IV (vo 1, 10), dating to the time of Ramses II.59 The remarkable P. Harris I (British Museum EA 9999), which contains a detailed account of the donations and endowments made by Ramses III to the gods and temples of Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis, is a bit more informative.60 Its Memphite section mentions the Apis bull as a stable presence within the local religious landscape, and unequivocally associates the animal with Ptah in Aglan 2018. Aglan 2018: 23. 55 Naville 1901: 3, pl. XCIV; Urk. IV 236, 17-238 ,5. On the northern wall of the vestibule there is a similar scene but here the royal figure is that of Thutmosis II; see Naville 1901: 1, pl. LXXXVII. 56 Naville 1901: 6, pl. CV; Urk. IV 235, 17. 57 Naville 1901: 6, pl. CV; Urk. IV 238, 7-14. 58 Vo B 14,12; Gardiner 1935: 112, pl. 60. 59 Caminos 1954: 333. 60 Grandet 1994. 53 54

127

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt terms that are both conceptually and administratively significant. At the beginning of the section (P. Harris I, 44.9), in a context where the deceased king compares himself (with his otherworld expectations) to Apis, the latter is described as ‘your (Ptah’s) noble ba, who is by your side’ (bA.k Spsy nty r gs.k).61 The formula, which provides the earliest known attestation of the bA-predication in relation to the bull, is meaningful for the apparently hierarchical articulation of the relationship between the Memphite deity and his animal counterpart.62 A second, more extensive passage (P. Harris I, 49.4) concerns the initiatives taken by Ramses III in favour of the sacred herds of the Apis bull:63 xwy.i tA kmt Hpw m TAyw Hmwt wnw xnr(w) m idrw n I protected the herd of the Apis bull, both males and pr nb di.i nTry.w r-Drw r nAy.w kmt females, which had been dispersed among the herds of every domain. I made them more sacred than (the members of ) their (the other domains’) herds.

While the understanding of the text may not be immediately perspicuous, its content is significant at various levels. A first lexical aspect is related to the group kmt Hp, ‘the herd of Apis’. The term, which is attested since the Old Kingdom to indicate a group of black bovines, had possibly lost at the time such a precise chromatic connotation, and was used to designate ‘généralement le “troupeau sacré” de diverses divinités’.64 Here, it specifically identifies the conspecific, both male and female, associated with the Apis bull, highlighting a collective animal presence that gravitated around the single individual, and apparently implying a distinction in value between the former and the latter. Secondly, the reference to a scattered distribution of the ‘herd of Apis’ among ‘every domain’ can be interpreted, following Pierre Grandet, as reflecting a situation of administrative disorganisation in which the male and female members of this special group had been mixed with the cattle belonging to the domains of other temples.65 The action of Ramses III did not just correct the mistake but, as he states in the following lines, officially disposed the expansion of the fields reserved to the ‘herd of the Apis bull’ and their proper management. Finally, the use of the verb nTry (‘to be divine’) to characterise the ‘herd of Apis’ is significant as it refers to a living group of animals, and is evidently adopted to remark the fact that, thanks to Ramses III’s initiatives, their special status has been restored against that other temple herds. Anticipating what will be articulated more in detail in the final discussion, it appears that the root nTr designates an entity as a relevant focus of religious attention and ritual practice,66 while the expression ‘I made them more divine/sacred than (lit. “divine against”)’ indicates not much a given condition as the result of an action.67 Here, the doing of the king (‘I protected […] I made them […]’) must be understood not just in terms of a purely administrative decision, but also in relation to a broader renovated context of ritual practice. Though indirectly, therefore, the term offers an interesting insight into the nuances of Egyptian conceptualisation of the role of the so-called ‘sacred animals’. 5.2 The Mnevis bull at Heliopolis Despite the possibility of an early origin – whether via a connection to the ‘bull of Heliopolis’ mentioned in the Pyramid Texts or a controversial association with the ‘white bull’ (kA-HD) attested in the Old Kingdom documentary and monumental record – the figure of the Mnevis bull appears clearly identifiable as a cultural referent within the religious, funerary discourse of the Coffin Texts. On the other hand, it is only in the New Kingdom that the Heliopolitan bull named Grandet 1994 I: 285. Note that the name of Apis is classified by the bull (E1) as well as divine (A40) determinatives. For discussion of some conceptual and ideological implications, see infra §§ 6.3, 6.5.1.1. 63 Grandet 1994 I: 289. 64 Grandet 1994 II: 134. 65 Grandet 1994 II: 175. 66 Meeks 1988. See discussion infra Chap 6. 67 On the expression nTry r, Meeks (1988: 440, and n. 58) notes: ‘Lorsque, dans les textes tardifs, on dit d’un dieu qu’il est nétjéry er, cela ne signifie pas qu’il est “divin contre”, mais qu’il est “rituellement prémuni contre”. Le rite protège et maintient’. 61 62

128

The New Kingdom Mnevis acquires a more substantial profile, in terms of both explicit theological characterisation of its identity and material configuration of its cultic arrangements, especially those related to the funerary domain. The monumentalisation of such aspects reflects, as noted above, a general trend of the New Kingdom and, as with the Apis bull, emphasises the integration of this individual animal presence within the sacred landscape of Heliopolis. 5.2.1 The New Kingdom necropolis of the Mnevis bull A major cultural and ideological centre since the Old Kingdom, Heliopolis is only imperfectly known in its archaeological and topographical history. Textual sources (like the long Heliopolitan section of P. Harris I), sparse materials, and recent advances in the investigation of the site, especially of its monumental core – the temenos of the temple area –, indicate that the city was certainly an important focus of interest and activity for the kings of the New Kingdom. Within this framework, however, it remains difficult to assess the limited evidence concerning the installation of a necropolis for the Mnevis bull, yet it clearly suggests that such a space was part of the urban setting and religious topography of the site (Table 5.4). Some items of uncertain provenance dating to the 18th dynasty evidently belong to contemporary burials, but their exact context is unknown. Among these there are a canopic jar (Gèneve MA 19488a) for an otherwise unattested Mnevis bull inscribed with the name of queen Hatshepsut,68 and a limestone stela (Berlin ÄM 14200) showing prince Ahmose, possibly a son of Amenhotep II or Thutmosis IV, censing before the figure of a Mnevis bull on a standard; he wears the typical sidelock fitting its position and a panther skin, and bears the title of high priest of Ra-Atum (wrmAw ra-tm). Thus, a necropolis of Mnevis bulls was already active as early as the first half of the New Kingdom and – it appears – supported by royal initiatives and participation. However, it is only with the Ramesside period that we are able to locate the necropolis area in a site just to the north of the great temenos of Ra-Atum, under the modern district of Arab el-Tawil. Although urban expansion limits the possibility of an extensive investigation, two tombs were excavated at the beginning of the past century. Dating respectively to the reigns of Ramses II and VII, they consisted of individual stone-built structures placed in a pit cut in the ground. Judging from the reports, both had a rectangular plan with a north-south orientation, the burial chamber being accessed from the south via a temporary ramp. The alignment southward, toward the temple of the sun-god, was meaningful and reveals a calculated arrangement of the area. On the other hand, in the construction of the two chambers, blocks coming from earlier and different buildings were reused. In the case of the Ramses II’s burial, the remains of mudbrick walls identified on the surface may have been related to a free-standing chapel or an open court, a hypothesis that is further supported by the discovery of two identical stelae of the king outside the tomb near its northern and southern ends. Overall, these elements suggest a bipartite structure (underground burial chamber; cult chapel above) analogous, in its conception, to that of the ‘Isolated Tombs’ of the Serapeum. Infiltrations of ground water have badly damaged both the internal decoration and the content of the tombs. The reliefs and inscriptions are poorly preserved but it appears that they basically concerned the king(s) offering before the deceased bull and other gods. In particular, the representation of Mnevis on the northern wall of the tomb of Ramses VII matches the typical iconography displayed on contemporary stelae and is possibly relevant for appreciating the distinctive appearance of the animal, with its muscular neck and curved horns usually enclosing a sun-disk.

68

The authenticity of the piece, however, is dubious. See Porcier 2014a: 26, n. 14.

129

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Tomb Unknown

Mnevis Date 18.1 Hatshepsut

Unknown

18.2

Arab elTawil

19.1

Unknown

19.2

Merenptah

Unknown (from Arab elTawil) Arab elTawil

19.3

Siptah/ Tausret

20.1

Ramses VII

Decoration

Amenhotep II/ Thutmosis IV Ramses II Burial chamber (year 26) - Reliefs showing the king offering to Mnevis and various gods

Unknown context - Limestone sarchophagus (Brussels E.3058) Unknown context - Statue of Chancellor Bay: Cairo JE 25764 (= TN 10/12/14/6) Burial chamber - Reliefs showing the king offering to Mnevis and various gods

Equipment Unknown provenance and context - Canopic jar Gèneve MA 19488a Unknown provenance and context - Stela Berlin ÄM 14200

Bibliography Dodson 2005: 92 Guarnori 1982: 20-22 Dodson 2005: 92 Moursi 1987: 225227, fig. 1, pl. 6

Chapel PM IV: 59 - Poorly preserved bone remains Daressy 1919b - Inscribed offering table (outside, Dodson 2005: 93-95 near the west wall) Burial chamber - Fragmentary bier in bronze - Canopic jars (at least 4 sets): Cairo TR 14/7/18/1, 14/7/18/2, 14/7/18/3, 14/7/18/4, 14/7/18/5, 14/7/18/6, 14/7/18/7, 27/37/18/1, 27/37/18/3, 27/37/18/4, 27/37/18/5, 27/37/18/6; Madrid MAN 44/1973 - Inscribed scarabs: includes Toled MA - Fragments of ushabtis and amulets - Pottery jars PM IV: 59 Dodson 2005: 94-95 PM IV: 59 Daressy 1919a: 75-76 Dodson 2005: 95

Burial chamber - Poorly preserved remains of a bull mummy - Fragments of wooden coffin with bronze fastenings - Canopic jars: Cairo JE 35737-8 - Scarabs : includes Cairo JE 35737 - Fragments of ushabtis - Schist framework : Cairo JE 35743 - Limestone bowl : Cairo JE 35739 - Pottery jars Table 5.4. Conspectus of the New Kingdom burials of the Mnevis bull.

Source Relief scene North wall

Mnevis 19.1

Date/Provenance Ramses II/Arab el-Tawil

Relief scene South wall Offering table of Rika (Cairo) Canopic jars (Cairo 14.7.18.1-11) Hearth-scarab Relief scene North wall (Cairo JE 35736)

19.1 19.1

PM IV: 59-60 Dodson 2005: 95

KRI II: 364 (129 Bii)

Ramses II/Arab el-Tawil Ramses II/Arab el-Tawil

Predication mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat n[tm] […] HqA iwnw it.f wsir mr-wr mr-wr nTr aA HqA iwnw

19.1

Ramses II/Arab el-Tawil

wsir mr-wr (x6)

II: 365 (129 Cv)

19.1 20.1

Ramses II/Arab el-Tawil Ramses VII/Arab el-Tawil

II: 365 (129 Cii) VI: 381 (2 Bii)

Relief scene West wall (Cairo JE 35736)

20.1

Ramses VII/Arab el-Tawil

Canopic jars (Cairo JE 35737) Hearth-scarab (Cairo JE 35737)

20.1

Ramses VII/Arab el-Tawil

wsir mr-wr mr-wr wnn-nfr sar mAat n tm it.f mr-wr mr-wr wHm n ra mr-wr [sar] mAat n tm mr-wr sA HsAt sar mAat n tm mr-wr nTr nw (?) mr-wr wnn-nfr mr-wr sA HsAt mwt-nTr HsAt wsir mr-wr (x3)

20.1

Ramses VII/Arab el-Tawil

wsir mr-wr iwnw

VI: 384 (2 Ci)

II: 364 (129 Bi) II: 365 (129 Ciii)

VI: 384 (2 Biv, B.2-3)

VI: 384 (2 Cii)

Table 5.5. Main epithets and forms of predication of the Mnevis bull attested on the inscribed material from the New Kingdom tombs of Arab el-Tawil.

130

The New Kingdom As for the funerary equipment, it included a range of items (canopic jars, ushabtis, amulets, etc.) that indicates, like in the case of the Serapeum, a well-established and elaborated funerary treatment of the deceased bull. On the other hand, the disturbed and damaged nature of the archaeological deposit poses some problems of interpretation. In both Ramesside contexts, for example, the high number of canopic jars that were present relates to different sets and points to the occurrence of multiple successive burials to which they would have belonged.69 Such an impression seems to be confirmed also by other materials and also leaves open the issue of the arrangement of the animal body.70 In this regard, the brief analysis conducted by Louis Lortet and Claude Gaillard on the animal remains from the tomb of Ramses VII, identified three individuals of different sizes and ages, the bones of the biggest one showing traces of gold foils; this particular situation was tentatively explained assuming that the same tomb accommodated the mummified corpses of both the Mnevis bull and its offspring.71 It is difficult to reconstruct a unitary picture from these scattered, largely unpublished, and possibly not contemporaneous pieces of evidence, but they apparently reflect a specific (though uncertainly defined) morphology of the Mnevis bull,72 which has to do with the selection of the living specimen, as well as a complex process of deposition that would require further investigation. In addition, the inscribed material gives partial access to the ideological aspects, namely to the conceptualisation and presentation of Mnevis’ religious position (Table 5.5). As in the case of Apis, one can easily recognise some basic patterns that on the one hand depend on the funerary context (the Osirian form wsir-Hp; the epithet wnn-nfr) and on the Heliopolitan tradition of the solar cult (wHm n ra sar mAat n tm), while, on the other hand, reveal again a general, full-fledged process of theological interpretation of special animal agencies. Here the association is, of course, with Ra-Atum, possibly drawing on the mythological antecedent of the ‘bull of Heliopolis’, and inscribing the presence of the Mnevis bull within the local religious background. In addition, the inscriptions highlight two further aspects: on the one hand, the association of the bull with the king himself, who is described as dedicating the tomb ‘as a monument for his father, the Osiris-Mnevis’ (m mnw n it.f wsir mr-wr); on the other hand, the relationship with the Hesatcow, which is presented according to the well-established mythological constellation mother-son (mr-wr sA HsAt, ‘Mnevis son of the Hesat-cow’, mwt-nTr HsAt, ‘Hesat, god’s mather’).73 As for the social context surrounding the burial ceremony of the Mnevis bull, it appears comparable to that sketched above for Apis and the Serapeum. Despite the damages produced by ground water, the preserved inscribed objects attest a conspicuous involvement of the royal family and the inner court, which is best exemplified by the statue of chancellor Bay or the offering table of Rika – not to mention the monuments dedicated personally by the kings. Accordingly, we can envisage a situation in which the access to the core episode of the funerals (the entombment of the bull’s body) and its physical space (the burial chamber and funerary chapel) were a privilege restricted to a small group of prominent individuals, and provided a stage for displaying social prestige and remarking differences of status through ritual participation.

See Dodson 2005: 93, 95. The recovery of bronze fragments from the centre of the burial chamber, for example, would suggest that the mummified bull was placed upon a bier of some kind (see Daressy 1919b: 208 [f]). On the other hand, an alleged limestone sarcophagus of Mnevis (Brussel E.3058; KRI IV: 51 [24A] dating to Merenptah and coming from from Heliopolis – the exact context is unknown – seems to indicate a different arrangement, its small dimensions being unfitted for accommodating a whole body. See Dodson 2005: 94-95. 71 Lortet and Gaillard 1905: 64. 72 Lortet and Gaillard (1905: 64) concluded that the although ‘[l]a race de l’animal ne pouvait donc être determine (…) ce Mnevis était tout simplement un bœuf appartenant égalment à la race des Apis de Sakkara (…)’. Recently, Stéphanie Porcier (2014a) has highlighted the possibility that the individual Mnevis bull was selected on the basis of its resemblance, in both physical aspect and behaviour, with the aurochs (Bos primigenius). 73 See Otto 1964: 35. 69 70

131

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Overall, the two cultic institutions of Apis and Mnevis show a common framework of theological discourse and funerary practice that also emerges quite distinctly from the main category of monuments recovered i.e., the stelae. 5.2.2 The stelae of the Mnevis bull

Figure 5.6. Detail of the donation stela of Thutmosis III (Cairo JE 65830), Heliopolis (?). Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1987: abb. 4, taf. 9.4).

The corpus of stelae dedicated to the Mnevis bull includes monuments that relate to both royal and private spheres of action and belong, mostly but not exclusively, to the funerary context (Table 5.6).74 Indeed, one of our earliest document is a donation stela of Thutmosis III (Fig. 5.6), which records ‘the fields that I (i.e., the king) donated as pastures for the cows and the herd of my father Mnevis’ (Awt rdi.n.i m pA smw n iHw n tA km(y)t n it(.i) mr-wr). While in keeping with a general New Kingdom trend of granting large amounts of land to temple institutions, and with the particular interest of Thutmosis III with Heliopolis and its cults, the text also contains important details about the living bull. In particular, it refers to a regular animal presence surrounding the individual Mnevis, including cows (iHw) and a herd of possibly young black bulls (kmyt). In the latter case, it is likely that the term maintains an etymological reference to the distinctive colour of the bull’s hide, as it can be argued via comparison with Ramesside documents (see infra § 5.2.3) and more explicit Graeco-Roman sources, while both calves and cows are implicitly presented in a subsidiary position to Mnevis. Moreover, this piece of information relates to the issue of the sacred space designed for Mnevis and its entourage. Finally, the bull’s designation as it(.i) (‘my father’) remarks once more its relevance for royal ideology. The royal connection also emerges as a strong claim in the stelae dedicated by the Ramesside kings (Ramses II and VII), in which the arrangement of the tomb and its equipment under the royal care are recorded.

Figure 5.7. Stela München ÄS 14000, acquired in Cairo. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Moursi 1983: abb. 2, taf. VI).

The following table does not claim to be exhaustive, in particular with regard to private stelae. A full study of this material in Porcier 2009. For valuable discussion see Moursi 1983, 1987; Porcier 2014a-b. 74

132

The New Kingdom The textual and pictorial composition of the stelae conform to regular decorative patterns, showing the donor, alone or accompanied by various affiliates, offering before Mnevis (Fig. 5.7). The latter usually appears in animal form, as a bull standing or recumbent on a plinth, with typical solar attributes and a well-recognisable morphology that distinguishes him from his Memphite homologue Apis. The difference is apparent on one of Piay’s stelae from the Serapeum (Table 5.3, Stela 4) dating to year 30 of Ramses II, where both animals are depicted on the lunette and identified by the adjoining captions as the Apis bull died in year 16 (left) and the Mnevis bull of year 26 (right). The arrangement emblematically emphasises the participation in these burial ceremonies as relevant for the owner and group of human actors addressed on the monument, while also highlighting the connection between the cults. The fact that one of the officiants in the lower register bears both titles of ‘chamberlain in the Place of Apis’ (imy-xnt m st Hp) and ‘councillor in the Place of Mnevis’ (imy-is m st mr-wr) confirms this assumption. Commenting on the iconography, Stéphanie Porcier points out that while Apis shows the physical traits of the ngA-bull – a high, slender body with straight horns –, Mnevis on the other hand is represented as a huge animal with long pincer horns, and a hump on its withers marked by skin folds.75 She concludes that ‘[c]ette morphologie est vraisemblablement caractéristique dans la mesure où elle se retrouve sur toutes les représentations des taureaux Mnévis’, attesting ‘sur une période de près de quatre siècles, des critères morphologiques qui régissaient la sélection de l’animal sacré du dieu Rê’. 76 These remarks agree with the information on the large size of the bull coming from Classical accounts (Porph. apud Euseb. PE III, 13) and from the above-mentioned anatomical observations carried on the remains of one of the bodies buried under Ramses VII, which were assumed to belong to ‘très gros animal dont la taille devait être énorme’.77 On the other hand, since the original colours of the reliefs have been lost, the stelae do not preserve positive evidence of the bull’s black hide, which is clearly illustrated only in the Tanis Geographical Papyrus (British Museum EA 10673) and variously referred to in later Egyptian sources and literary descriptions.78 However, small traces of red visible on some monuments have been interpreted as a clue that Mnevis had a distinctive black hide with reddish nuances, although a purely symbolical value related with the solarisation of the animal and its association with the sun god cannot be excluded. 79 Be that as it might, just like with Apis and the Serapeum stelae discussed above, such a symbology was itself part of the sacred knowledge and ritual practice underpinning the selection of the Heliopolitan bull. The stelae were dedicated by a number of people, whose titles may suggest (at least for some of them) participation in the burials. Only a couple of these titles relates directly to the funerary cult of Mnevis, including that of ‘councillor in the Place of Mnevis’ (imy-is m st mr-wr) bore by Ptah-iy (ptH-iy) on one of the Serapeum stelae (Table 5.3, Stela 4), and that of ‘wab-priest of Mnevis’ (wab mr-wr) displayed by Tjawenef (TAw-n.f, stela Munich SMÄK ÄS 1400). The range of offices represented among the monuments, however, mostly concerns priestly, provisioning or administrative functions within the temple of Ra and other Heliopolitan institutions, and likely highlight their connection with the cult of Mnevis: ‘high priest of Ra-Atum’ (wr-mAw ra-tm; stela Berlin ÄM 14200), ‘beten(?)80 in the domain of Ra’ (btn m pr-ra; stela Berlin ÄM 14200), ‘servant of the pharaoh, l.f.h., in the domain of Ra’ (sDm-aS n pr-aA a.w.s m pr-ra; stela Kelsey Museum of Archaeology 0000.08.8807), ‘washer of the domain of Ra’ (rxty n pr-ra; stela Copenhagen Porcier 2014a: 21-22. Porcier 2014a: 21. 77 Lortet and Gaillard 1905: 64; see Porcier 2014a: 22. 78 Griffith and Petrie 1889, pl. X.16; Otto 1964: 35; Porcier 2014a: 22-23. 79 Porcier 2014a: 23. On the red colour as expressing the positive theological association of both the Mnevis and Buchis bulls with Ra, see Morenz 1955. 80 Wb I, 484.17. 75 76

133

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Date/ Provenance Cairo JE 65830 Thutmosis III (year 47)/ Heliopolis Amenhotep II or Berlin ÄM Tuthmosis IV/ 14200 Heliopolis Louvre E Amenhotep IV/ 20902 Heliopolis Stela

Ann Arbor Kelsey Museum 0000.008.8807 Cairo TN 2-2-21-1

Late Dyn. 18/ Heliopolis

Donor(s): Titles 1. Thutmosis III 2. bnr-mrt: imy-rA pr.wy Hd, imy-rA kAwt 1. iaH-ms: sA-nsw wr-mAw ra-tm 2. qni: btn m pr ra 3: tm-Htp: sA.f 1. ra-ms 2. mai 3. tA-Sr(it)-n-pA-ra 1. hAdy: sDm-aS n pr-aA a.w.s m pr-ra 2. wy: nbt pr

Louvre C 292

Ramses II (year 26)/ Arab el-Tawil Ramses II (year 26)/ Arab el-Tawil Ramses II(?)/ Heliopolis

Munich SMÄK ÄS 1400 Copenhagen AEIN 590

Dyn. 19/ Unknown Dyn. 19/ Heliopolis

Moscow Pushkin I.1.a.5611 (3568) Louvre E 20901 Louvre E 11898 Hanover Kestner Museum 1925.189 Munich SMÄK ÄS 1399

Dyn. 19/ Heliopolis

1. BAkr: wab m pr-ra, Xry-Hbt n Sn-qbHw

Dyn. 19-20/ Heliopolis Dyn. 19-20/ Heliopolis Dyn. 19-20/ Heliopolis

1. tA: Smsw mn tm nb iwnw

Dyn. 19-20/ Unknown

Giza magazine 1327 Matariya magazine 3644 No number

Dyn. 19-20/ Heliopolis east Dyn. 19-20/ Ain-Shams

1. bAk-n-wr-nr: TAi-mDAt 2. Hnwt-nHH-mwt 3. tA-wr(t)-Htpt 1. [nfr?] 2. […m-wr] 1. pA-sr: wab n mwt 2. an-mwt: nbt-pr 3. Family members 1. Rameses VII

Cairo TN 27-6-18-1

Ramses VII/ Arab el-Tawil

Cairo JE 35743 Ramses VII/ Arab el-Tawil Cairo JE 35741 Ramses VII/ Arab el-Tawil Copenhagen AEIN 589

Ramses IX/ Heliopolis

Predication mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat n tm it.f mr-wr mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat n tm

Moursi 1987: 233-235, pl. 9 (Doc. 6) Urk. IV 1373 Moursi 1987: 225-227, pl. 5 (Doc. 3)

mr-wr nTr aA

Moret 1909: 108-110, pl. xlvii.54

mr-wr wHm n ra nTr aA nb pt

1. Ramses II

mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat n tm it.f mr-wr wnn-nfr mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat 1. Ramses II n tm it.f mr-wr wnn-nfr 1. Hr-mnw: sS ssmwt n nb tAwy n mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat n tm pA iHw (R) n Xnw 2. piAy: aA n wabt n (R) pA nb dmi mr-wr wHm n ra 2. tAtAiA: mwt.f Smayt n imn 3. pn-tA-wr: sA.s wAH-? 4. pA-ra-xa : sA.s sS mr-wr wHm n ra 1. TAw-n.f: wab mr-wr 1. ipyA: rxty n pr-ra

1. pA-kAmn: idnw n pr ra 2. wAiA: nbt pr 1. Any: waw 2. ra-ms: his father

1. ty: sS Htp-nTr m pr-ra 2. Family members (names effaceted) 1. sA-in-Hr: wr-mAw, wab awy m pr-ra 2. TAw-nDm: Xak 1. pAy (…): Xak 2. ra-ms-sw mnTw-Hr-xpS.f: sAnsw

Bibliography

mr-wr wHm n ra nTr aA nb pt mr-wr wHm n ra nTr aA HqA iwnw mr-wr nTr aA

KRI II: 363 (129A) Moursi 1987: 235-237, pl. 10 (Doc. 7) KRI II: 363 (129A) Moursi 1987: 235-237, pl. 10 (Doc. 7) KRI: VII: 125-126 (458) PM IV: 63

Moursi 1983: 265-267, pl. 6 (Doc. 2) Moursi 1987: 228-230, pl. 7 (Doc. 4) Hodjash and Berlev 1982: 144-145 (87)

mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat Moret 1909: 110-111, pl. n tm xlviii.55 mr-wr wHm n ra Guichard 2014: 288 (cat. 317) mr-wr wHm n ra nTr aA nb pt mr-wr wHm n ra nTr aA

Moursi 1983: 262-264, pl. 5 (Doc. 1)

mr-wr wHm n ra

El-Saady 1995: 101, fig. 1 Ali 2009: 65, fig. 1, pl. i

mr-wr wHm n ra

Daressy 1919c: 216-217 Kamal 1903: 36 KRI VI: 380-381 (2A) mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat Daressy 1919c: 217 n tm Kamal 1903: 35-36 KRI VI: 384 (2Civ) mr-wr wHm n ra sar mAat Kamal 1903: 34 n tm (x2) KRI VI: 417 (17) mr-wr wHm n ra mr-wr wHm n ra Moursi 1987: 230-232, pl. 8 (Doc. 5) KRI VI: 465 (3)

Table 5.6. Conspectus of the Mnevis stelae from New Kingdom Heliopolis.

134

The New Kingdom AEIN 590), ‘wab-priest in the domain of Ra’ and ‘lector-priest of Sn-qbHw’81 (wab m pr-ra, Xry-Hbt n Sn-qbHw; Stela Moscow Pushkin I.1.a.5611 [3568]), ‘deputy of the temple of Ra’ (wbA n pr-ra; stela Louvre E 11898), ‘scribe of the divine offerings in the domain of Ra’ (sS Htp-nTr m pr-ra; stela Cairo JE 35743), ‘high priest’, ‘pure of hands in the domain of Ra’ (wr-mAw, wab awy m pr-ra; stela Cairo JE 35741). Some stelae also belong to or do mention individuals connected with the king and members of the royal court (cf. the titles of ‘scribe of the horses of the Lord of the Two Lands of the stable of (R II)’ and ‘great one of the wabet of (R II)’ on the Louvre stela C 292), including two princes (Ahmose and Ramses Monutu-her-khepeshef) who evidently played a sacerdotal role. Besides displaying the social profile and agency of the donors, the texts on the stelae also conceptualise the religious status of the Mnevis bull. In this regard, the inscribed epithets match the basic patterns of predication already identified (wHm n ra, sar mAat n tm), and substantiate the general picture of theological interpretation of the bull’s identity according to a solar, Heliopolitan frame of reference. With the exception of the royal and donation stelae, the major part of these monuments seems to form a coherent group in (votive) content and (funerary) context, and when their archaeological provenance is known, it is from the bulls’ necropolis at Arab el-Tawil where they were dedicated as part of the burial ceremony. Yet, a slightly different situation and meaning have been envisaged for some of them: two Ramesside stelae (Giza magazine 1327 and Matariya magazine 3644) have been discovered in the area of the human necropolis which are characterised by a bipartite composition showing the deceased before the god Osiris in the upper register, and his family honouring the Mnevis bull in the lower register. A third piece (Louvre C 292) has been added to this group on account of its similar pictorial configuration. According to Porcier, ‘le contexte de dépôt des stèles (sépulture de l’animal sacré ou sépulture humaine) explique la différence d’iconographie’, and both of them would point to a different use for the stelae ‘[l]es premières étaient déposées dans la chapelle de culte associée à la sépulture du destinataire de la stèle; les secondes l’étaient au niveau de la tombe de l’animal sacré, probablement au moment de son inhumation’.82 What is more relevant, such differences in iconography and context of use illustrate the complex role and established position of the individual bull as religious ‘medium’ within the Egyptian society. As Porcier argues, ‘l’animal sacré vivant avait un rôle fondamental dans les relations entre les morts et les vivants, créant un lien entre la famille qui fait son deuil et rend le culte funéraire sur terre, et le défunt qui a gagné le monde céleste des dieux où il côtoie désormais Osiris. Contrairement aux stèles votives où l’animal mort est sollicité par le donateur afin de répondre à une demande personnelle, ici c’est l’animal vivant qui est prié par la famille afin d’aider le défunt à renaître dans le monde de l’au-delà ou simplement afin de rentrer en contact avec lui’.83 The interpretation proposed by Porcier, therefore, highlights on the one hand the complex correlation between the iconographic composition and the practical purposes of apparently similar monuments and, on the other hand, the articulation of religious meanings and social relationships focused around the selected Mnevis bull in both life and death. 5.2.3 Other attestations The figure and cult of the Mnevis bull are also attested in a small number of epigraphic and papyrological evidence coming from outside the overwhelmingly represented context of the bull’s necropolis in Heliopolis. To the monumental landscape of the new capital founded by Akhenaton at Tell el-Amarna belongs the earliest of these attestations, which recurs as part of the royal decree known as ‘Earlier Wb. IV, 493.8: ‘Landgebiet bei Heliopolis’. Porcier 2014b: 98-99. 83 Porcier 2014b: 100. 81 82

135

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Proclamation’ carved on the first set of boundary stelae (K, M, X) cut into the cliff surrounding the site to mark its limits.84 The text, a long composition dating to year 5 of Akhenaton, solemnly announces, among other topics related to the foundation of the city, the planning and construction of monumental tombs for privileged individuals including members of the royal family, the clergy of Aton, and the Mnevis bull:85 […] xr ir.tw zmyt n mr-wr m pA Dw wbnw m Axt-itn […] and shall the necropolis for the Mnevis bull be [krs.t]w im.f made in the eastern mountain of Akhetaten, that he may [be buried] in it.

While the mention is significant per se, a close look at how the passage is composed allows few detailed remarks. First is the use of the word zmyt (‘necropolis’)86, which likely implies an extensive and well-structured burial complex rather than a single tomb, similarly to the large animal cemeteries at Saqqara and Arab el-Tawil. Secondly, as noted by William Murnane, ‘the site’s exclusive dedication to the Aten is a theme carried forward in this section’,87 which hierarchically arranges the beneficiaries according to the new religious and political perspective (the king and his family; the sacred bull; the high priests of Aton). It thus appears that Mnevis was intended to play a prominent role in the official cult of Aton, and was likely borrowed from the Heliopolitan tradition for its strong solar and royal character to reinforce the atenist doctrine and mythology of power. However, the public statements of the king’s proclamation do not necessarily or fully coincide with the archaeological evidence. As for Mnevis, that means that structures intended for the cultic maintenance, funerary preparation and entombment of the bull have not yet been identified on the ground.88 Overall, the official mention of the provisions for Mnevis’ burial represent a strong declaration of interest in this traditional solar figure, and reflect the will to include such a meaningful animal presence within the new religious system, sacred landscape, and building project of Amarna, although it is possible that this part of Akhenaten’s grandiose view was never (or only partially) completed in reality. Of the other papyrological sources, all dating to the Ramesside period, the ritual text written on P. Chester Beatty IX (British Museum EA 10689) has been already discussed, and is mainly relevant for the joint presentation of Apis and Mnevis as well-established cultural references of the Egyptian Kulttopographie.89 The two remaining papyri, instead, provide more explicit and detailed information on the keeping of the living Mnevis bull. A brief passage of the Heliopolitan section of P. Harris I (British Museum EA 9999), which celebrates a wide range of actions undertaken by Ramses III in favour of the temple of Heliopolis, describes the renovated care for the sacred herds of Mnevis (P. Harris I, 30.3):90 iry.i swDA tA kmt qmAw wrw swab(w) Hr Dw nb m nAy.w I protected the herd of the great bulls, purified from sxwt every evil in their fields.

It appears, following the interpretation of Pierre Grandet, that ‘[l’] expression tA kmt qmAw wrw désigne manifestement le troupeau du taureau sacré d ‘Héliopolis , le Mnévis’ even though his For the edition of this text see Murnane and van Siclen III 1993: 11-68. Stelae M and X were first carved while K was added later but it is the best preserved of the three copies. 85 Murnane and van Siclen III 1993: 41 (VII E); the preceding section (VII D) is dedicated to the royal family. See Otto 1964: 38; Porcier 2006. 86 Wb. III, 444.8-445.13. 87 Murnane and van Siclen III 1993: 174. 88 See Porcier 2006 for discussion. 89 Vo B 14,12; Gardiner 1935: 112, pl. 60 (supra 5.1.3) 90 Grandet 1994 I: 263. 84

136

The New Kingdom name is not openly mentioned.91 The terminology seems noteworthy in this regard. The word kmt, which recurs likewise in the following Memphite section in relation to Apis, identifies a particular group of bovines associated with a god or, as in these cases, with a prominent individual (Apis; Mnevis). The term qmA specifically designates ‘heilige Rinder (von bestimmter Farbe)’ and possibly refers to some visible marks according to which they were distinguished from common cattle.92 Moreover, it likely has a precise sexual connotation (‘young bulls’), suggesting that the herd at issue ‘n’était compose que des individus de sexe mâle parmi lesquels on sélectionnait le successeur du Mnévis lorsque celui - ci mourrait’.93 Finally, the concluding remark about the ‘purification’ of the herd evokes a situation of disorder restored by the king, which parallels what is said later about the Apis bull and his herd. This information adds to the picture illustrated by the Ramesside tombs and funerary items, especially considering the apparent discovery of bones belonging to young specimens within one of the known burials, even though no direct correlation can be confidently assumed. Be that as it might, while documenting ‘la désorganisation des institutions héliopolitaines à la fin de la XIX dyn.’, the passage confirms that the presence of the living Mnevis bull was (or should have been) set within an institutionalised temple framework where his prominent position was also defined and structured through a seemingly hierarchical connection with a larger animal circle, just like in the case of the Memphite Apis. The last piece of evidence comes from a papyrus stored in the Egyptian Museum of Turin and known in literature as the ‘Turin Indictment Papyrus’ (P. Turin 1887).94 Described as ‘one of the most curious and interesting in the entire Turin collection’ containing ‘one of the most picturesque and illuminating records that we possess’95 from the times of Ramses V, this highly important document consists of three sections, the largest of which (section A) records a number of crimes charged against the wab-priest of the temple of Khnum at Elephantine Penanuket (pA-n-anqt). Seventeen charges are detailed, ranging from adultery to transgressions of cultic prescriptions to theft of temple property, and such offences even affected the sacred herd of Mnevis:96 Ro I,2 sxA r tA iHt km(t) nty m-di.f iw.s (Hr) ms(t) 5 qmAw n mr-wr iw.f (Hr) int.w iw.f (Hr) ir(t) hAw.w m sxt iw.f (Hr) Sad Drt.f im.w iw.f (Hr) int.w r rsy iw.f (Hr) dit.w m Sb n nA wab.w

Memorandum about the black cow that was with him: she had given birth to 5 calves of the Mnevis bull. He took them away and disposed of them in the field. He parted with them, brought them to the south, and sold them to the wab-priests.

Ro I,3 sxA r pA qmAw {n?} aA n mr-wr nty m-di.f iw.f (Hr) Sad Memorandum about the great calf of Mnevis which Drt.f im.f iw.f (Hr) dit.f n nA nhy n mDAyw n pA xtm n was with him. He parted with him, gave him to sn-mwt iw.f (Hr) Ssp swnt.f m-di.w some Medjai of the Fortress of Biga and received his payment from them.

Grandet 1994 II: 134. Wb. V, 38.1. in emphasising the special nature of the animals so addressed and their resemblance with the Mnevis bull, one may also note the connection to the root qmA (‘to create/produce’; Wb. V, 34.3-36.5) and the related word qmA (‘image/form/appearance’; Wb. V, 36.9-15). 93 Grandet 1994 II: 134. 94 Hieroglyphic transcription in Gardiner 1948: 73-82 (doc. XXV). For translation see Peet 1924 and Vernus 2003: 95-107 (partial). 95 Gardiner 1948: xxii, xxiv. 96 Gardiner 1948: 74. 91 92

137

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt The two passages make use of the same vocabulary attested on the slightly earlier P. Harris I, mentioning a ‘black cow’ (iHt kmt) as the mother of some ‘calves of Mnevis’ (qmAw n mr-wr), while it is not clear whether the ‘great calf of Mnevis’ (pA qmAw {n?} aA n mr-wr) specified in the second case is actually a particular specimen of the same group or the text is referring to a different episode. It is also interesting that in both occurrences the name of Mnevis is followed by the double determinative of the bull and the falcon on standard to mark his prestige and religious position. The nature of the crime committed by Penanuket consists in (ab)using his position as wab-priest to embezzle and sell animals that belonged to the local temple domain, but the heavy weight of the charges evidently lies in the identity of the bovines involved and in their association with the Mnevis bull of Heliopolis. In this regard, the most striking and puzzling aspect is the apparent origin of this herd from Elephantine, since there is no attested evidence of a cult of Mnevis on the island nor in the surrounding area.97 A possible explanation, strongly advocated by Pascal Vernus, is that indeed the misappropriation did not take place in Elephantine but ‘no doubt during a stay in the region of Heliopolis’.98 This understanding would remove the geographical difficulty and implicitly suggest that Penanuket’s moving southward is to be intended as a return to Elephantine, where he sold the stolen animals to some unidentified wab-priests (their temple affiliation is not stated), and to the Medjay policemen of the near Biga island who – Vernus assumes – even ate the bull.99 Although the text does not provide any explicit indication that this was actually the case, the fact that another of Penanuket’s offences concerns ‘his going to the City (i.e., Thebes)’ to receive some documents makes the hypothesis of a journey to Heliopolis not completely unreasonable.100 Alternatively, one might think that the bovines actually belonged to the temple of Elephantine and only displayed those symbols or markers which would have made them potentially eligible as Mnevis bull, without being necessarily generated by him.101 In this perspective, the expression qmAw n mr-wr, therefore, does not imply a direct biological connection with the Heliopolitan bull but designates, in line with what has been said above about the sexual nuance of the term qmA, a ritually defined group of young male individuals among which the future Mnevis could be selected. That such group could be located elsewhere from the main centre of cult is also suggested, comparatively, by the later tradition on the painstaking search of the new Apis bull throughout the country before his enthronement in Memphis, as it is variously referred to by Classical authors and on some Serapeum stelae.102 Despite the lack of further details and contextual information, the two passages of P. Turin 1887 give us an insight of some native terminology, and enlarge our field of vision beyond and around the single individual (here Mnevis) to include the social network of animal companions and human agents surrounding him, illuminating, even though imperfectly and through the distorted prism of the ‘Elephantine scandal’, the broader (geographical, administrative) context of lived practice in which they all were set. 5.3 The ‘Fish-stelae’ from Mendes Considerations about early cultic forms at Mendes centred on the crucial participation of specific animal presence mostly rely on indirect epigraphic and iconographic material. Despite the For a detailed list of animal burials and remains known from the region of Elephantine and the Dodekaschoinos, see Kessler 1989: 18. It includes several specimens of bovines from Dabod but nothing is documented for Elephantine. 98 Vernus 2003: 99. 99 Vernus 2003: 100. 100 Ro I,4; Gardiner 1948: 74. It is also interesting to note that in describing the crime it is expressly stated that Penanuket ‘brought them (the documents) to the south in order to lay them before Khnum (…)’, using the same formula of Ro I,2. 101 See also Otto 1964: 35, n. 6. 102 A good example is the Serapeum stela Louvre IM 3697 (dyn. 22), which explicitly describes the searching for Apis ‘everywhere in Lower Egypt’; see Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1968: 21-21 (stela 22). 97

138

The New Kingdom monumental architectural evidence of a large temple building dedicated to Banebdjed – the ‘Ram of Mendes’ – as early as the Early Dynastic period, and the clear information about his dominant religious position within the local sacred landscape, the actual existence and ritual involvement of a living ram as part of the temple can only be inferred from scattered textual information and onomastic data. The theological developments of the New Kingdom, including (among other things) the so-called bA-doctrine, the phenomenon of the ‘solar-Osirian unity’, and the oracular aspects of divine cults, significantly expanded the characterisation of Banebdjed, while the main temple was restored under Thutmosis III and reached its largest and monumentalised appearance with Ramses II.103 Yet, it is only from the Late Period onwards that we find unquestionable archaeological and textual evidence of a fully-established cycle related to the keeping and burial of a selected living individual.104

Figure 5.8. Fish stela (Field No. F 137+169), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX, CAT#425).

Figure 5.9. Fish stela (Field No. Q 8), Mendes. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Redford 2004: pl. XXIX#450).

A different situation, instead, can be imagined, on the basis of more tangible and positive evidence, for the other animal referent dominating the cultural-religious panorama in Mendes: a particular species of fish associated with the local goddess of the nome Hat-mehyt (HAt-mHyt), ‘the foremost of the fish’.105 While the zoological identification of this fish is still a matter of debate among scholars, the excavations conducted in the royal necropolis (Field AL), east of the main temple, have identified a remarkable archaeological context, which brings valuable material for discussion.106 It appears that in this area, in New Kingdom times, the ground sloped down descending into a body of water (likely a harbour) that marked the edges of the settlement. The place was later occupied by the tomb of Nepherites I, which greatly damaged the earlier deposit, but at least two main

Redford 2010: 77-85; Redford and Redford 2005: 165-167. Redford 2010: 124-137, 157-166; Redford and Redford 2005: 170-194. Of the two necropolis areas identified on the ground (Ram Necropolis I and II), the first one, located on the west side of the great temple, was the great mausoleum for the sacred rams (then labelled on Ptolemy II’ s ‘Mendes Stela’ as the ‘Mansion of the Rams’, while the other one, situated north-west of the temple, has been tentatively interpreted as the burial ground of the sacred ewes, mothers of the individual rams. 105 Wb. III, 21.15. See Gamer-Wallert 1970: 19-20, 98-101; 1977; Meeks 1973; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 240-242, 278. As the emblem of the nome of Mendes, the goddess is pictorially attested since the Old Kingdom, while her name does not seem to appear within the textual record before the Ramesside period (Meeks 1973: 209). 106 Redford 2010: 86-95; Redford and Redford 2005: 194-196. 103 104

139

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt original features can be recognised. First of all, a huge number of pottery vessels (jugs and cups) had been laid in rows on the slope, many of them containing the bones of immature specimens of the schilby-fish; in one case, the fish had been wrapped in linen and even sealed, the impression showing a typical Ramesside pattern. In this regard, Donald Redford notes that ‘it is not without significance that the species of fish that seems ubiquitous in this deposit is the schilby (…) sacred to the tutelary goddess of the township’, concluding that ‘[t]he fish cemetery at Mendes is one of the earlier examples of a practice that became ubiquitous only in the first millennium BC’.107 The second feature is represented by 29 fragmentary limestone stelae, which were largely reused in the masonry of Nepherites’ tomb.108 They appear as small round-topped monuments incised on both sides, suggesting they originally stood as free-standing objects rather than being set within chapels. The basic decorative pattern consists of multiple representations of the schilby fish, showing on the body of the stela numerous smaller figures arranged in two or three columns, while the upper portion is reserved to a larger specimen – the ‘mother’-fish in the words of Redford – sometimes associated with a ram of the same size and/or other small fish (Fig. 5.8, 5.9). The lack of inscribed texts makes it difficult to fully understand the meaning of the decoration as well as the religious context and the social background behind the use of these monuments. Redford suggests interpreting the animal icons in the light of the 1st millennium tradition of multiple animal burials and of the correlated view, attested in some Graeco-Roman documents, that entire species were idōla (‘images’) of higher powers i.e., a collective ‘terrestrial replication of the divine archetype in the realm of the gods’.109 Moreover, he explains the archaeological context (deposited vessels + dedicated stelae) as the result of votive practices related to the display of personal piety by local individuals, remarking how ‘[t]he evidence militates consistently in favor of the thesis that Field AL (…) was considered sacred to @At-mHyt’, who most likely had a shrine there in Ramesside times, as both the pottery shapes and the discovery of a hieratic stela recording the name of Ramses VI indicate.110 The framework thus reconstructed, although imperfectly, evokes a well-established religious configuration, and while we may not have enough textual information to elucidate the belief system behind the stelae and their iconography, there are some points that is worth stressing for assessing their value as objects of practice. Firstly, they can be broadly compared with analogous monuments from other contemporary sites (Asyut; Sumenu; cf. infra §§ 5.5, 5.7) that display similar pictorial motifs focused on multiple animals. The developing ideas around the bA-manifestations of divine agency may have played a part in the process, influencing the conceptual design and iconographic choices (infra Chap. 6). Secondly, they represent the material correlates of animal-based ritual activities that include the consecration and deposition of fish (offerings), so the decoration need not to be considered as merely symbolic but a connection may be assumed between the images on the stelae and the actual animal presence they thematise as belonging to the local cult of the goddess Hat-mehyt. Ultimately, how this presence was ritually articulated remains a matter of speculation, but some clues can be deduced from the combination of different textual and archaeological data. On the one hand, while we do not have attestation of special individuals, later literary tradition makes reference to fish ponds within temple areas and to the apparent role of living fish in local ceremonies:111 Aelian mentions a pool of (sacred) fish in Bubastis,112 and the Coptic biography of Pachomius – the initiator of the monastic movement in Egypt – tells how, as a child, his parents took him to the river to honour ‘those [creatures] (i.e., the Lates-fish) who are in the water’, thus describing ‘family participation in the festival rites of a local deities’ in the region of Esna.113 A Respectively Redford 2010: 86, Redford and Redford 2005: 195. Redford 2004: 32-33, figs. 46-47, 49-52; 2010: 89-92. 109 Redford and Redford 2005: 196. See Redford 2004: 32-33; 2010: 92. 110 Redford 2010: 92-93. 111 See Fitzenreiter 2013a: 115. 112 Ael., NA XII, 29. 113 See Frankfurter 1998: 62-63 for a critical discussion of the passage as a historical evidence of the resilience of local cult. 107 108

140

The New Kingdom similar range of ideas might be traced back to the Book of the Dead, since a passage of the wellknown ‘negative confession’ in Spell 125 contains the explicit prohibition of taking certain fish, among other manifestations or respect towards specific temple animals.114 Interestingly enough, the writing of the term XAwt (‘corpses’)115 that recurs in one of the main versions of the text – the papyrus of Nu (British Museum EA 10477) – suggests a slightly different understanding: ‘I have not caught fish for their corpses’.116 This could be taken, as an indication of the religious significance ascribed to dead animals, especially – one may argue – to those submitted to the funerary rites and mummification, thus implying that this kind of activities was already diffuse to some extent. On the other hand, a unique contemporary archaeological context, that of the fish deposit at Gurob in the Fayyum (§ 5.4), gives direct material support to this line of reasoning, showing that the ritual preparation, consecration, and burial of fish bundles had a substantial part in cultic traditions at other localities, well before the full establishment of fish necropolises at national scale in later times (like those of Esna and Oxyrhynchus).117 The latter, with their connection to local theologies and cosmogonies, also illustrate the complex belief systems that could develop around the practice, while the fish stelae and deposit of Mendes likely belong in a comparable framework of religious action and display. This, of course, is not intended to cast any uniform interpretation on such distant and different contexts – as it will be clear also from the following discussion of the material remains at Gurob – but only to remark that the cultic tradition attested at Mendes did not fall within a vacuum; rather, it sit within a horizon of religious exploitation of living or dead fish groups that had other examples and may have been connected (in not straightforward ways) to later developments. 5.4 The fish necropolis at Gurob The site of Gurob, located at the entrance of the Fayyum not far from the Bahr Yussef, developed as an important town during the New Kingdom (from the mid-18th to the mid-20th dynasty), especially under the active engagement of Thutmosis III, and was served by an extensive necropolis area that reflected the growing social complexity of the settlement.118 One of the most unusual and interesting sectors, located south of the site and only excavated at the beginning of the 20th century, was dedicated to the internment of different fish species, of which the Lates niloticus is the one best represented.119 Some fifty burials were identified and documented, consisting of carefully dug pits with no recognisable pattern in their spatial distribution. The arrangement of the fish, instead, showed some remarkable features:120 most of the pits contained individual depositions, but in the case of multiple specimens buried together they were put side by side, or in layers, or head to tail; moreover, the bodies were not properly mummified but appear to have been wrapped in a package of halfa grass likely used for its preservative properties; larger specimens had also their mouth and (sliced) stomach filled with the same material, while occasionally pieces of cloth, which should have been part of the bundles, were recovered. Almost all the excavated burials did not yield any item associated to the fish, the only exception being a grass basket that was found close to the head of a large Lates-specimen, the content of which however could no longer be determined.121 On the other hand, a curious mix of objects was discovered in a pit that apparently contained no body, and for this reason has been tentatively interpreted as a The deceased has thus to declare that he never ‘snared the birds of the reeds of the gods’ or ‘caught the fish of their marshes’; the two statements are combined and emphasise the belonging of the mentioned animals to the gods’ (i.e., temples’) domain. Later in the same chapter, he also states: ‘I have not killed sacred cattle (kA nTry). 115 Wb. III, 359.9-20. 116 Allen 1960: 196. 117 For an overview of other attestations of fish burials, see the list in Kessler 1989: 18-29. On the two major contexts of Esna and Oxyrhynchus, see the recent assessments of Van Neer and Gonzalez 2019 and Baetens 2013, with further bibliography. 118 PM IV: 112-115. 119 The basic account is Loat 1904: 3-6, pls viii-xiii. For an updated discussion see Gasperini 2010a: 42-50; 2010b. The three other species certainly attested are synodontis schal, bagrus docmac, clarias lazera. 120 Loat 1904: 4. 121 Loat 1904: 5 (21), pl. x.2. 114

141

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt votive deposit.122 The assemblage consisted of pottery vessels and fragments, three pointed sticks that, according to the excavators, could have been used for tying small cattle, a wooden model of a (Lates?-)fish, another one showing a female face, and few bones of a sheep or goat. While a votive nature has been assumed, the exact meaning of this deposit in the context of the necropolis area cannot be easily understood, but it is important to note that the ceramic material certainly belongs to the 19th dynasty123 and that the small female head is likely to be identified, as proposed by Valentina Gasperini, as part of a hathoric votive column, although its possible semantic connection with the other pieces (like the fish model) and the whole location remains obscure.124 The archaeological setting also included another relevant feature i.e., a circular pit identified in the north-western part of the necropolis, almost at the edge of the desert, which was lined with mudbricks stamped with the cartouche of Ramses II; its content consisted of two head of Lates niloticus, scattered fish bones, and fragments of a reed mat. The excavators considered this material as intrusive, interpreting the context as a silo, but Gasperini has made the important remark that the presence of an isolated storage building does not fit with the funerary destination of the surrounding area nor with its chronological development as documented by the ceramic assemblage, while storerooms are well-attested within the harem-palace excavated in the town nearby. Rather – she suggests –, it is likely that this feature, with its fish deposit and liminal position, had a symbolic-cultic function as a visible marker of this part of the necropolis, and was possibly associated to a second similar structure, now lost, to which a mudbrick inscribed with the cartouche of Thutmosis III would have originally belonged.125 A full historical interpretation of such a particular complex is hampered in the first place by the early excavation and brief documentation of the site, which leave open many issues; however, following Gasperini’s assessment, some considerations can be put forward. First of all, although the character and distribution of information about the local cults at Gurob makes it difficult to contextualise the religious ideas related to the fish burials, it has been noted that the New Kingdom papyri related to the main institution of the harem-palace, established in the 18th dynasty, record the acquisition of fish among its food supply but do not mention the Lates niloticus (the best represented species in the necropolis). Whether or not the omission alludes to a taboo cannot be ascertained, but it seems to point towards a special significance of this animal, together with the (admittedly sporadic) attestation of fish motifs in the decoration of plaques, vessels, and scarabs. The prominent position of the Nile perch in the funerary record of Gurob may also encourage a comparison with the later necropolis at Esna, where the Lates, with associated practices (burials and food restrictions), was strongly associated with the cult of the goddess Neith. The hypothesis, however, remains speculative since not only the ways in which the fish were processed differ at the two sites, but there is no attestation of Neith within the pantheon of the Fayyum region before the Third Intermediate Period.126 An alternative interpretive framework can be sketched considering: (1) the localisation of Gurob at the entrance of the Fayyum near the ‘Great Canal’ (mr-wr), which connected the region to the Nile Valley and gave name to the New Kingdom town; (2) the association of fish with water and its symbology of cyclical regeneration, which explains its strong exploitation within both funerary beliefs and traditions about the annual flood; (3) the correlated relationship with solar images and concepts, like the protection of the sun-barque during its nocturnal journey, which may Loat 1904: 5 (15), pls iii.54, 77, 79, vi.8-10; see Gasperini 2010a: 44; 2010b: 34. Loat 1904: 3. 124 Gasperini 2010a: 44; 2010b: 34. 125 Gasperini 2010a: 45; 2010b: 35-36. 126 See Gasperini 2010a: 48; 2010b: 39. At Esna, the mummified specimens were gutted, washed and dried, then plunged in natron and wrapped; Lortet and Gaillard 1905: 186-190; Ikram 2005c: 41. At Gurob the process was much simpler, involving the desiccation of the bodies through heat and the use of halfa grass; it is noteworthy, however, that a similar procedure combining heat and halfa grass is also attested at Oxyrhynchus, as recently confirmed by the study of Van Neer and Gonzalez (2019) on a Late Period fish deposit. For the diffusion of cult of Neith in the Fayyum see Zecchi 2001: 241, 243-245. 122 123

142

The New Kingdom fit well into the expansion of solar cults documented in the eastern area of the Fayyum, and in particular at Gurob, during this period.127 Accordingly, one may suggest that the interred fish at Gurob were ritually mobilised as agents of renewal, and that their burial was part of religious practices connected to the annual flood of the Nile. This interpretation would also account for the dedication of hathoric items in the votive deposit excavated, since the goddess is associated with similar ideas of fertility and regeneration.128 A second relevant point concerns the chronological and social context of the necropolis. On the one hand, while the pottery material places the development of the site at the time of the 19th dynasty, the mudbrick bearing the name of Thutmosis III suggests an earlier foundation, which would be perfectly consistent with the establishment of a royal harem-palace under this king and the following expansion of the settlement. On the other hand, despite the informal appearance of the burials, the occurrence of the cartouches of both Thutmosis III and Ramses II on structures allegedly serving as markers of this sacred area seems to indicate that the ritual activities here performed had, to a certain degree, an official and institutional character, and may have inspired some royal interest.129 Ultimately, while some of the issues raised by this unusual context cannot be answered without new excavations and analyses, the available data significantly illustrate a distinctive configuration of religious practice focused on multiple (rather than individual) animals. Its ritual articulation and ideological implications can only be delineated in broad outline but need not be assumed a priori as identical with later traditions, showing that the values and conceptual grid assigned to both the animals and the patterns of actions affecting them (here the preparation and entombment of numerous fish specimens) changed over time, while its early dating is important in diachronic perspective. A quick comparison with the already discussed case of Mendes confirms that such differences also had geographical meaning – the lack of inscribed stelae, for example, is an apparent distinction in the arrangement of the two deposits –, and certainly reflected different ritual strategies and ways of engagement with the local cultic landscapes. 5.5 The ‘Salakhana Trove’ at Asyut Capital of the 13th Upper Egyptian nome and seat of an important cult of the god Wpwawt, the ancient town of Asyut in Middle Egypt ‘never played a central role in the ancient state’, yet grew as an active and dynamic cultural and religious centre with a unique ‘position between residential influence and regional traditions’.130 Neglected for a long time by researchers, since 2003 it has become the focus of a long-term scientific investigation, the ‘Asyut Project’, which has greatly improved our understanding of the multifaceted history of the site and of ‘its different fortunes as a city of culture, as a border town, and as a wounded city’.131 The local landscape was (and still is) dominated by the western mountain (Gebel Asyut al-Gharbi), which was continuously occupied by a vast necropolis, while, buried under the plain and the Gasperini 2010a: 48-49; 2010b: 39-41. On the symbolic links between fish, water, and the idea of renewal (with its funerary and solar ramifications), see Vernus and Yoyotte 201, 202-203 (abdju-fish, which combines attributes of both the lates and tilapia fish), 204 (bagre), 264-265 (lates), 271-275 (Oxyrhynchous/mormyrid fish), 278-280 (clarias fish); see also Van Neer and Gonzalez 2019: 338. For the solar cults at Gurob see Zecchi 2001: 180-181, 196-197. 128 Gasperini 2010: 49. Vernus and Yoyotte (2005: 201) highlight the ‘vertus régéneratrices’ of certain fish (lates and tilapia in primis) and their connection with female deities like Hathor, Isis, Neith, etc. Note also that the hathoric crown is a regular attribute in the Late and Graeco-Roman artistic representation of the Oxyrinchus fish: Van Neer and Gonzalez 2019: 338 and figs. 3-4, 5c, 15; Vernus and Yoyotte 2015: 271. 129 The idea, suggested by Gasperini (2010a: 49; 2010b: 41) as a working hypothesis, of a connection between the fish necropolis and the temple dedicated to the cult of Thutmosis III to the east of the harem-palace awaits further investigation. 130 Kahl 2007b: 1. 131 Kahl 2007b: 1. Developed as a joint German-Egyptian mission, the project has produced a relevant and fresh bibliography: yearly reports have been published on the Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, together with a number of monographic studies and valuable syntheses. Among these, for a comprehensive overview on the site’s historical and cultural developments, see Kahl 2007b; Kahl, ElKhadragy, Verhoeven and Kilian 2012, with further references. Concurrently, the ‘British Museum Asyut Region Survey Project’ started in 2016, expanding the field of inquiry beyond the western mountain; see Regulski and Golia 2018. 127

143

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt modern city, the ancient town is hardly accessible to archaeological work. Therefore, the only information about the urban layout and development comes from external sources as well as from the inscriptional and material record of the nearby necropolis.132 Written evidence informs us that the two important temple buildings were dedicated respectively to Wpwawt, the city’s chief deity, and to the funerary god Anubis, both being attested from the Old Kingdom/First Intermediate Period to the Graeco-Roman times. The major temple of Wpwawt was located to the southwest of the town, and some New Kingdom decorated blocks retrieved from illicit excavations give us an idea of its monumental character;133 the temple of Anubis, on the other hand, was probably situated at the foot of the western mountain, though its exact location is unknown.134 Significantly enough, the two edifices were connected, on festive occasions, by an official procession that carried the portable image of Wpwawt through the city.135 It is within such a religious scenario rooted in a provincial milieu that one must frame a unique cache of votive stelae and other objects, which was discovered by Gerald A. Wainwright in 1922 during the clearing of the pillared hall in the 12th dynasty tomb of the nomarch Djefai-Hapi III (Tomb VII), also known as the ‘Salakhana Tomb’ due to its position behind the former abattoir of Asyut;136 the votive deposit is accordingly referred to in literature as the ‘Salakhan Trove’.137 In addition to hundreds of decorated stelae dating from the New Kingdom to the Late Period (18th to 27th dynasties), the collection included some small pottery figurines showing canids, a large number of mummies/bundles of canids – scattered animal bones and remains were also found in the surroundings of the tomb –138, and Demotic papyri.139 The understanding of this archaeological context is still a matter of debate: it is not clear whether the Middle Kingdom tomb served as a chapel or sanctuary from the New Kingdom or whether it was reused as a cachette for the material removed from the temple of Wpwawt.140 According to Jochem Kahl, ‘The fact that the stelae refer to Wepwawet and not to the tomb-owner points to the second option’;141 on the other hand, Wells believes that the tomb was reappropriated as a stopping point along the processional route of the festival of Wpwawt, thus functioning as an official cultic place and a suitable repository for votive objects.142 The reported deposits of canine mummies and bones is also an indication of the continued use of this area for religious practice.143 The stelae are the best-represented class of materials and provide, with their sheer number and unique decoration, a precious insight into the local cultural and religious tradition of New Kingdom Asyut (the stelae are dated, for the most part, to the 18th dynasty and the Ramesside period). The corpus consists of small round-topped stone and clay monuments, which appear to be locally manufactured and characterised by some regular iconographic patterns, arranged in one or more Kahl 2007b: 3. Kahl 2007b: 39-48, figs. 22-23. Kahl 2007b: 49-50. 135 DuQuesne 2007: 18, 27, 60 (S30); Durich 1993: 219, n. 33; Kahl 2007b: 45, 48-49. 136 PM IV: 264; see Kahl 2007b: 92-93; Kahl and Chitadori 2016: 6-7. Today the tomb is inaccessible as it is part of a restricted military area. 137 Terence DuQuesne has been painstakingly researching this material, documenting and publishing more than 500 stelae and over 50 figurines: DuQuesne 2007; 2009. A recent reappraisal of the stelae has been produced by Weels 2014. For valuable discussion, see also Becker 2007; Durisch 1993; Munro 1963. 138 Kahl and Kitagawa 2016: 6-7. This is one of the two major burial sites for canids identified on the western mountain of Asyut, the other being the recently rediscovered ‘Tomb of the Dogs’ (O11.13); see Kitagawa 2016 for an updated synthesis of the discovery and discussion of the faunal remains. The current location of the mummies from the ‘Salakhana Tomb’ is unknown. Note, however, that canine mummies and other animal remains are mentioned in modern travelogues as scattered throughout the whole necropolis area; Kahl and Kitagawa 2016: 5-6; Kessler 1989: 22, 38 (34); Wells 2014: 86-87. 139 Kahl 2007b: 123-124, with further references. 140 DuQuesne 2009: 82-84. 141 Kahl 2007b: 93; see Durich 1993: 221. 142 See discussion in Wells 2014: 89-100. 143 Since we lack the physical remains, the dating of the mummies from the ‘Salakhana Tomb’ cannot be directly ascertained. However, comparison with the dated deposits of the ‘Tomb of the Dogs’, ranging from the Late to the Ptolemaic periods, as well as a general consideration of the late expansion of animal cemeteries, would suggest a chronological similar assessment. This would argue against the theoretical possibility that the ‘Salakhana Tomb’ had been transformed into a burial place for animal mummies already in the New kingdom, thus prompting a concurrent dedication of the stelae; see Durisch 1993: 221; Wells 2014: 86-87. 132 133 134

144

The New Kingdom

Figure 5.10. Ramesside stela Berlin 19594, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 2).

Figure 5.11. Ramesside stela BM 1430, Asyut. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 6).

than one registers (Fig. 5.10-5.12).144 The main scene usually shows a single donor in adoring or offering pose before the god Wpwawt, which is represented as a jackal standing on a standard or, less frequently, in theriomorphic or mixed (human-animal) form, while a pack of canids – their number varies – accompanies him. Variations of this scheme are attested in which multiple donors appear, or they are excluded from the scene, while occasionally the offering is performed before the sole group of canids, or they (with or without the Wpwawt standard) represent the only focus of pictorial display.145 The regular combination of the divine standard with the pack of canids is a remarkable feature, and the different morphological characterisation of the figures is a clear Figure 5.12. Ramesside stela Louvre AF 6949, Asyut. signal that ‘les artistes égyptiens ont tenu Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Durisch 1993: fig. 1). à distinguer le dieu des animaux vivants’:146 the jackal on the standard, with its slender, agile body, ‘renvoi à une image idéale de la divinité (…) surtout à cause du caractère immuable de ses traits’, while the multiple animals are marked by ‘la varieté de leurs forms qui les désigne DuQuesne 2009; Wells (2014: 100-105) lists 357 stone stelae (mostly limestone), and 137 clay stelae, the latter group showing a variety of production techniques. 145 Kahl 2007b: 93; see Durich 1993: 216-217. 146 Durich 1993: 217. 144

145

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt clairement comme des être vivants’.147 Their realistic representation highlights the smaller, stocky appearance of their figures and occasionally put emphasis on sexual attributes (i.e., the breasts) that identify certain specimens as female.148 Assessing the religious value of such a distinction, and its possible theological implications, is not an easy task, considering also the paucity and concision of the associated inscriptions. The god’s identity is normally made explicit by his name and epithets, while the accompanying animals are sometimes labelled as wnS (‘canid’) or wpwAwt;149 the first term recognises them as real creatures, the second points out (metaphorically) their close connection with the local deity (cf. infra Chap. 6).150 On the other hand, the multiplicity of canine figures and their relationship with the divine emblem may be positively understood in the light of the New Kingdom conception of the bA, and related to the god’s capacity of becoming present in different earthly manifestations.151 This way, the images on the stelae would give visual expression to contemporary religious discourses. Whatever theological construction might have been developed to explain their presence, judging from the depictions on the stelae, it can be deduced that a group of living canids was actively mobilised within a ceremonial context and made object (alone or in association with other cultic items, like the god’s standard or statue) of ritual actions.152 In other words, the special position of these animals lies, first and foremost, in their deliberate integration into a restricted context of religious performance. It is therefore likely that they were selected according to specific criteria (black hide? Pointed ears?), and kept under priestly cares within apposite enclosures next to the temple of Wpwawt.153 This idea, hitherto suggested as a working hypothesis,154 has been verified and confirmed by Ursula Verhoeven on the basis of two Ramesside graffiti identified in the newly discovered Tomb N13.1.155 Dating to the 19th dynasty, the inscriptions record an otherwise unattested title concerned with a regular presence of canids associated to the cult of Wpwawt, i.e.: sS Hwt wnSw [n or m] pr wpwAwt nb (n) sAwty, ‘scribe of the estate of the wnSw-canids [of or in] the domain of Wpwawt, lord of Asyut’.156 While these texts belong to a class of graffiti that contains information about the cult topography of New Kingdom Asyut, the mention of this new title unquestionably demonstrates that ‘holy jackals were kept in a special estate, quarter or building belonging to the temple of Wpwawt in Asyut during or since the 19th dynasty. The management of the Hw.t-wnS.w was controlled by scribes, who in all cited instances also bear the title of a wabpriest’.157 Moreover, it shows that, similarly to what is known for other contexts but in relation to more celebrated individuals (Apis, Mnevis, etc.), this collective animal presence was part of the basic inventory of the local temple, and its maintenance and mobilisation was an integral aspect of the temple cult and administration. The ceremonial episode evoked by the stelae, which also provided the occasion for their dedication, is likely to be identified with the great festival of Wpwawt mentioned above. At this time, the divine standard was carried in procession by the priests and one may assume that either the pack of canids participated in the parade as processional animals or they were made gather around the Durich 1993: 217. Female individuals with breats clearly shown appear, for example, on the stela Berlin 20756 or on the famous stela of Pentawr (British Museum EA 1632); see Durich 1993: 211-213, n. 19, fig. 3. 149 See, for example, stela Louvre AF 6949 and stela British Museum EA 1430; see Durisch 1993: 211-216, fig. 1; Munro 1963: 52, pl. 5. The translation of the word wnS as ‘Wolf (Schackalswolf)’ (Wb. I 324.16-18) is likely to be reviewed; see Durich 1993: 210 (b); Kahl and Kitagawa 2016: 19, n. 102. 150 See Durich 1993: 218; Kahl and Kitagawa 2016: 19. 151 DuQuesne 2009: 86; Durich 1993: 218. 152 Durisch 1993: 218. 153 Durisch 1993: 219, n. 31 points out that on some stelae (e.g., British Museum EA 1430) the multiple canids ‘présentent des signes évidents d’obesité’, while they usually display pointed ears. She also mentions the black coat (rarely attested in Egypt) as a possible salient feature, a point that is also stressed by Kahl 2007b: 48, and Kahl and Kitagawa 2016: 19 154 Durisch 1993: 218-220; Munro 1963: 53-56. 155 Verhoeven 2010: 197-198; 2012: 54; see Kahl and Kitagawa 2016: 18-19. For an overview on the tomb, see Kahl 2007b: 79-82. 156 One of the two texts (preliminary no. S38) is dated to year 26 of Ramses II; the other (preliminary no. S3) makes use of a formula, which is typical for visitors’ graffiti of the 19th dynasty; Verhoeven 2010: 197. 157 Verhoeven 2010: 198. 147 148

146

The New Kingdom god’s emblem when it stopped at certain location(s) along the route (possibly even at the place where the animals were kept), both of them becoming then approachable for offering and other ritual actions.158 Of course, we do not have further (textual) information to articulate in detail how the participation of the selected animal group was developed, and we should also remind the conventional character of the stelae’s decoration. Nonetheless, their representations refer, in stylised ways, to various cultic forms or hypostases associated with Wpwawt, thus displaying different occasions and levels of religious access.159 This consideration raises the final issue of the social profile of the donors of the monuments and participants in the local religious ceremony. Given their considerable number, the ‘Salakhana stelae’ represent a valuable dataset for addressing the broad topic of self-presentation through religious practice and display. In this regard, in his recent review of the corpus, Eric Ryan Wells has combined some recurrent textual and iconographic variables (name, title, clothing, hairstyle) to distinguish six social groups engaged in religious activity at Asyut, five of which (all excepted the courtly élite) donated votive stelae specifically for the festival of Wpwawt.160 The analysis shows that the religious experience differed among the various groups and could be expressed accordingly, by adopting different forms of display to communicate the social status and understanding of the individual donor; it also appears that the combination of the divine standard with the multiple living canids was largely favoured, indicating that this was a shared cultic background and a highly distinctive episode ‘easily understood by all members of the community’, as such ‘widely employed by the donors’.161 The dedication of the stelae, therefore, was a social as well as religious act, and it is meaningful that the episode just described had developed as an important focus of religious display and as appropriate theme for affirming social concerns. To conclude, the ‘Salakhana stelae’ and other inscribed elements from Asyut represent an important case study for several reasons. Firstly, they provide ample evidence of an apparently selected and restricted group of living animals – here a temple pack – that was part of the temple inventory and cultic activities, and can be broadly contrasted with the contemporary temple herd surrounding the individual bulls Apis and Mnevis (§§ 5.1.3, 5.2.3). It is probably significant that, as the imagerie of stelae seems to suggest, this collective animal presence gravitates around the god’s standard in apparently the same way as the temple herd accompanies the single bull.162 Secondly, the large quantity of these monuments allows to explore, to some extent, the social setting of the ceremony commemorated, in which that special animal presence was strategically mobilised. Thirdly, they offer a precious term of comparison for discussing apparently similar materials or contexts of practice, which are however ambivalent or less well documented (see infra § 5.7). 5.6 Bulls in the Theban region The sacred landscape of the Thebaid during the New Kingdom appears dotted by an important and diversified presence of bovine forms, which are unfortunately only imperfectly represented in the available monumental record. The scattered distribution of the sources does not allow outlining the religious profile and ritual contexts of any of these animals in detail, nonetheless they are significant as individual attestations of their mobilisation within ceremonial settings and cultic activities of first rate. They also help composing a broader historical picture for the circulation of such practices, and give us a precious (though partial) idea of what could have been their impact on contemporary society and of how much we lost of it.

See Durisch 1993: 219-220. See Chapter 6 for discussion. Wells 2014. 161 Wells 2014: 218. 162 See, in this regard, the relevant passages of the later Book of the Temple about the herd following the Memphite Apis; Quack 2003: 116; see Durisch 1993: 218; Kahl and Kitagawa 2016: 16. 158 159 160

147

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt 5.6.1 The Buchis bull at Armant The Buchis bull of Armant is, with its distinctive bleack-headed and white appearance, solar characterisation, and impressive complex of tombs (the so-called ‘Bucheum’), one of best-known representatives, together with the Memphite Apis and the Heliopolitan Mnevis, of the Egyptian Stierkulte.163 The Tanis Geographical Papyrus (British Museum EA 10673) offers a clear visualisation of the prominent role of these three major single specimens within their respective hometowns.164 Differently from his two bull-fellows, the figure and cultic institution of Buchis are usually believed to appear ‘as such only at the very end of the Late period, under Nakhthorheb (30th dynasty), in the form of its burials’.165 In fact, a fragmentary stela of unknown provenance but supposedly coming from Armant and now at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moskow (I.1.a.7861) demonstrates that this was not the case, and provides an earlier, New Kingdom attestation.166 Dated stylistically to the early 20th dynasty, the monument is divided in two registers, of which the lower and best preserved one shows a couple, the priest Neferhotep (nfr-Htp) and his wife Henuttawy (Hnwt-tAwy), before the Buchis bull standing on a plinth, wearing a feathered crown with a sun-disk and the menat-necklace. The accompanying inscription consists of a standard offering formula (Htp-di-nsw) that explicitly identifies the referents of the scene: on the on hand, the bull is labelled as pAy-bA-Xt, a theological name meaningfully constructed on the crucial notion of bA; on the other hand, the owner Neferhotep, who is the beneficiary of the offering formula (n kA n it-nTr Hm[-nTr] n pAy-bAXt), bears the priestly titles of ‘god’s father’ and ‘god’s servant of Buchis’, thus being presented as directly involved in the religious activities related with the bull. Despite the lack of further evidence to contextualise this information, the stela is relevant under three respects: (1) the form of the bull’s name, which is similar but not identical with that attested in later periods, highlighting the historical character of the intellectual process concerned with the interpretation of the religious status of the specimen (cf. infra 6); (2) the rare mention of a religious title directly linked to the bull, which evidently refers to a well-structured administrative and cultic framework surrounding the animal; (3) the material dimension of the object itself, which, just like those excavated in larger numbers at Saqqara and Heliopolis, communicates social identity and prestige via the display of religious access to contexts of ‘animal worship’, even though the scale, location, and articulation of this early context of the cult of Buchis is not known. In this regard, the relationship of the bull with the ‘white bull’ of the Min festival and, above all, with the bull forms of the god Montu remains obscure. Whether or not the Buchis bull was identical with any of these specimens cannot be established; nonetheless, the apparent proliferation of such animal agencies might reflect an early integration of the bull within the theology of Montu and his worship in the region of the fourth nome (the so-called ‘Theban Palladium’), of which we find elaborate traces in the textual compositions from the Ptolemaic and Roman temples of the god.167 One last piece of evidence must be added to this picture. It is a fragmentary scene from the Theban Tomb 101 of Tjaenro dating to the time of Amenhotep II, and representing the owner, together with some priest performing the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ ceremony before a black bull (only partially preserved) standing within a shrine and (likely) wearing a sun-disk between the horns.168 The front of the scene is largely lost but the ritual instruments depicted and part of the preserved inscriptions make its interpretation indisputable. The occurrence, in a damaged portion of the text, of the place name of Heliopolis is perhaps a reference to Armant (known as iwnw Smaw, ‘Heliopolis of Upper Egypt’), while the iconography of the tableau may indicate, also in analogy with the decoration of the Apis stelae (cf. supra), a temple statue and context, and the cartouche Dodson 2005: 95-100; Goldbrunner 2004; Mond and Myers 1934; Otto 1964: 40-57; 1975. Griffith and Petrie 1889, pl. X.16. Dodson 2005: 95. 166 Hodjash and Berlev 1982: 152-153 (no. 92). 167 Valbelle 1992. 168 Davies 1935: 53-54, fig. 8; PM I/1: 215; Urk. IV, 1474-1475. 163 164 165

148

The New Kingdom of the king inscribed above the bull may suggest a royal participation i.e., an official event. If, accordingly, one accepts that the animal figure represents a sacred bull of the Theban district, and possibly the Buchis of Armant, then the whole scene would acquire a greater importance as one of the first attestations of this bull as well as a hint of a well-orchestrated framework of religious practice focused on selected individuals at such an early stage. Nothing of the material and social setting supposedly surrounding the episode can be positively reconstructed, yet the rarity of this representation should not diminish its value. Here, comparison with the richer documentation from the Serapeum (notably to the three Piay’s stelae) is valuable in supporting the idea of the development of a meaningful and widespread tradition that encompassed regular ritual patterns and offered a significant arena of social practice and display. 5.6.2 The ‘White bull’ of the Min festival The great festival of the god Min (prt mnw, ‘The going out of Min’) has a long history in Egyptian religious tradition, appearing in the sources since the Old Kingdom.169 It developed as a procession of the divine statue that took place yearly in the first month of shemu, according to the lunar calendar, and was closely related to the renewal of fertility, as a celebration of the upcoming harvest, and to the commemoration of the royal power, as a confirmation of the role of the king. The ceremony, moreover, had a restricted character, since it was entirely performed within the temple enclosure. Starting with the New Kingdom, the procession is illustrated on the walls of Theban temples, the most elaborated representations coming from the Ramesseum and the funerary complex of Ramses III at Medinet Habu.170 Two scenes show that at that time the festival included, among various liturgical acts, the participation of a ‘white bull’ (kA-HD) associated to Min kA-mwt.f (‘bull of his mother’), which was carried in procession and then presented with a sheaf of corn. A traditional interpretation of these episodes maintains that the bull was ritually sacrificed at the end of the ceremony so that its death could ensure the successful renovation of the agrarian cycle.171 Catherine Graindorge, however, has justly critiqued this modern assumption, which largely relies on Frazerian theories, emphasising, on the contrary, the protection of the living bull and its crucial role within the festival.172 On the one hand, nowhere in the monumental texts it is made reference of the killing of the bull; on the other, a critical review of the whole decorative programme reveals a strategical construction and meaningful characterisation of the individual kA-HD as a key actor of the ritual performance. The ‘white bull’ displays a distinctive physical appearance, marked in the first place by the special (white) colour of its skin. The animal is represented in striding position, with the sundisk surmounted by two high golden feathers between the horns, and a red robe on the neck. The inscription outlining the progress of the ceremony adds further details, describing the entrance of the bull ‘with the twin feathers upon his head, a wrap of cloth(?) at his neck, his temporal mark on his left side’ (Swty r tp.f saH Hr mnxt r xx.f mAa.f Hr gs.f iAbty). The description clarifies and enriches the picture: the high crown (Swty) is an item with both royal and celestial connotations, and the red strip of cloth (saH Hr mnxt) is likely a symbol of regeneration with astral (lunar) associations,173 both features reinforcing the connection between the bull and the god Min in his vigorous form of Min-Kamutef. One might even observe how the animal iconography corresponds, in some precise and meaningful attributes to that of the ithyphallic deity (feathered crown; sexual/generative energy; white and red colour of the garments). Interestingly enough, the text also alludes to a Bleeker 1956: 59-93; Gauthier 1931; Graindorge 2005. The ceremony was archaic in its origins; both the ‘going out of Min’ (prt mnw) and the ‘fashioning of Min’ (mst Mnw) are already attested in the Early Dynastic period, emerging more clearly in the subsequent Old Kingdom record. See Gauthier 1931: 17-18, 20-22. 170 PM II: 434 (10) I (Ramesseum; partially destroyed); PM II: 499-500 (96)-(98) I (Medinet Habu). 171 Gauthier 1931: 176-177, 287. 172 Graindorge 2005. 173 See Vos 1998: 712-713. 169

149

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt mark (mAa.f)174 on the left side of the bull’s head which ‘devait être noire pour e taureau blanc portant des marques distinctives comme animal spécifique de la liturgie de Min’.175 In brief, everything in the presentation of the ‘white bull’ insists one the exceptional character of the single specimen, and clearly establishes his unique position within the ritual framework. The theological statements and symbolic content of the texts accompanying the two episodes of the bull’s parade and of the offering of the corn articulate the religious value of this presence, attesting (although only indirectly) its dramatic (i.e., performed) quality. In the first scene, corresponding to the fourth episode of Graindorge’s reconstructed sequence, the picture of the processional bull is associated with a hymn that celebrates the appearance of the god in his bull form with both astral and royal undertones.176 According to the scholar, this ‘épisode situe résolument cette épihanie divine dans le registre du mythe royal (astre lumineux vainquerer des pouvoirs néfastes de la nuit), le matérialise sous forme de taureau blanc sur terre, Min-Kamoutef, principe actif de la régénération royal, celui qui féconde sa mère pour renaître en fils’.177 The participation of the royal spouse, who also appears in the relief, gives further support to this understanding, and strongly invites to reconsider the effective role of the ‘white bull’ of Min-Kamutef within the process of royal renovation as well as its elaboration within the Theban theological discourse.178 The second scene, which belongs to the sixth episode of the liturgy, focuses on the cutting of the sheaf of grain and its presentation to the ‘white bull’ by a priest. The caption adjoining the bull’s figure describes the action as ‘placing the corn to the ground before this god’ (dit bdt m tA m-bAH nTr pn), and incidentally offers an insight into the ancient understanding of the religious status ascribed to the animal, which is remarkable both for the type of predication adopted (nTr pn) and for the fact that is clearly applied to a living specimen. Moreover, such a designation must be set within that context of mutual relationship between kA-HD and Min kA-mwt.f mentioned above, which is continuously evoked in the textual apparatus; it thus reflects a precise interpretive strategy of the roles and actions within the ritual stage of the festival. The complex meanings revolving around this episode have been elucidated by Graindorge, who has observed how the different rites involved relate to the two basic interwoven themes of royal and agricultural renovation.179 On this last point, refuting the old idea of a ritual slaughtering and drawing instead on the prominent place acknowledged to bull, she suggests that ‘les grains de la grebe sont à nouveau ensemencées par le taureau blanc (qui les piétine) pour amorcer un nouveau cycle vegetatif ’, and raises the possibility that the cutting of the corn may have been complemented by other ritual activities usually associated with the cult of Min, including the ‘driving of the four calves’ (Hwt bHsw), which would have been realised ‘pour le taireau blanc, or avec le taureau blanc’.180 The rite and its layered semantic structure, which have been discussed with regard to the first Old Kingdom attestations (supra § 3.1), continued to be performed in the context of different liturgies, and to be illustrated accordingly on the walls of New Kingdom temples.181 The royal connection, on the other hand, can be appreciated at various levels: the text associated to the cutting of the corn by the king belong in the so-called ‘Ritual for the confirmation of royal power at the New Year’s festival’;182 similarly to the episode of the procession, the mobilisation of the ‘white bull’ occur in a wider framework, in which both the queen and the statues of royal ancestors play again an important part; the textual composition related to this episode includes a Wb. II: 24.9-16 (‘Schalfe’). For the interpretation as ‘temporal mark’, see Gauthier 1931: 177; Graindorge 2005: 56 Graindorge 2005: 56. Full discussion in Graindorge 2005: 56-57, Table p. 57. For the text, see Gauthier 1931: 179-184. 177 Graindorge 2005: 56. 178 See Gauthier 1931: 199 Graindorge 2005: 57. 179 Graindorge 2005: 59-60, Table p. 57; see Gauthier 1931: 225-250. 180 Graindorge 2005: 59. 181 The rite (before Amun Kamutef and Isis) is displayed on the top register at the south-western corner of the second court; PM II: 501 (105) I.2. For analysis and interpretation of the rite, see Egbert 1995. 182 Goyon 1972: 45, 71, 109, n. 238. 174 175 176

150

The New Kingdom hymn that describes, among other things, the priests of Min carrying the White and Red Crowns as well as the vindication of both the god and the king against their enemies.183 In this regard, also the restricted, temple-based dimension of the celebration becomes understandable as appropriate for a royal activity aimed at maintaining the political and divine aspects of kingship; the ruler was the main sustainer of the country’s harvest and, at the same time, was confirmed in his legitimate authority over Egypt. In a unifying view of the sequence, Graindorge concludes that ‘[l]a procession du taureau blanc (quatrième episode) est l’amorce d’un rite de transmission du pouvoir royal (cinquième épisode). Le sixième épisode consacre le nouveau roi et définit l’exercice de son pouvoir’, leaving open the question about a possible coronation of bull himself.184 In this perspective, the role of the individual ‘white bull’ can hardly be reduced to that of a passive sacrificial animal. Indeed, it was (and must be reassessed as) the ‘vecteur de la liturgie’ mediating both divine and royal agency within the ritual framework of the processional festival, and reconciling the two semantic foci of the ceremony: fertility and royal regeneration. Far from being a mere animal symbol, the bull’s presence was a core element of the religious celebration, therefore it was actively shaped and engaged with during the performance. Temple decoration also points to a careful selection of the specimen as well as to its importance in the local (Min-) theology, to such an extent that, rather than sticking to the old sacrificial model, one feels justified in supposing that the bull would have been kept alive in his capacity as prominent ritual actor. A final remark concerns the possible identification of the New Kingdom ‘white bull’ of the Min festival at Thebes with the apparently similar animal mentioned in Old Kingdom Memphite sources (supra Chapter 3). The different geographical distribution of the evidence would imply that there was no such correspondence, and that the two were different beings that happened to share the same designation. Yet, it should be considered that Min had an important place in the early Memphite cultic landscape (with strong links with the royal institution), as demonstrated by the various attestations of his festival (prt mnw), and if one assumes that the ‘white bull’ might already have been part of this event (despite the fact that he is not mentioned directly in connection with the prt mnw), then it cannot be excluded that Memphite and Theban kA-HD were one and the same processional bull, the shift in location being mainly related to the political and religious development of the Theban district. 5.7 The ‘Crocodile-stelae’ from Sumenu The cultural and religious geography of the region of Gebelein was marked by a well-established presence of the cult of Sobek, with a major centre being located at Sumenu (swmnw).185 The site housed an important sanctuary dedicated to the crocodile god, which is attested in the sources as early as the First Intermediate Period and continued to be in use until the early Roman times.186 While previous discussion (see supra § 4.2) of the toponym swnw n sbkw, attested on the Heqanakht Papyri, has already highlighted the plausible connection with the more familiar form of swmnw, the monumental remains of a New Kingdom temple building discovered in the late 1960s at Al Mahamid Qibli, 14 km ca south of Armant, have add strong evidence in support of the identification of the ancient city with the modern settlement (also known in literature as Dahamsha).187 The excavations brought to light architectural elements, part of the original floor, and various decorated monuments belonging to the complex, among which there were several blocks inscribed with the names of 18th dynasty’s kings (Thutmosis I, Amenhotep II, Thutmosis III, and Amenhotep III), showing a strong royal interest in the local cult. Gauthier 1931: 244-250. Graindorge 2005: 60. On the cultural geography of Gebelein, cf Morenz 2010: 53-139. 186 Betrò 2005; Morenz 2010: 131-136. 187 Bakry 1971. For an updated review of the issue of the localisation of Sumenu on the basis of recent fieldwork in the region, see Ejsmond, Skalec and Chyla 2020: 106-108, n. 19, with further references. 183 184 185

151

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Within this context, only partially investigated, a number of features are relevant for interpretation.188 A particular underground installation was found north-west of the main temple of Sobek of Sumenu, some five metres below the level of the ancient floor.189 It consisted of a rectangular chamber originally designed to be partially filled with water, inside of which the alabaster group of king Amenhotep III flanked by Sobek-Ra (Luxor Museum J. 155), later appropriated by Ramses II, was recovered.190 A vaulted tunnel connected the crypt to a sandstone basin provided with a particular closing system that allowed a large slab to slide on bronze wheels, showing the room below. On the top of this slab, a granite block was found, decorated with reliefs of the high official Nebnefer (overseer of the treasury of Amon and master of secrets of Sobek) adoring the names of both Amenhotep III and Sobek ‘Lord of Sumenu’, and surmounted with a pair of sculpted crocodiles (Luxor Museum J. 136).191 The most likely explanation of the whole structure is that it was intended for the maintenance and feeding of a living crocodile, which evidently was an integral part of the cultic setting within the temple. In this regard, the discovery of Amenhotep III’s dyad would suggest that the king, who is renowned for his initiatives in the field of so-called ‘animal cults’, may have played a crucial role in the institutionalisation and monumental development of this aspect of the local cult through royal patronage. This hypothesis is supported by other monumental evidence coming from the same context, which on the one hand refers to an established administrative framework related to keeping of one or more specimens and, on the other, illustrates the impact of such special presence on contemporary religious practice and imagerie. Especially notable is the 18th dynasty’s stela of Pia (Luxor Museum J. 149) dedicated by his son Iy-hebenef (iy-Hb-n.f) as a monument to honour the memory of his father, but also as a material manifestation of his own privileged relationship with the god, who allowed him ‘to see (your) perfection when you appear’ (Hr mAA nfrw wbn.k).192 This specific statement gives a sense of the donor’s exclusive access to one of the manifestations of Sobek of Sumenu. Now, discussing the two titles that Iy-hebenef displays on the stela, ‘overseer of the treasury of the Lord of the Two Lands’ (iry pr-HD n nb tAwy) and ‘overseer of the servants of the Lord of the Two Lands’ (Hry sDmw-aS n nb tAwy), Marilina Betrò argues that the epithet ‘Lord of the Two Lands’ may actually refer to the god rather than to the king, since the former is also addressed as ‘prince of the Two Lands’ elsewhere in the text.193 If so, it would be tempting to interpret the title of Hry sDmw-aS n nb tAwy in the light of the well-known occurrence of sDm-aS in the Ptolemaic documentation related to the then fullfledged animal necropolises and cultic institutions, to designate the staff of attendants in charge of taking care of the living ‘sacred animals’.194 It was thus in this capacity that Iy-hebenef was admitted to the presence of god, being able to see his ‘perfection’ (nfrw) in the form of the living individual(s) kept in the temple area.195 There is, in addition, a number of private votive stelae, mostly dating to the Ramesside period, which was retrieved from the temple site while comparable monuments known from museum collections are supposed to come from the same area due to the similar decoration (Figures 5.13, 5.14).196 This develops the figurative motif of multiple crocodiles according to a regular compositional form that shows a large specimen in the lunette – it is often depicted with a feathered crown, on a podium under a sacred tree, and labelled as ‘Sobek-Ra Lord of Sumenu’ –, and below a scene of adoration Discussion in Betrò 2005: 96-102; Colonna 2018: 451-455; Morenz 2003: 88-90. Bakry 1971: figs. 4, 7. 190 Romano, Parlasca and Rogers 1979: 82-84 (cat. 107). 191 Bakry 1971: 138-140, pls xxx-xxxi, xxxiia; Romano, Parlasca and Rogers 1979: 54 (cat. 123). 192 Bakry 1971: pl. xxvii; Romano, Parlasca and Rogers 1979: 39 (cat. 79). 193 Betrò 2005: 100. She also quotes other similar epithets and comparable expressions attested in the epigraphic record from Mahamid Qibly, remarking that ‘[l]e connessioni tra culto regale e culto degli animali sacri sono del resto ben note’. 194 Betrò 2005: 100-101. For the documentation of the ‘Archive of Hor’ from Saqqara, see Ray 1976; 2001: 347. 195 Betrò (2005: 101, n. 39) also notes that the epithet ‘living god’ (nTr anx) designating the god Sobek in the first line of the stela, although commonly applied to divine beings, might be taken as an allusion to an actual living specimen kept in the temple. 196 Bakry 1971: 137-138, pl. xxviib; Fazzini 1972: 56-59, figs 22-23, 25. 188 189

152

The New Kingdom with several smaller animals symmetrically arranged in opposite pairs before some kind of small offerings. The social profile of the donors cannot be positively established, with few exceptions, since the devotee is rarely represented and inscribed information (names, titles, longer formulas) are usually scarcely attested on the preserved stelae. Yet, a look at those monuments showing pictorially and textually more detailed compositions offers some hints in this sense. In one case, a male figure, followed by his wife, can be identified as belonging to the military group on the basis of the type of clothing;197 a kneeled adoring woman appears on the lower part of another stela, at the side of brief text (a simple invocation to ‘Sobek-Ra Lord of Sumenu, the great god lord of the sky’) the last columns of which had to display the name and titles of the donor but were left uninscribed.198 This fact is noteworthy as it suggests that at least some of these objects were made for stock and then sold as required, thus reaching larger parts of the population.

Figure 5.13. Ramesside stela from Al Mahamid Qibli. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Bakry 1971: taf. XXVIIb).

Despite the simple iconography and crude execution of these stelae, their interpretation is not apparent nor easy, especially with regard to the meaning of the numerous animal figures, given also the paucity of inscribed details. The New Kingdom bA-theology offers a way to approach them according to contemporary conceptual patterns, but it remains a matter of debate whether the plurality of animal representations (metaphorically) alludes to the divine faculty of continuously manifesting and renovating its power or reflects the actual presence of living specimens within a temple context.199 Comparison with other ‘animal stelae’ from Mendes and (especially) Asyut, which were likely part of a ritual configuration involving real animals at ceremonial occasions, gives credit to the second hypothesis (cf. supra 5.3, 5.5). The two possibilities, in fact, do not exclude each other while the arrangement and iconographic details of the scene probably imply a difference between the main figure in

Figure 5.14. Ramesside stela dedicated to Sobek Lord of Sumenu, unknown provenance. Graphic elaboration by F. Iannarilli (after Fazzini 1972: fig. 23).

Fazzini 1972: 59, fig. 25. The stela, coming from a private collection, bear some brief inscriptions accompanying the two figures, which almost certainly mention their names and titles. Since however the object was studied only from the photograph, the author did not attempt to read them. 198 Fazzini 1972: 56, fig. 23. Like the previous one, this monument is reported as belonging to a private collection. 199 Fazzini 1972: 57, n. 51. 197

153

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt the lunette, explicitly identified (‘Sobek-Ra Lord of Sumenu’) and marked by specific attributes (large scale; crown; podium; sacred tree) and the smaller anonymous crocodiles placed below and lacking any distinctive characterisation. The (theological?) value of such a distinction is not entirely obvious: it is reasonable to assume a differentiation between the statue of the god and the living saurian that were associated in the cult practice.200 In this regard, the iconography of the crocodile in the lunette seems to parallel the granite crocodile statue (Luxor Museum J. 127) discovered not far from the underground installation just discussed.201 Alternatively, one might interpret the difference in terms of religious discrepancy between a selected individual, whose prominent status was conceptualised via the divine identification (Sobek-Ra), and a group of unmarked specimens that likely surrounded the former as an important part of the local religious landscape.202 In both instances, these multiple animals can be duly related to the sbkw-crocodiles mentioned in the early P. Heqanakht, the Ramesside stelae giving visual articulation to their meaningful and regular mobilisation within the cultic activities of the temple of Sobek of Sumenu.203 Three final considerations concerning these monuments and their socio-cultural context descend from the previous discussion. First of all, as already anticipated and as it will be developed further in the last part of this study, their formal decoration and physical dedication materialise the private participation in a field of religious practice – the ritual engagement with a special animal presence belonging to the temple – that has now become a relevant (and accessible) focus of individual display. Secondly, the conception and realisation of these stelae show, in combination with more carefully designed and inscribed objects (Luxor J. 149) as well as with more impressive sculpted pieces (Luxor J. 136), that religious experience at the temple site was multi-layered, encompassing different social groups, and revealing different degrees of access and understanding.204 Comparison with the contemporary abundant material from Asyut (supra 5.5) indicates that this was not an isolated phenomenon and that local festivals provided the social setting for presenting status and identity through religious participation. Ultimately, when compared to the Middle Kingdom textual attestations, the crocodile-stelae allows assessing the historical development of this particular aspect of the cult of Sobek at Sumenu from the late 3rd to the mid-2nd millennium BC: the different distribution of the evidence, with the increase and diversification of the pertinent material during the New Kingdom, is likely to reflect a shift (expansion) in the strategies and possibilities of public display rather than a simple change in the forms of religious action, meaning that the latter were already part of the local tradition (though their exact articulation remains obscure) but remained largely underrepresented within the monumental record due to constraints of decorum. 5.8 The inscribed jar fragment Munich Ä 1383 A curious and isolated piece of evidence of unknown origin is represented by a fragmentary pottery jar, inscribed in hieratic, which Wilhelm Spiegelberg acquired in 1927 for the Munich Egyptian collection (ÄS 1383).205 With no information on the provenance of the object, our understanding is based entirely on the analysis of the artefact itself, and especially of its most remarkable feature i.e., the hieratic inscription written in red ink and running lengthwise, in two lines, over the body of the jar:206

Betrò 2005: 101-102. Bakry 1971: 138, pl. xxixc; Romano, Paralsca and Rogers 1979: 79 (cat. 206). 202 Colonna 2014b: 106. The co-presence of single and multiple specimens is suggested by sparse mentions in contemporary documents (P. Harris I and P. Turin 1887). One might also add, for later times, some passages from the so-called ‘Book of the Temple’ (Quack 2003: 116) as well as the distinction between pA msH and nA nTrw sbk attested on Demotic documents from Tebtynis (Bresciani 1994). 203 Morenz 2003: 89. 204 See Morenz 2003: 90. 205 Spiegelber 1928: 14-17, pl. 2; see Kessler 1989: 291. 206 Spiegelber 1928: 15-16. 200 201

154

The New Kingdom The venerable sacred ibis which the scribe of Maat(?) Hori of the domain of Osiris buried after finding him gm.f sw m pA mr mn-pHty-ra m HAt-sp 9 Abd 1 Smw in the Canal of Menpehtyra (Ramses I), in year 9, sw 25 first month of Shemu, day 25. pA hb nTry Spsy qrs.n sS mAat(?) Hri n pr-wsir m-xt

The text explicitly identifies a funerary destination for the vessel, associating it with the burial of a dead ibis that the scribe Hori happened to find. While the practice of depositing jars containing avian mummies in underground galleries or arranged in clusters in the ground is well-known from Late and Graeco-Roman cemeteries,207 a major historical implication of the Munich specimen lies in its possible dating to the late New Kingdom. Spiegelberg assignes the vessel to the Ramesside period on palaeographic grounds, noting that the writing of the name of Osiris ‘nicht vor Dynastie 19/20 zu belegen ist’ and combining this element with the mention of an unidentified ‘canal of Ramses I’.208 Kessler is more cautious and observes that Spiegelperg’s suggestion provides at best ‘nur einen terminus post quem’, though one might note that the form of the jar is comparable to that of New Kingdom, and notably Ramesside, parallels.209 Within such a reconstructed chronological framework, the content of the text becomes particularly relevant under different aspects. It is worth addressing, in the first place, the vocabulary used to describe the condition and treatment of the animal. On the one hand, the double characterisation (pA hb nTry Spsy), marks the sacred (nTry) and distinguished (Spsy) status of the dead ibis, presenting him as the beneficiary of a rite. In particular, the application of the term nTry is significant as it is rarely attested in relation to animals before the Late and Ptolemaic periods, but also, as noted above, because it identifies a prominent focus of ritual activity.210 One is easily reminded, in this regard, of the nA nTrw recurring in the Demotic inscriptions from Tuna el-Gebel, Thebes, or from the dossier of the so-called ‘Prince Joachim ostraca’, which refer to the consecrated mummies of ibises and other birds.211 On the other hand, the verb qrs (‘to bury’) makes it clear that the acknowledgment of such an eminent position is the direct outcome of a ritual manipulation, evoking as it does the whole spectrum of actions composing the funerary ceremony, from the preparation of the body to its entombment in an appropriate space.212 Moreover, the mention of a ‘sacred ibis’ is of some interest per se, as it enlarges the contemporary roster of animal agents mobilised within restricted ritual contexts. The religious significance of certain groups of birds emerges, although irregularly, from earlier sources – think of the solar pelicans depicted in Niuserre’s ‘Room of the Seasons’, or to Henqu’s cultural statement about his respect for the bA-power apparent in the ‘kites of the sky’, up to the solemn declaration by the deceased of his innocence in regard to the killing of the birds belonging to the gods’ domains – but this is the first material evidence of specific (funerary) practices dedicated to this class of animals, before their substantial (and better documented) development in the Graeco-Roman times. Finally, the localisation of the discovery of the dead body at the ‘Canal of Ramses I’ offers a curious but indeterminable detail, for the unique attestation of this toponym and the lack of archaeological information on the jar do not allow any exact identification of the regional or local context of the described burial practices. In this regard, the reference to the ‘domain of Osiris’ (pr-wsir) is too vague and it remains questionable whether it can be situated at Abydos. The individual, decontextualised character of the Munich jar makes any interpretation of its cultic and social background difficult and, at best, hypothetical. Spiegelberg considers the burial Catacombs and burial grounds dedicated to the ibis have been excavated at major sites like North Saqqara, Abydos, and Tuna el-Gebel. For a general overview of different archaeological contexts, see the list in Kessler 1989: 18-29. For discussion on the ibis-cult in GraecoRoman times, see Kessler 2018; Smelijk 1979. 208 Spiegelber 1928: 16. 209 As far as it can be judged from the plate published by Spiegelberg. 210 Meeks 1988. See discussion infra Chapter 6. 211 See Ebeid 2006; Preisigke and Spiegelberg 1914; Scalf 2015. 212 Wb. V: 63.11-64.4. 207

155

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt of the dead ibis as a purely private act of devotion arranged by the casual discoverer Hori at his own expenses, and expressing his personal piety.213 Kessler, however, rejects this explanation as a ‘romantische Vorstellung’ and restores a different setting for the accident, according to which the bird belonged to the ‘“Geburtskapelle des Ibis” am “Kanal des Ramses I”’ i.e., to a colony of sacred ibis farmed near the temple area, for which he suggests Abydos as a possible location.214 Within such an institutional framework, the scribe Hori would have not operated out of personal pietistic initiative but in his full capacity as a legitimate member of the centrally controlled administration in charge of the management of local breeding and burial places for sacred animals that were part of the official temple cults. This understanding extends backward the idea of a controlled farming of birds at industrial scale that is usually assumed for the Saitic and Ptolemaic periods on the basis of the rich Demotic administrative documentation available.215 The comparison is useful in highlighting certain details of the text, like the mention of the ‘canal of Ramses I’, which possibly indicates a strategical location of the feeding place near a basin or a wetland (the ideal habitat for the ibis).216 Therefore, it is not implausible to envisage a structured context for the episode, while, as it will be shown in the final discussion (cf. Chap. 6), there is no need to insist on a rigid polarisation between state and non-state religion, since the two dimensions may overlap combining both personal and official motivations or interests. Overall, despite the limits in contextualising the object, ‘ist dieser Krug ein weiteres wertvolles Zeugnis des Tierkultus für die Zeit des neuen Reiches, wo solche Dokumente im Vergleich zu der hellenistischen Zeit noch recht selten sind’.217

Spiegelberg 1928: 17. Kessler 1989: 291. Kessler 2018; Kessler and Nur el-Din 2005; Ray 1976; Scalf 2015. 216 This was the case, for example, of the so-called ‘lake of the pharaoh’ (the later lake of Abusir) at North Saqqara, not far from the ibis catacombs, and of the toponym ‘the swamp’ from which the site of Tuna el-Gebel derives its name. See respectively Ray 1978: 153 and Kessler and Nur el-Din 2005: 120. A recently published genetic study (Wasef et al. 2019), conducted over samples collected from the three major sites of Tuna el-Gebel, Thebes and Abydos, suggest that this scenario suits better the hypothesis that the birds ‘were captured from wild populations and kept near temples in short-term seasonal farms’ than the commonly accepted idea of a ‘centralised massfarming production’, with ibises being reared on industrial scale in long-term dedicated facilities. 217 Spiegelberg 1928: 17. 213 214 215

156

Part II Synthesis and Reconstruction

Chapter 6

Modelling Animal Worship 6.1 Introduction: etic and emic The evidence collected so far shows that religious practices focused on the crucial participation of selected animals (both individuals and groups) recur in structured ritual forms as early as the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC and allows us to identify some distinctive configurations according to which such animal presence is manipulated and transformed into an effective religious object. While this process (with its contextual strategies) and its thematisation are put at the centre of a more nuanced definition and understanding of animal worship, the latter also advocates for a refined and stronger sensibility toward the terminology designating, and the intellectual strategies addressing, the specific objects of those practices – i.e. the animals and their status. Developing an informed discussion on that issue – how the animals involved were categorised and their religious meaning was constructed and expressed by the ancient Egyptian actors – requires a balanced confrontation between etic and emic perspectives or, to put it in another way, between Egyptological and Egyptian categories. The polarisation etic/emic has become more and more a fruitful area of discussion in the field of social and anthropological studies and it might prove a productive framework for critically assessing concepts and meanings in ancient religious phenomena.1 Etic (or second-order) categories2 belong to the (external) viewpoint and intellectual background of the modern observer; as such they represent utilitarian, heuristic constructs developed for analytical purposes. On the other hand, emic (or first-order) concepts are embedded in the specific socio-cultural context studied and thus reflect the indigenous perspective, elucidating internal criteria and cultural distinctions that are meaningful to the local actors (here the ancient Egyptians). Three general points must be stressed in this regard: first, as Rune Nyord explicitly comments about Egyptological research, ‘positing an etic does not need to entail a claim of the ontological status, unity, and essential qualities of the phenomenon it purports to signify (a “true” or “correct” definition)…one advantage of using etic categories is that we will often be interested in topics for which the Egyptians either did not have a concept, or the concepts they have are too rarely or unclearly attested to be of much use’.3 Second, and strictly related to the previous remark, while emic concepts often find correspondence with specific terms or particular roots, this is not always the case, and the underlying categorisation needs not invariably be linguistically articulated. This point certainly applies to animal worship and its animal correlates, for which the lack of explicit definitions or accurate descriptions could be acknowledged as an opportunity to rely more on material and contextual information, and to pay more attention to different solutions or (patterns of) evidence by means of which emic conceptions are displayed and communicated. Finally, as already anticipated above and following Clifford Geertz, it is argued that an integrated approach that takes ‘concepts that, for another people, are experience-near’ and places them ‘in illuminating connection with experience-distant concepts theorists have fashioned’4 represents a rewarding strategy in (re)constructing a better understanding of ancient religious experiences.

For a critical overview of the history of the concepts and their implications in the anthropological debate, see De Sardan 1998. A useful application of the emic/etic framework to the Egyptological domain is illustrated by the different contributes focusing on the Middle Kingdom funerary culture edited by Nyord 2019. 2 The distinction between first- and second-order categories is drawn from Satlow 2005. 3 Nyord 2014: 6. 4 Geertz 1983: 58. 1

159

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt The possibility to build an etic grid to conceptualise and make intelligible to us the special role of certain animals, as well as the extent to which it can be applied to the ancient Egyptian material and substantiated through a careful analysis of the emic content(s) displayed in the sources, will be the focus of the following discussion. 6.2 The etic perspective: single and multiple animals The current, general definition of ‘sacred animals’ commonly adopted in scholarly literature is somewhat vague in its use as it lacks a critical discussion while other types of categorisation (divine animals, temple-animals, votive animals, incarnation animals) reflect the difficulties in dealing with a multifaceted reality and with a more articulated cultic scenario than it is usually assumed: ‘[d]ie Grenze zwischen den Tiergöttern und heiligen Tieren ist immer fließend geblieben’ – as László Kákosy5 aptly remarked decades ago – and yet it is also evident that ‘these animals did not have all the same status’6. In this regard, while Egyptian sources do not make use of a rigorous vocabulary nor do they reveal a high degree of abstraction in formulating the difference, modern classifications largely rely on ideas and information transmitted by Classical accounts – just like with the very category of ‘animal worship’ – and/or eschew any methodological articulation. On the one hand, the terminology thus developed tends to mix up the definition of a category and its explanation in that the former is considered ipso facto as corresponding to the latter, limiting interpretation to the application of some (more or less) catchy labels. On the other hand, certain definitions are slippery as they refer to problematic concepts (god, incarnation, fetish, etc.), the meaning of which is still a matter of hot debate among scholars, with the risk, when not constructed (or reflected upon) with critical attention, of projecting and perpetuating modern (mis)conceptions onto the ancient Egyptian material. The vexata quaestio concerning the acknowledgement of effective divine quality and agency to specific living individuals (like the Apis bull) illustrates this point in an exemplary manner. In this regard, the influential role of the Classical and Biblical tradition in mediating between modern interpretation and ancient Egyptian religious phenomena as well as the naïve assumption that the modern nomenclature and classification, biased by such strong cultural and even theological undertones, simply reflect indigenous concepts and sensibilities are rarely recognised as critical factors that too often, more or less unconsciously, affect historical reconstruction. Rather than offering an entirely new definition, which would hardly be of help given the rich vocabulary already in need of reappraisal, few adjustments are proposed in the use of certain terms as general (etic) categories that can be then practically assessed and characterised through contextual analysis and emic content extracted from the sources. First of all, although the expression ‘sacred animals’ is retained and recurs occasionally in this work for the sake of convenience, the term ‘sacralised’ is preferred for analytical purposes as it implies a processual character and puts emphasis on the result of religious practice rather than on an intrinsic quality. Accordingly, the notion of sacr(alis)ed is recognised as a relative (not absolute) status that is constructed and induced through ritual action: animal worship thus concerns special animals that are ‘made’ into sacr(alis)ed (even divine-like) beings through strategies of ritualisation (infra). Finally, within that broad category a distinction is operated between single and multiple animals, which can be summarised as follows (Table 6.1): Single (individual) Marked Identified

Sacr(alis)ed animal

Multiple (group) Marked Unmarked Identified Unidentified

Table 6.1. Categorisation of sacralised animals. 5 6

1977: 662 Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1996: 130.

160

Modelling Animal Worship Single animals are unique specimens usually marked by particular physical attributes or qualities and identified by a specific individual name with possible theological connotations: Apis, the White bull, Mnevis, Buchis, the Hesat cow, the Ram of Mendes, and (perhaps) the bnw-bird are all renowned members of this class. Although details on the markings and appearance are not explicitly presented or displayed in contemporary sources – at least not for all of them –, and information has to be inferred from indirect features (like the name, e.g. White bull), or by analogy amongst them and comparison with later material and contexts, these figures are visibly distinguished by their prominent individual character. On the contrary, the class of multiple animals encompasses groups of different sizes. Nuances seem to exist between marked (the black cattle of Onuris) and/ or identified (the Tntt-cows of Dendera), unmarked and/or unidentified (the crocodiles of Sumenu; the jackals and kites in the biography of Henqu) animals but they are not always easy to grasp: the white pelicans depicted on the relief of Niuserra as well as (some of ) the canids on the Salakhana stelae could have been selected according to some physical feature (e.g. the colour of their hide) while the designation as sbkw-crocodiles and WpwAwt recurring respectively in the Heqanakte papers and on some of the Asyut stelae could just have had a metaphorical value rather than representing the specific name of those groups. Be that as it may, the central aspect of that class is the collective identity of its members. The dichotomy single/multiple is not new and it has been developed in particular by Frenchspeaking scholars (animaux uniques/multiples) in association with the couple sacré/sacralisé, and in relation to the practice of mummification in late contexts.7 Here, however, the vocabulary has been adopted to express in purely formal terms (i.e., according to an etic viewpoint) what appears, and will be later discussed in its contextual (emic) implications, as a meaningful distinction between individual and collective animal agencies. This categorisation, accordingly, has a valuable heuristic function as a conceptual grid that allows us to present and structure that distinction according to a coherent system, thus making more understandable, to the modern analyst, the religious configurations where the presence of special animal figures was ritually constructed and manipulated. It is an operative tool for looking at the content data provided by textual and material evidence. 6.3 The emic perspective: Egyptian concepts and modes of predication In order to assess the ancient Egyptian (emic) perspective and strategies of conceptualisation on the religious status of sacralised animals, three interrelated aspects must be borne in mind: (1) none of the available sources was intended to provide detailed characterisations or explicit theological statements on their role; (2) while there is no consistent vocabulary that can be extracted from the textual record, objects and monumental artefacts themselves can encode important information in visual and material forms; (3) the reconstructed notions and concepts, whether they are verbally articulated or visually displayed, should be properly contextualised, considering that religious interpretation (and its related formulations) might evolve, be refined or transformed through time. Despite the limitations, terminology represents a crucial field of inquiry. In this regard, it must be noted that, on the one hand, it is only during the New Kingdom that theological speculation first emerges, with some terms acquiring a quite fixed use in association to certain animal figures; on the other hand, it is not possible to find and circumscribe an overarching category: although the group awt (nTry), which is usually recognised as the specialised designation for ‘sacred animals’,8 likely appears already in Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, it becomes of common use only in Late and Graeco-Roman periods. Rather, the lexical choices attested for the New Kingdom belong to the traditional Egyptian religious vocabulary and, as such, they reveal an attempt to frame Charron 1996a; 1996b; 2002: 174-177; 2005: 165; Dunad and Lichtenberg 2005: 77, n. 9 . Both pairs of concepts, according to the authors, highlight a basic opposition between individual specimens that were considered the living incarnation of a divine being and the masses of mummified animals that acquired religious value only via their burial and consecration to the gods as ex-votos. 8 Wb. I: 170.15-16. 7

161

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt a special animal presence and its practices within the cultural discourse of the (priestly) élite. Finally, these categories will remain at the core of the Egyptian interpretation of animal worship, though later sources show a slightly richer articulation and more variegated contexts for their application, including the possibility to compare Egyptian/Demotic and Greek terms.9 Three basic forms of predication can be identified in the textual record from the New Kingdom: nTr, bA, and wHm. The first one, nTr, is also the more problematic because of the delicate issue of its semantic field and related cultural implications, so discussion will be postponed at the end of this section. A second relevant and not less difficult term to understand is that of bA, ‘a uniquely Egyptian concept without any exact equivalent in other languages’ which refers to one of the key aspects or modes of being in the Egyptian conception of a person.10 An ‘external manifestation’, in the words of Alan Gardiner11, the bA is thoroughly described by Louis Žabkar ‘both as an entity which a being is or becomes and as a quality or an entity which a being possesses’.12 In one case, the term bA, usually marked by an epithet, is ‘often used as an equivalent for a god, indicating that the god is in a state in which his power is manifest’;13 in the second ‘the Ba which a god possesses is the manifestation of his power’ and is commensurate with the prominence of the deity14. It seems, therefore, with James Allen, that the notion of bA was built ‘from the point of view of an observer (…), personifying the impression that individuals make on the world around them or their effect on the others’.15 From this quick overview, it appears that the concept of bA intersects and relates to two other important notions: firstly, that of divinity and divine manifestation, as it regularly recurs to designate both the gods themselves and the deceased king (as a transfigured extra-human being).16 Sigfried Morenz strongly emphasises this point by explicitly remarking that ‘the chief characteristic of the ba was its divine nature’.17 The second meaningful connection is with the idea of power, namely of the awesome manifestation of a great power, as it is clear, for example, from numerous passages of the Pyramid Texts that correlate the bA with the term sxm (‘power/being powerful’)18 or other similar expressions.19 It is therefore through the bA that a divine being can manifest, take action, have tangible effects on his/her surroundings: ‘[i]t (i.e. the bA) was the deity’s visible face in the sensible realm of divine action’.20 In short, the bA allows a god to become present in the cosmos and, as such, to be accessible and approachable. Natural phenomena and inanimated objects, divine beings themselves, and, what is more relevant for the present discussion, (sacred) animals could work (and were understood) as multiple bAforms embodying the power of any individual deity.21 The idea of earthly, tangible manifestations of divine might or will, which were supposed to be encountered, recognised, and venerated by the living, appeared already in the Pyramid and Coffin Texts but developed significantly (in terms of both speculation and number of attestations) from the late New Kingdom down to the Graeco-

Kessler 1989: 7-11; cf. Colonna 2014b. The only comprehensive study remains Žabkar 1968 (quotation at p. 162). Useful summary and discussion also in Allen 2001 and Jának 2016; Žabkar 1975. 11 Gardiner 1957: 173. 12 Žabkar 1968: 160. 13 Žabkar 1968: 8. 14 Žabkar 1968: 11. 15 Allen 2001: 161. 16 Allen 2001: 161; Jának 2016: 2. This is especially apparent in Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom sources, notably in the Pyramid Texts. 17 Morenz 1992: 157. 18 Wb. IV: 245.10-248.21: ‘mächtig sein; Macht haben (über)’. 19 Žabkar 1968: 51-54. 20 Traunecker 2001: 33. 21 Žabkar 1968: 11-15. 9

10

162

Modelling Animal Worship Roman period. The first presentation of this conception is presented in the last section of the socalled ‘Book of the Heavenly Cow’:22 The bA of Shu is Khnum (var. ‘the wind’); the bA of Heh is the rain; the bA of Kekw is the night; the bA of Nun is Ra (var. ‘the water’); the bA of Osiris is the Ram of Mendes; the bAs of Sobek are the crocodiles; the bA of every god is in the snakes; the bA of Apophis is in the Eastern Mountain, while the bA of Ra works through the whole land.23

We find here an explicit theological formulation of the idea that certain animal agencies (both individuals and groups) represent the bA-manifestation of as many divine powers. In this regard, however, we must admit a substantial lack (or loss) of evidence of the bA-predication within the New Kingdom textual record in relation to specific contexts of animal worship. The most remarkable exception refers to the Apis bull and comes from P. Harris I, 44.9 (British Museum EA 9999), where the deceased king Ramses III is associated with the Memphite bull, and the latter is addressed as ‘your (i.e. of Ptah) noble bA, who is by your side’ (Hpw bA.k Sps nty r-gs.k).24 The passage stresses few significant aspects: the bA-concept gives formal expression to the link between the bull and the local god Ptah, while the orthography of the name of Apis shows the double determinative of the bull (E1) and of the seated bearded god (A40), which evidently signals the inclusion of the Apis bull within the (semantic) sphere of the divine.25 Apart from this mention, no further attestations of this form of predication are known from the New Kingdom neither for Apis nor for other animals. On the other hand, however, one should acknowledge that the name form pA-j.bA-Xt of the Buchis bull appearing on a 20th dynasty stela (likely) from Armant clearly points toward the crucial role of the bA-notion in the construction of the very religious identity of that bull as early as the Ramesside era.26 Variously interpreted,27 the name encodes the essential idea of the (divine) bA entering and inhabiting the animal body so as to make it a sacred being.28 Though indirectly, these facts together with the increasing number of later attestations (especially for the Graeco-Roman periods)29 reasonably suggest that the bA-predication was not so marginal in the conceptualisation of sacr(alis)ed animals. More importantly, the interpretative process fits with the theological activity of the New Kingdom which tries to explain the divine presence of a supreme god into the cosmos and to articulate the various aspects and modes of his presentification. This point is well illustrated by a passage of one of the Ramesside hymns dedicated to the god Amon, where it is declared that ‘His bA is in the sky, his body (Dt.f) is in the west, his image (Xnti.f) is in Southern Heliopolis (Armant) and wears his crowns’.30 The divine ‘image’ is first of all the cult statue inside the temple, which is ritually handled and prepared so that, through his bA, the god can install in it and manifest his power on earth. Likewise, as bA-forms of a deity, sacr(alis) ed animals provide additional physical support in which he/she can embody himself/herself and materialise his/her presence, thus serving as and being transformed into a ‘living cult image’31. Both possibilities, which are usually labelled in Egyptological literature as ‘inhabitation’ and ‘incarnation’,32 and which represent two critical areas of concern for the Egyptian actors, relies, according to their viewpoint, on the mediating role ascribed to the bA as ‘the vitality and divine Hornung 1982b; cf. also Guilhou 2010. Hornung 1982b: 26-27 (Vers. 278-286), 47. 24 Grandet 1994 I: 285; II: 166, n. 674. 25 This is, perhaps, because of the association with the god Ptah. Note that the determinative A40 marks also the noun bA and the adjective Sps. 26 Now in Moscow, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, I.1.a 7861; Hodjash and Berlev 1982: 152-153 (Nr. 92). 27 Hodjash and Berlev 1982: 152, ‘he who puts a soul into a body’ or ‘he who enlivens it’; Goldbrunner 2004: 132, ‘der, den den Leib immanent macht’ or ‘der, der mit dem der Leib immanent ist’; Fitzenreiter 2013: 81, ‘der, dem der Körper mit Ba-Kraft versehen ist’. 28 Cf. Goldbrunner 2004: 132-133. 29 Cf. Žabkar 1968: 13-14. 30 P. Leiden I 350, IV, 15-16 = Assmann 1999: 332-333 (138). 31 Cf. Hornung 1982a: 136-137; Meeks and Meeks 1994: 129. 32 Cf. Assmann 2002: 407-408, with particular reference to late Egyptian speculation. 22 23

163

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt substance which either gives life to inanimate material or elevates from within living earthly creatures’.33 The bA-predication, therefore, conceptualises the authoritative status of special animal beings within the religious practice, but it must be stressed, as it will be discussed later on, that such a role is not something given a priori as much as the product of precise and meaningful ritual actions performed over the animal(s). The third term, wHm(w), followed by the name of a deity, categorises the sacr(alis)ed animal as an ‘intermediary’ mediating between men and gods34 and appears to be restricted only to the individual bulls Apis and Mnevis, to which Buchis is added in later sources. Indeed, in all these cases, the wHm title is more common than the bA-predication. Accordingly, in the inscriptional record, Apis is often labelled as wHm (n) ptH, and Mnevis as wHm n ra, while both epithets are sometimes integrated by the further specification sar mAat n nfr Hr/tm. Attested as an honorific title as early as the Old Kingdom, wHm has the literal meaning of ‘one who repeats’, and is generally translated as ‘reporter’ or ‘herald’.35 In the religious context, the term is usually rendered as ‘intermediary’, in relation to the so-called ‘intermediary statues’ belonging to authoritative élite members and set up in the forecourts of temples so that they can intercede on behalf of the community (especially lower status people who had limited access to sacred areas inside the sanctuary) by transmitting petitions and requests to the local god. The style and vocabulary of the accompanying inscriptions, together with the spatial location of these monuments, explicitly identify their mediating role, as the contemporary statues C and D36 of the famous official Amenhotep son of Hapu who served under Amenhotep III demonstrate in exemplary fashion: O people of Ipet-sut, those who desire to see Amun, come to me. I will report (smi.i) your petitions (because) I am the herald/reporter of this god (wHmw n nTr pn). Nebmaatre caused me to repeat (wHm) the words of the Two Lands.37 O Upper and Lower Egypt, everyone who sees the sun-disk, those who come downstream and upstream to Thebes in order to make supplication to the Lord of the gods, come to me. I will report (smi.i) what you say to Amun in Ipet-sut (…) I am the herald/reporter (wHmw) whom the King has placed for hearing words of supplication (and) in order to present (sar, lit. ‘cause to ascend’) the desires of the Two Banks.38

The similar phraseology and the function of these monuments, therefore, invite to establish a comparison between this field of religious practice and the one focused around the Apis and Mnevis bulls. In this context, the wHm-predication, with the basic idea of repetition that it conveys, would characterise those single animals as special earthly avatars representing, respectively, the god Ptah and Ra, and mediating between them and the human world. How this mediation was supposed to operate is not entirely clear, yet the common vocabulary would suggest a specific role of the two bulls as ‘heralds’ or ‘messengers’ of the related high gods and, at the same time, it would evoke (for both situations) the interesting possibility of a connection to oracular procedures.39 Despite the chronological gap, this interpretation appears to be in keeping with later attested practices of animal worship, and particularly with the well-established Classical tradition on the prophetic function of the Apis bull; moreover, it would help clarify the following formula sar mAat n nfr Hr/tm, which occasionally integrates the wHm-title and literally means ‘the one who causes Maat to ascend to him with the beautiful face (i.e. Ptah)/Atum’.40 Within this oracular framework, Morenz 1992: 158. te Velde 1982: 161-163. 35 Wb. I: 344.7-17. 36 Respectively Cairo Museum JE 44862 (C) and 44861 (D). Nomenclature follows the system adopted by Varille 1968. 37 Varille 1968: 24-25 (Statue C, Text 9). 38 Varille 1968: 31 (Statue D, Text 12). 39 Morenz 1992: 102-103. 40 Cf. Otto 1964: 25-26, 38; Morenz 1992: 103. 33 34

164

Modelling Animal Worship and combined with wHm, this complex expression is understood as referring to the capacity of the two bulls to communicate, on the one hand, the requests of the petitioners and, on the other hand, the responses of the addressed high god. A different explanation can be proposed, however, if one considers the striking similarity in the phraseology adopted (sar mAat n + divine recipient) between this epithet and the offering formula for the dedication of Maat, as it occurs in textual references to this rite.41 The crucial point is that the so-called ‘presentation of Maat’, which is a typical theme in the monumental decorative programme of the Ramesside period, represents, at the same time, ‘an archetypal offering’ and a ‘potent expression of the legitimacy of the King’ 42, who alone can perform in front of the gods and act as their privileged partner in a reciprocal as much as exclusive relationship. Accordingly, the apparent transfer of this capacity to the Apis and Mnevis bulls implies parallelism between them and the king, with the acknowledgement of a similar royal status. The correlation has profound theological implications inasmuch as, by modelling the association single animal-local high god after the royal prototype, it introduces kingship as a distinctive criterion that separates individuals from multiple animals. This conceptual and ideological frame will be developed further in later speculation when only single specimens like Apis, Mnevis, and the Ram of Mendes enjoy a full royal recognition, being explicitly labelled as ‘king’ or ‘sovereign’ of all the sacred animals.43 A final consideration on the two terms just presented will lead us into the discussion of the category nTr/nTry in relation to sacr(alis)ed animals. Both modes of predication (bA; wHmw), to which one can add the formula sar mAat n + GN for Apis and Mnevis, mention individual divine agencies in association to specific animal beings (both single and multiple). In doing so they do not claim an identity between the two but clearly establish a hierarchical relationship, a subordination of the latter towards the former within a sophisticated theological framework that emphasises the animal’s role as a visible manifestation (bA) and an intermediary (wHm) of a superior power. These predications, therefore, conceptualise the religious efficacy of the animals addressed as an effective interface for private individuals to be engaged with in order to produce communication and proximity with the realm of the divine (Gottesnähe). On the other hand, the inscriptional record regarding the Apis and the Mnevis bulls unequivocally shows that these single specimens also bore the title of nTr aA (‘great god’), and thus could be categorised as nTr-beings, while the hieratic inscription on a pottery fragment dating to the Ramesside period (München ÄS 1383) and supposed to have contained the corpse of a dead ibis refers to the bird as ‘the noble sacred ibis’ (pA hAb nTry Spsy). The possibility to designate an animal as the subordinate manifestation of a high deity and, at the same time, as a ‘god’ (nTr) in its own right certainly sounds like a contradiction in terminis. The problem is sometimes bypassed by assuming, mainly on the basis of the funerary character of the material, that this form of predication ascribes a divine status only to dead animals because, as Dieter Kessler explicitly comments, ‘Die einzelnen toten Tiere sind, wenn mumifiziert und deifiziert, alle “Götter”, in der Einzahl “Gott”’.44 While there is ample documentation, mostly coming from Graeco-Roman contexts, confirming that mummified and properly buried animals, just like humans, were thought to become nTrw, there is also room to think that, in the case of single individuals like Apis and Mnevis, the term nTr could well apply to the living specimens. Later evidence like the ‘Tanis Georaphical Papyrus’ and the so-called ‘Book of the Temple’ give support to this idea, with the latter text containing a clear reference to the living Apis bull as nTr pn (‘this god’)45, and despite the chronological distance, it seems reasonable to suggest that a such a conceptualisation was already operating as early as the New Kingdom. Cf. Teeter 1997: 49, n. 2, 5, 7-9. The scholar notes that the verb sar (‘to cause to ascend’) appears only in literary allusions to the rite while monumental scenes in both temple and funerary context make use of the more precise term Hnk (‘to present’). 42 Teeter 1997: 82, with following discussion on the meaning of the rite. 43 Discussion in Colonna 2014: 106-107. 44 Kessler 1989: 11. 45 Cf. Colonna 2014: 107-108 for a general overview of the two documents. On the definition of the living Apis bull as nTr in the Book of the Temple, cf. Quack 2003: 117. 41

165

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Then, in order to resolve the (apparent) contradiction noted above, one has to look more closely at the semantic field of the Egyptian word nTr. While it is commonly, and often uncritically, rendered as ‘god’ in the modern sense mediated by and built upon the Classical/Biblical tradition, the lexical analysis produced by Dimitri Meeks has convincingly demonstrated that ‘[l]a “ritualité” est le dénominateur commun du “divin”’ and that, accordingly, ‘[e]st “dieu” tout ce qui a été introduit dans cet état par le rite, et/ou y est maintenu par le rite’.46 If so, it becomes possible to make a major distinction between ‘ce qui est “dieu” depuis la creation, et qui appatient à l’“imaginaire”, et ce qui devien “dieu” à la suite d’un rite, et qui appartient au “réel” (…). The first group consists of the gods (stricto sensu) of the Egyptian pantheon (e.g. the great gods of the Ennead), who are made present and relatable in the cult, while the second includes everything that is introduced into a ‘divine’ state (nTr) through ritual action: ‘[d]ans les deux sous-catégories, la permanence du rite est indispensable à la durèe de l’état divin et à son actualisation’. Then, within this second class, i.e. ‘[a] u sen de ce qui devient “dieu” par l’effet d’un rite, on distingue ce qui peut accéder (…) à cet état de son vivant (le roi seul) et ce qui n’y accède qu’après la mort’.47 This intellectual model allows a more nuanced (etic) understanding and classification of what the Egyptian mind concpetualises (emically) as nTr/nTry, clearly drawing the borders of the category so as to critically (re)assess the inclusion of special animal agencies and contextualise their religious value: first of all, the nTr-predication refers to sacr(alis)ed animals, as well as to many other ritualised entities, as beings that become ‘god’ through rites, and accordingly distinguishes them from those extra-human agencies (high deities) that are ‘god’ since the time of creation, whose presence, therefore, the rites actualise within the temple area. The difference, therefore, is one of degree and perspective, rather than a sharp ontological distinction: Apis and Mnevis can be labelled as bA or ‘intermediary’-form (wHm) of a god (Ptah, Ra, Atum) to express their relation with that deity (or even more than one) within the framework of a local (e.g. Memphite or Heliopolite) cultic landscape and theological system. On the other hand, they can be designated as nTr-beings to emphasise their quality of effective religious agents participating in ritual contexts. In this regard, moreover, while single individuals (like Apis, Mnevis, and the Ram of Mendes) become endowed with such a special condition during their lifetime through the appropriate rites accompanying their identification and enthronement, multiple mummified animals (like the ibis mentioned in the Ramesside inscription quoted above) can acquire a similar status (and designation) only post mortem through the funerary rituals. This distinction becomes more and more visible in the record as one moves into later periods when, on the one hand, more explicit sources inform us of the procedures for the selection and the ceremonies for the public coronation of single specimens and, on the other hand, the impressive archaeological evidence of the animal necropolis scattered through all Egypt attests the expansion of this kind of practices, and gives physical reality to the textual claims of the multitude of nTrw buried. Despite the limitations in the content and distribution of the data, New Kingdom contexts fit with this reconstruction and conceptual framework: apart from the monumental remains of the grandiose funerary sphere, a ‘festival of the Apis bull’ is known already from the Old Kingdom and could be tentatively related to the installation of the selected specimen, although its focus remains unknown, while pictorial depictions suggest that an actual process of selection based on a specific set of physical marks had been developed or formalised; the participation of Apis in the Sed-festival continues to be attested on Hatshepsut’s reliefs and points to a well defined individual role; the sparse textual information concerning a royal donation of lands on behalf of Mnevis as well as the existence of a court of cows and calves around the the bull similarly indicate that the living animal was the centre of an articulated system of relationship; the stelae of Sobek and those from the Salakhana Trove visually illustrate the difference in rank between single and multiple animals, even though the distinction lacks any precise verbal articulation.

46 47

Meeks 1988: 430, 444. Meeks 1988: 445.

166

Modelling Animal Worship Ultimately, two points emerge from this review and are particularly relevant in a broad theoretical perspective: the condition of nTr(y) (‘god/divine’) (1) is a matter of context and gradation rather than a completely different nature, and (2) it is ritually sanctioned or defined. For the period before the New Kingdom, it is difficult to identify explicit formulations on the religious status of the animals involved but some aspects can be remarked: the addition of the divine determinatives to the names of single individuals, occasionally attested in the Pyramid and Coffin Texts, may be understood as context-dependent, being motivated by their inclusion in the mythological sphere evoked by funerary discourse, rather than as a reference to their actual status and role in religious practice; at least, however, it reflects their strong value as powerful cultural images to be exploited for ideological purposes (as the characterisation of the otherworldly expectations of the deceased). The biography of Henqu, on the other hand, apparently includes a passage with the first attestation of the notion that certain animals were respected as bA-forms of a deity, although its reading and interpretation remain controversial. Furthermore, the toponym swnw n sbkw could provide a hint of a (metaphorical) conceptualisation of the religious meaning ascribed to a group of crocodiles associated with the local cult of Sobek, predating and giving textual content to the later iconographic motif of multiple crocodiles displayed on the Ramesside stelae. Of course, all this evidence is too sparse and too laconic to propose any reconstruction of a consistent ideological framework, but it seems to suggest that the religious interpretation of sacr(alis)ed animals does not receive particular attention or formalisation – at least, it does not emerge as an important aspect from the inscriptional record – before the New Kingdom, and only then it develops into a significant focus of interest, in keeping with the contemporary theological discourse. The lack of precise, unequivocal terminology does not mean, of course, that emic ideas or information could not be encoded and expressed in non-textual and pictorial forms. The prestigious status of selected individuals can be inferred from onomastic patterns including meaningful references to their role for the ancient actors as well as from royal monuments displaying. The prominence of the Apis bull (with his distinctive appearance and set of ritual performances) in both fields is highly illustrative of such an acknowledgement and represents a rich and articulated configuration that is useful for comparison with other, less detailed contexts and figures (like the ‘white bull’ or the Hesatcow), while also complementing the contemporary inscriptional record (starting with the early annalistic mentions). On the other hand, the depiction of multiple unmarked animals (crocodiles and canids) on Ramesside stelae, often in association with a well-characterised individual (living specimen; statue; standard), gives material expression to the general interpretative pattern of the bA-theology and also conveys the idea of a distinction in rank between single and multiple animals. In the above-mentioned stelae, this difference assumes the form of a hierarchical relationship between a unique specimen (or a statue), showing distinctive attributes, and the rest of the species, acting as a kind of royal court. The early ‘Scene of the Pelicans’ from the solar temple of Niuserra, however, reminds us that nuances and variations related to local contexts of religious practice must be assumed and that small groups could represent a major focus in temple cults as well, being engaged (and conceptualised) according to specific, complex ideological frameworks. The ‘Rite of driving the calves’ shows, with its long duration, how such frames of reference eventually developed and become extremely rich and elaborated. 6.4 The sacralisation of the animals: a ritual and semantic process The foregoing observations revolve around and put emphasis on a crucial point: sacrality is not a static quality inherent to the animal per se but a dynamic condition that is produced and induced through ritual actions performed within restricted contexts and specific situations. While the analysis of the Egyptian category of nTr(y) allows us to articulate this point emically, the other forms of predication discussed (bA; wHm) similarly offer an insight into the Egyptian ways of understanding and (re)constructing such an engagement with a significant animal presence as 167

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt the core of religious experience. The sacralisation of animals (individuals and groups) concerns their transformation into meaningful religious objects and this implies that meaning is shaped through action and embodied in tangible form, and then it may be elaborated and communicated in multiple ways. There is a number of relevant aspects to this statement. Firstly, as a domain of religious practice, ‘animal worship’ relates to animals as a focus of action, and specifically to how they act and are acted upon in ritual settings. In this regard, their integration and participation are not confined to any single content or fixed aspect, rather they encompass a wide spectrum of activities and related material configurations including: maintaining of selected specimens within temple domains; listing of animals in temple inventories of materia sacra; use for cultic purposes and oracular practices; funerary treatment and burials in the necropolis. In all these cases, the animal is to be recognised as a cultic object, namely as a ritually empowered instrument, the manipulation of which allows the communication and negotiation with the extra-human sphere.48 In the words of Martin Fitzenreiter, ‘[d]ie altägyptischen Agenten ein Mittel besaßen, religiöse Praxis auszuüben’.49 Here, the notion of agency (the capacity to act and to function as a social other) and its conceptual development as the core of Alfred Gell’s anthropological theory may provide a productive framework within which to explore the role of sacr(alis)ed animals in ritual contexts and in their interaction with both the human and divine realm as it allows for a nuanced understanding of animals as a category of beings capable of taking (or receiving) meaningful actions, and thus entering a dynamic system of relationships.50 For the purposes of analysis, they can be better conceptualised as secondary agents, that is, according to Gell’s definition, ‘entities not endowed with will or intention by themselves but essential to the formation, appearance, or manifestation of intentional actions’.51 As such, sacr(alis)ed animals provide a medium for action, functioning as the extension, materialisation, and manifestation – indexes in Gell’s terms – of the primary agency of the human performer(s) and participant(s) as well as of the divine entities which they are associated with. They gain their agency and meaning from being used in ritual settings specifically designed for various religious purposes, and by virtue of being enmeshed in multiple relationships with human and extra-human partners. Accordingly, from a religious perspective, sacr(alis)ed animals are skilfully crafted ritualised objects that are experienced as capable of acting in meaningful ways upon the surrounding social environment in order to bring about results and evoke responses that are relevant to the ancient Egyptian actors at both individual and social level. Of course, the modes of action can vary, as the goals and the criteria behind the selection of the appropriates animals, also depending on the official (royal/temple) or private framework: the early ‘running of the Apis bull’ (pHrr Hp) and its integration into the royal ceremony of the Hbsd have king and kingship as the main referents and beneficiaries of the ritual action; similarly, the maintenance of single individuals (the various bovine figures; perhaps, the Ram of Mendes) and selected groups (e.g. the pelicans of Niuserra’s sun-temple) within the temple domain is instrumental to the performance of the religious practice that takes place in the restricted context of the cult, while certainly from the New Kingdom it is explicitly exploited as the materialisation (one among other possibilities) of a specific divine presence. On the other hand, the development of burial practices of multiple animals (the Ramesside vessel), the possible oracular tradition linked to certain individuals (the wHm-predication and the Maat-based epithet of Apis and Mnevis), and the dedication of votive stelae (from Sumenu and Asyut) illustrate forms of (at least in part) private engagement with animal agents. The crucial point is that the agency and religious meaning ascribed to the sacr(alis)ed animals are not (just) something that is declared or encoded in symbolic associations. Rather, they are enacted and marked by specific strategies and choices that allows drawing a distinction with ordinary creatures and establishing an authoritative status Cf. Colonna 2017: 109; 2018: 446-447. Fitzenreiter 2003: 25. 50 Gell 1998. 51 Gell 1998: 36. 48 49

168

Modelling Animal Worship for those selected: it is the combination of (1) the physical appearance and morphological traits of the specimen(s), (2) the cultural knowledge assigning particular qualities or values to those traits and, most importantly, (3) the ritual performance through which they are manipulated that transform them into powerful agents of religious practice. While physical features and cultural knowledge signals the potentials of certain animals, it is the ritual handling that ultimately ratifies their prestigious rank and activates their agentive role. The case of the Apis bull is particularly instructive in this regard. The colouring and patterns of the animal’s hide, which are possibly attested as early as the 1st dynasty, provided the main (but likely not only) markers for his identification and were certainly part of a secret religious knowledge belonging to the priest class that read those features as signs of a more elaborate symbolical (even cosmological) system – a practice that is well-known from later Egyptian and Classical sources.52 Yet, it is only when such knowledge was put into practice that a new Apis became active or, from the Egyptian perspective, started reigning. That is, it is only the formal installation, ritually performed and displayed at the death of his predecessor within an appropriate spatial setting and according to a precise set of procedures, that actually (and officially) established the individual bull as an effective religious entity, a ritually empowered agent of king-like and god-like (nTr[y]) status. Once enthroned, the bull could actively participate in complex ceremonies aimed at the legitimation and/or confirmation of the royal authority, be publicly approached and consulted on the occasion of oracular responses, and, finally, be celebrated and remembered through impressive funerals. Sacr(alis)ed animals, therefore, are religiously significant not (just) as mere symbols relating to some other gods but as real agents mediating, distributing, and expanding the capacity of their human users and/or divine referents to act efficiently within a controlled ritual context and affect their world to achieve an end. A second related aspect to consider is context because, as Christopher Tilley puts it, ‘[m]eaning is created out of situated, contextualized social action’.53 This general, theoretical statement can be articulated in two directions with regard to the specific case study of Egyptian ‘animal worship’. On the one hand, there is liminality. While the meaning and scope of the religious agency acquired by sacr(alis)ed animals are the product of ritualisation (sensu Bell), their construction, experience, and identification take place within a restricted liminal context, where that value and that efficacy are both negotiated and regularly (re)affirmed. The regular inclusion of an animal presence (individuals and/or groups) within temple areas and the burials in the necropolis – both secluded spaces with a strong and apparent liminal character – clearly exemplify this point and represent for us two particularly accessible fields marked by highly detailed and rich documentation. On the other hand, spatial contextualisation plays a not irrelevant part in the very process of ritualisation, as it provides a location to ritual strategies and to the perceived – constructed, to be more precise – difference between sacred and profane. In brief, following Johnatan Z. Smith, ‘[s]acrality is, above all, a category of emplacement’.54 Accordingly, the sacralisation of specific animals – their establishing as powerful agencies ritually empowered and manipulated – is something that needs to be performed (to be placed) in an appropriate setting in order to become effective and to be recognised as such. The spatial transition from the outside (ordinary) world to the liminal (significant) zones of the temple and/or the necropolis marks the change(s) in status ritually induced on the animal(s). Ritual space is not a mere background but an active component in the construction, maintenance, and renovation of the religious identities of sacred animals, a role that is partially evoked by the sources (e.g. the passage of Debeheni’s biography or the relief from the sun temple of Sahure).

On the subject, see Vos 1998. Tilley 2001: 260. 54 Smith 1992: 104. 52 53

169

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt A third concatenated point to be addressed concerns relationality. It has been already noted above, but now it becomes clear that, from a ‘practical’ perspective, religious agency and meaning of the sacr(alis)ed animals do not stand by themselves but only occur in a network of relationships between human, non-human (animals) and extra-human (gods) partners that are enacted through ritual.55 As for the sacred animals’ agentive role, using Gell’s theory, it is possible to propose two further refinements. On the one hand, from his relational, transitive, and contextbound understanding of agency there follows that ‘in any given transaction in which agency is manifested, there is a “patient” who or which is another “potential” agent, capable of acting as an agent or being a locus of agency’, while agent/patient interactions usually assume complex and hierarchical forms.56 These chains of relationships can be identified in different configurations of ‘animal worship’: in the case of single living specimens kept in temples, (a) the animal’s physical appearance and features impose its selection onto the human performers; (b) they proceed to its official installation in the temple, recognising its powerful (king-, and god-like) status and establishing (surely from the New Kingdom) an association with a specific deity (or more than one) thought to become manifest in the animal host through his bA; (c) the newly appointed (enthroned) individual actively takes part in various ritual performances (royal festivals; oracular practices) that are designed to achieve important effects (legitimation of central authority; mediation with the divine sphere; response to individual concerns) as well as to impact on the participants/ spectators. The Ramesside animal stelae add a further level of interaction: (a) multiple, apparently unmarked, living specimens are selected (?) to be kept in temple areas next to the single individual and/or to other material manifestations of the local god (standard; statue); (b) these groups likely appear in public processional events where they reinforce, extend and multiply the efficacy of the divine presence embodied by the single marked animal or objectified in the god’s standard, stimulating the material response of the participants in the form of the dedicated stelae. Finally, in the funerary sphere, (a) the handling and burial of multiple animals transform them into effective items (nA nTrw as they are labelled in later documents) which, in turn, (b) display the donor’s Gottesnähe and encourage divine intervention toward his/her personal needs. Ultimately, once ritually manipulated sacred animals become powerful ‘social’ others that can interact at multiple levels, being able to affect and evoke meaningful responses from the surrounding social context. On the other hand, Gell’s theoretical framework also provides us with the (etic) conceptual tools to reframe the Egyptians’ (emic) notions and intellectual mechanisms of structuring religious engagement with special animal agencies. In presenting the controversial issues of ‘idolatry’ and of the use and value of cult statues,57 Alfred Gell identifies two basic cognitive strategies for attributing agency to inanimate objects, the externalist and the internal: The first of these strategies consists of animating the idol by simply stipulating for it a role as a social other. The second consists of providing it with a homunculus, or space for a homunculus, or turning it into a homunculus within some larger entity.58

Both mechanisms are mirrored in the ancient Egyptian theological discourse and cult practice related to divine and funerary statues,59 but they are also relevant for the present discussion. The On ritual and relationality, cf. Houseman 2006: 413-420. He highlights that ‘“the particular realities” people enact when they participate in rituals are relationships’, which ‘may also involve various non-human entities: spirits, gods, ancestors, animals, objects, places, liturgical formulae and so forth’ (Houseman 2006: 415, 416). 56 Gell 1998: 22. 57 Gell 1998: 96-154. In the introduction to the chapter, Gell himself recognises the pejorative connotation that the notion of ‘idolatry’ has in the Western tradition, but notwithstnading declares: ‘rather than resort to some vague or misleading circumlocution I prefer to call the practice of worshipping images by its true name, deeming it better to explain idolatry, rather than rechristen it by showing that it emanates, not from stupidity or superstition, but from the same fund of sympathy which allows us to understand the human, nonartefactual, “other” as a copresent being, endowed with awareness, intentions, and passions akin to our own’ (Gell 1998: 96). 58 Gell 1998: 133. 59 For an application of Gell’s theory of material agency to the context of New Kingdom private temple statues, cf. Kjølby 2009: 38-42 (specifically on the two cognitive strategies at issues). In his discussion of the externalist mode of agency attribution, Gell himself (1998: 55

170

Modelling Animal Worship internal strategy consists of conceiving an object (e.g. a statue) as the container of an inner person or mind that grants it the capacity to act, and finds a parallel in the ancient Egyptian notion of the bA as a mighty divine manifestation that can install (Einwohnung), unite with and become present in earthly objects and animate them from the inside. As already noted above, starting with the New Kingdom, the concept was developed into a sophisticated knowledge to explain the relationship between a god and his material forms, including natural phenomena and animals. In the framework of ritual performance, the bA-predication is used to reconfigure and define the role those animals (as well as of the statues) play in that context as empowered entities that are approachable and able to take action. The identification of sacred animals as ‘social other’ occurs at two levels. On the one hand, judging mainly from the more explicit New Kingdom evidence, the presence of single and multiple animals in temple context is arranged hierarchically, with the selected individual acting as a prominent royal figure surrounded by its own harem and court. On the other hand, they are addressed as real partners that can be interacted with in the structured relational environment of religious practice: the running Apis bull appears as an equal to the king already in the Early Dynastic period, while the ceremonial installation of living specimens, their feeding and keeping within appropriate spaces, the regular presenting of offerings, the procedures and beliefs sustaining their funerary treatment (Opening of the Mouth; burial; osirisation) represent as many ritualised actions that make the sacr(alis)ed animals the focus of attention of the priests and the human participants. At the same time, in return for this attention, they become active in the extra-human sphere on behalf of the living, mediating and facilitating communication between the two domains (wHm-predication; sar mAat n + GN-epithet; single/multiple animals’ burials) for both public and private purposes. The two strategies may of course overlap and complement each other as practical and conceptual modes of structuring the perception of and interaction with sacr(alis)ed animal agencies as a meaningful religious experience. The crucial point to remember is that the extraordinary religious quality of this experience stems from relational configurations, integrative contexts, and ritually designed circumstances where agentive roles are assigned and physical interactions regulated. A relational framework also emerges from the typical New Kingdom forms of predication that are used to denote the religious meaning of the sacred animals. Grounded on the ritually enacted relationships connecting the animal, human and divine participants, these statements encode and give verbal expression to those links: the bA-designation identify the animal agency as the manifestation of an impressive power that relates, on the one hand, to the divine person behind it and, on the other hand, to the human viewers and performers who are affected by such manifestation; the wHm-predication as well defines the position of selected individuals in relation to the specific deity that they represent on earth as ‘heralds’. This leads us to the last aspect, conceptualisation, which concerns the verbal formulation, the formalisation, and communication of the effective religious status induced in the sacr(alis)ed animal(s) and activated through ritual action. The acquired condition can be labelled as nTr(y), thus designating the living or dead animal as a religious object, or it can be articulated via other complex predications (bA, wHm, wsir, etc.) that express, in the sophisticated language of official theology, the association or identification of the animal with specific divine characters. The choice between the different alternatives or their combination likely depends on the circumstances, and it is often difficult to determine exactly the reasons behind it. On the other hand, these labels should be understood as the expression of ideological speculations, developed mainly in the sphere of the priestly élite, which try to interpret and explain the role of the animal as a powerful medium of religious practice. This meaning, to resume the initial premise, is not rooted in an intrinsic sacred nature of the animal (individual or group) as such – an essential and awe-inspiring ganz Andere 133-137) uses the daily temple ritual as key exemple.

171

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt – but is the outcome of a transformative process of ritual manipulation, of which epithets and predications represent the subsequent theological interpretation. It is not that ‘animals as such possessed religious significance for the Egyptians’, as Henri Frankfort thought following Otto’s idea of the numinous,60 rather their significance is situational, relational, and bound to the context of practice that de facto produces it and allows for reflection over it. Sacred is a matter of ritual strategies or, in other words, no animal is sacred per se before it is established as such through the rite. While this understanding of ‘animal worship’ admittedly emphasises practice and action over beliefs and texts, it recognises the interplay between these two aspects, i.e., that ritual and semantic activation are strictly interlaced and resonate with each other: once activated as a focus of religious practice and as a mediator of religious agency, the sacred animal becomes also available as an object of conceptualisation, religious display, and speculation. Labels and pictures, therefore, can add levels of meaning and (re)configure the role of animals and their manipulation within a system of (theological) interpretation that is articulated in, and restricted by, the material forms of the ‘monumental discourse’. A number of relevant implications follow from this consideration. First of all, the different modes of conceptualisation of the religious status and agentive role of sacred animals represent a secondary elaboration stemming from their practical use and handling in ritual contexts, i.e., they are a correlate of religious practice. In this perspective, they function primarily as part of a ritual lexicon for defining the identities and establishing the authority of the actors involved. Secondly, these forms of predication are circumstantial products, historically and culturally embedded. The meanings (epithets and appellations) assigned to animals, therefore, are not fixed nor immutable but may change and expand through time (as they did) as the result of the continuous intellectual effort of the ancient Egyptian actors. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Egyptian interest in conceptualisation and explicit speculation does not feature prominently in the available sources and, on the other hand, appears particularly tied to a precise historicalcultural horizon: while the integration of selected animals into religious practice is well attested since the Early Dynastic period, the development of an exegetic model to explain such participation is a phenomenon that acquires marked visibility in the record only starting with the New Kingdom, being strongly connected to the elaboration of the bA-theology and the doctrine of the divine images.61 It is certainly significant and not accidental that, despite a possible early and informal formulation in the biography of Henqu, the application of the bA-formula to sacr(alis)ed animals (both individuals and groups) is coeval and consistent with this theoretical framework, though – it has been noted – not as common as its use in relation to the cultic and funerary statues. Two examples can be produced to illustrate this point – predications and interpretive strategies as circumstantial products – in a diachronic perspective. A first case is provided by the most renowned among the sacr(alis)ed animals, i.e. the Apis bull. Looking at the sources, it appears that Apis is never associated with the god Ptah before the mid/late New Kingdom when the link is expressed via the bA- and (especially) wHm-predication; moreover, the bull does not display those solar attributes (sun-disc and uraeus) that become common on stelae and monuments only from that moment on. Early inscriptional and pictorial material focuses mainly on the distinctive behavioural feature of the animal and its ceremonial character (pHrr-Hp; Hb-Hp?), the connection with kingship and its celebration (Sed-festival), and the general ideas of authority, strength, and virility (Pyramid and Coffin Texts; biography of Ankhtify and private funerary inscriptions). There is no mention of Ptah and no reference to a process of solarisation, while the conceptualisation of the religious status of the Apis bull is not explicitly articulated. This absence could be imputed to the 60 61

Frankfort 1948:12-13. Assmann 2001: 40-47; Kjølby 2009.

172

Modelling Animal Worship archaeological chance, but it is more reasonable to conclude from the distribution of the evidence that the alleged permanent association with Ptah is, in fact, a recent theological development, which yet had become well-acquired at the time of the first funerary installations of the Serapeum under Amenhotep III. Of course, this is not to say that the early manifestations of Apis were not correlated and supported by any form of ideology, as the connection with the maternal figure of the Hesat-cow also seems to indicate, but the latter does not seem to receive any specific attention in terms of extended formulations or distinctive iconography. Focus remains on ritual action and practical dimension rather than on theological interpretation, which, accordingly, should be historically understood as a later achievement. At the opposite end of the chronological spectrum, onomastica, encyclopedic lists, and religious monographs dating to the Late and Graeco-Roman periods attest to the significant enrichment of the interpretive framework, with its conceptual system and related vocabulary, promoted by the intellectual (priestly) élite. These texts, which combine scientific observations, sacred knowledge, and mythological allusions, introduce new modes of predication to explain the relationship between animals and divine powers.62 The phraseology includes the term xprw (‘manifestations’, ‘transformations’), the construction aHa.f n GN (‘he stands for GN’), and the nominal pattern GN pw (‘it is GN’). The papyrus Jumilhac – a so-called Gaumonographie of the 17th and 18th Upper Egyptian nomes – is especially illustrative in this regard.63 The text contains a section (XV, 9-XVI, 22) that lists and describes ten canids, giving information about their physical appearance (in particular the color of the hide), the deities each animal is associated with, their veneration and burial, and, occasionally, also a mythological explanation for the specific colouring or behaviour of the specimen.64 The fact that, in some cases, the divine relationship is formulated using all the three patterns mentioned above is of some interest because, unless it is the result of an unsystematic combination of different sources with different terms to express the same idea, their adoption may reflect a kind of conceptual hierarchisation in the articulation of multiple associations between one specimen and different deities. 65 Unfortunately, the compilatory character of the papyrus does not allow for a definite answer, but the fact itself of a certain variety in the roster of the divine referents evoked is both noteworthy and indicative of the general procedure: theological predication as a dynamic interpretation of the animal as an effective medium and agent of religious practice. It should be incidentally noted that, like bA and wHm, these forms of predication are not specifically designed for, nor restricted to, animals but apply to a wide range of materia sacra including animated and inanimated entities (trees, plants, minerals). All these items represent aspects of a complex local religious landscape and pieces of an elaborated knowledge that has the temple as its centre of production and store. In this perspective, so-called ‘animal worship’ is, according to Alexandra von Lieven, ‘eine logische Weiterentwicklung der Vorstellung von einer allgemeinen und grundsätzlichen Göttlichkeit der Natur’.66 This conception relies on a process of semiosis and interpretation, for which Jan Assmann has coined the term ‘sacramental explanation’ (Sakramentale Ausdeutung), by means of which two fundamental spheres of ancient Egyptian religious experience – the cultic and the cosmic dimensions of divine presence – were imbued with meaning.67 Temple cult and cosmos (i.e. the natural world lato sensu), therefore, became dynamic arenas for sophisticated interpretive strategies that (re)constructed their sacral meaning by establishing the realm of the gods and myth as their frame of reference. Above and beyond the basic structure of Focused discussion in von Lieven 2003; 2004. Cf. also the overview in Fitzenreiter 2013: 148-154. Louvre E17110: Vandier 1960. Cf. von Lieven 2004: 160-162. 64 Cf. Vandier 81-96 (discussion), 127-128 (translation). 65 The case of wnS-wolf (XV, 10-11) displays all the three patterns (pw; aHa.f n GN ; xprw) in relation respectively to Anubis, Wpwawt and Isdes (here a form of Anubis); the first Tzm-dog (XV, 18) is linked to Horus (pw-predication) and Anti (aHa.f n GN) while the second Tzm-dog (XV, 23) to Anubis (pw-predication) and Wpwawt (aHa.f n GN). Cf. Vandier 1960: 126. For the difficulties in understanding the semantic value and the nunaces of the different conceptual patterns, cf. Vandier 1960: 81-83; von Lieven 2003: 126; Fitzenreiter 2013a: 153. 66 von Lieven 2004: 167; 2003: 129. 67 An informed discussion on the basic structure of this interpretive strategy in Assmann 1992; 2005: 349-368. On the articulation of Egyptian religious experience in three major dimensions of divine presence, labelled as ‘cultic’, ‘cosmic’ and ‘mythic’, cf. Assmann 2001: 6-10, 17-52, 53-82, 83-110. 62 63

173

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt physical reality and religious practice, the ancient Egyptian theological discourse built an intricate web of significations, which expanded and stratified over time and reached its peak in the GraecoRoman period, as this type of texts also demonstrates. The multiplicity of divine associations set up to explain the religious role of animals in ritual context (as well as of other cultic items or natural features), therefore, fit in, and belong to, this intellectual process. Comparison with this later material is instructive as it not only confirms the secondary, historically contingent, and developing character of the Egyptian theological discourse, but also introduces a last important point: ideological conceptualisation, as it is transposed in monumentalised visual and textual forms, confronts us not with actual but with interpreted practice. Images and inscriptions reconfigure the actions performed in ritual context as fixed themes displayed according to formal, standardised visual and verbal patterns, imposed and regulated by the rules of decorum. 6.5 Reconfiguring ‘animal worship’: practice, display, history Religious experience is rooted in human action and does not exist independently of this practical dimension while, of course, belonging to the sphere of culture and its manifestation through specific techniques and media. Accordingly, ‘animal worship’ is here reframed as a field of religious practice and display. Expanding the definition already given, it is argued that ‘animal worship’ is more productively understood as a recurrent segment of religious practice in which the ‘sacralisation’ (nTr/nTry) of single or multiple animals (living or dead), within cultic and independent context, (1) plays a central role in the process of manipulation of and mediation with the extra-human domain, and (2) is thematised as a central object of monumental religious display. Shifting from a purely descriptive approach (the veneration of animals as gods), and departing from previous textual-oriented perspectives, this definition will be taken as the starting point of a critical reassessment of the whole question, as it encapsulates some key points that replace the current terms of the debate, so as to show what might be gained from a broad theoretical discussion that focuses more strongly on (contexts of ) action and display. Placing these aspects at the centre of the analysis, a number of arguments will be raised concerning both the conceptual dimension and the historical articulation of ‘animal worship’, and related to the specific sets of evidence collected. Finally, it is worth reminding that any definition, including the one proposed in this study, is just a synthetic formula reflecting a general perspective or a more articulated framework through which a religious-historical fact is circumscribed and characterised, matching, arranging, connecting, as efficiently as possible, patterns of available data. It is thus part of this intellectual effort and must be tested as an operative tool according to its efficacy in representing the object of inquiry. 6.5.1 Rethinking ‘animal worship’: conceptual analysis Rethinking ‘animal worship’ according to the theoretical outline and the material-based approach designed above offers the opportunity to explore emic and etic possibilities, that is to analyse ancient material within the framework of our conceptual system or, to put it differently, to build an etic (analytical) grid for emic contents. The productive combination of these viewpoints allows (re) assessing the cultural and religious significance that ancient Egyptian actors assigned to features – objects and concepts, practices and contexts – of ‘animal worship’ against the background of modern research, countering, to a certain extent, the limitations in the informative character of the sources as well as in their fragmented distribution. In this regard, the approach provides insight on three main levels or aspects that emerge from the evidence:68 (1) the animals themselves The distinction between these three analytic levels overlaps with the similar tripartition in Objekt, Handlung, and Deutung proposed by Martin Fitzenreiter (2013: 193-200). The similarity clearly reflects a convergence of perspective and certainly the following discussion draws on, and tries to expand, the valuable comments of the German scholar. This also confirms the theoretical value of a material68

174

Modelling Animal Worship as religious objects or agents of ritual practice; (2) the actions focused around those objects and aimed at their religious activation and manipulation; (3) the interpretive process to formulate and communicate the meaning of both animals and actions, i.e., theological explanation. 6.5.1.1 Animals The very notion of ‘animal worship’, with all the conceptual tensions and ambiguities that it carries, revolves around the key role played by specific living and dead animals (both individuals and groups) in restricted ritual contexts. They serve, together with their variable set of material correlates (e.g. stelae), as effective agents of religious practice that are variously integrated, used, and manipulated in different ritual configurations (official royal/temple ceremonies; funerary performances), according to different – unfortunately, not well-known and only partially reconstructable – practical strategies (procedures of selection/enthronement of single specimens; mummification and funerary treatments of the bodies of singles and multiple animals), and in order to fulfill different specific goals (public celebration of royal power or cultic performance in local temples; votive practices as an expression of individual Gottesnähe and response to personal problems). Martin Fitzenreiter refers to these animals as Kultobjekte and resumes the old notion of ‘fetish’ to emphasise both their physical (object-like) and sacral qualities.69 Although the concept is admittedly laden with certain negative nuances, it well conveys those ideas of materiality, ritual manipulation, and religious efficacy that have been identified as characteristic of the category of sacr(alis)ed animals. Here, on the other hand, the term ‘agent’ has been adopted as an alternative and more fitting analytic label, for it specifically highlights the agentive role these animals are cast in, i.e. their (induced) capacity to exert, mediate and extend religious power in order to produce changes that are deemed as real as significant, at both individual and social level, by the ancient Egyptians. If, however, one moves from analytic categories to indigenous designations and perspectives, it appears immediately that these animals are first and foremost recognised as real creatures, and accordingly referred to with common names like ‘ibis’, ‘pelican’ ‘cattle’, etc. The animal nature of the agents is always evident, even when charged with further symbolic or cultural values. This is possibly the case of the multiplication of animal figures on the Ramesside private stelae, where the often realistic characterisation of the numerous specimens depicted – the canids on the monuments from the Salakhana Trove at Asyut or the crocodiles on the stelae from ancient Sumenu – points towards an actual animal presence integrated into local cults and, at the same time, gives visual expression to contemporary religious ideas like that of the bA-manifestation. Likewise, the use of animal classifiers to mark the specific names designating particular individuals (Apis, Mnevis, Buchis, Hesat) or groups (Tntt-cattle) confirms this basic cognitive pattern. The point is that abstract definitions and rigorous categorisations respond to our conceptual needs and problems – how to classify and consistently arrange a certain group of objects of religious concern – more than to the ancient Egyptian sensibility, which instead has no difficulties in sticking to the high variability of the concrete beings. Epithets and other predications provide secondary elaborations that complement, interpret and build over this tangible experience, while the technical designation awt nTry, which collectively identifies such a special animal presence as belonging to the domain of temple and ritual action, represents a later development that certainly reflects a growing interest toward the systematisation and classification of the materia sacra and its knowledge, as GraecoRoman manuals and monographs most clearly demonstrate. based approach to religious phenomena and related sources. While Fitzenreiter’s examination includes materials of later periods that are not speciphically addressed here, the present analysis aims at developing discussion in a broader theoretical perspective. 69 Fitzenreiter 2013: 194: ‘Es erscheint sinnvoll, für einen so als mit sakraler Macht begabt konzeptualisierten Gegenstand den alten Begriff “Fetisch” wiederzubeleben, der von Charles de Brasse im Zusammenhang mit der Beschäftigung mit “anderen” Religionen Westafrikas und interessanterweise eben auch mit den Tierkulten des pharaonischen Ägypten geprägt wurde’.

175

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Thus, while the animality of these beings is well-attested by the sources, the religious character of the animal identities is also fully acknowledged. Leaving aside, for the moment, those specific formulations that relate to high-level theological interpretation (infra), two major forms of conceptualisation can be addressed as particularly relevant. The first one has been already mentioned and concerns the special case of selected individuals – bovines, for the most part – that bear proper (not generic) meaningful names: Apis (lit. ‘the running bull70), Mnevis (lit. ‘the great fighting bull’71), Buchis (lit. ‘he who puts a soul into a body’72), Hesat (lit. ‘the wild cow’73), Banebdjed (lit. ‘the Ram lord of Mendes’74). On the one hand, as noted above, these names are usually (but not always) accompanied by animal determinatives, which denote their actual referents. On the other hand, they are significant statements that identify the named specimens as religious agents, focusing on specific characteristics of the animal (Apis, Mnevis, Hesat) or elaborating complex theological concepts (Buchis, Banebdjed). Such individual designations, therefore, signal the unique character of the specimens they refer to, (1) distantiating them from all the regular members of the species but also (2) hierarchically distinguishing their (superior) status from that of other sacr(alis)ed animals that are collectively identified as part of the temple ‘equipment’ and/ or associated with the chosen individual as its court (e.g. the ‘harem’ of cows and the offspring of the Mnevis bull mentioned in the Turin papyrus). In this regard, it is worth remarking that this naming practice, which was just an aspect of a more articulated ritual strategy of selection, fits well, and gives emic content to, the theoretical distinction sketched above between single and multiple animals. The second form of conceptualisation is nTr(y). The term is sporadically applied to animals before the New Kingdom but becomes more commonly attested in later sources, in contexts referring to both living or dead single specimens and multiple buried animals. Usually translated as ‘god/ divine’, lexical analysis has clearly demonstrated that the class of nTr has a wider field of application than the modern category of ‘god’, ranging from cultic statues to human beings, and that the rite provides its basic semantic framework. In brief, the word nTr designates a focal point of religious action, which might have (and usually has) a strong material dimension. According to Martin Fitzenreiter, ‘Netscher die Bezeichnung für ein Ding ist’75. In this regard, as he puts it, ‘Besonderheit jedes dieser mit nTr bezeichneten Gegenstände ist es, eine bestimmte, singuläre Entität zu sein, die in ihrer meist materiell-dinglichen Manifestation sakrale Eigenschaften bzw. Potenzen besitzt. Es ist die Aufgabe der Theologie, diese Potenzen zu erklären; aber der Umstand, dass der Gegenstand diese Potenzen besitzt, ist vorausgesetzt’; accordingly, ‘[d]er Begriff nTr und das davon abgeleitete Adjektiv nTry bezeichnen im Zusammenhang mit der kultischen Behandlung von Tieren genau nicht eine transzendente Entität, sondern die reale Qualität des behandelten Gegenstandes bzw. den behandelten Gegenstand selbst’.76 The description as nTr, therefore, identifies the sacr(alis)ed animal(s) as a relevant focus of religious practice in a distinctive material form – that is, in nuce, the definition of ‘animal worship’ proposed here (Table 6.2). Action is directed toward them, and, as religious agents, they are capable of exerting power and producing effects. Some general considerations stem from this understanding which have been partially addressed previously but are worth expanding on. Firstly, since the nTrdesignation denotes a ‘divine’ status that is relative (not inherent to the animal per se), positional (derived from the liminal place occupied within the rite), and contextual (induced via different ritual actions, i.e. coronation-rites; funerary-rites), it is possible to better appreciate the relationship The name is likely to be linked to the root Hjp, which means ‘to run’; Wb. III: 68.7-10 (‘laufen; eilen’). The term mr seems to be derived from the bull’s habit of fighting; Wb. II: 106.8 (‘Kampstier’). 72 According to Hodjash and Berlev 1982: 152. The New Kingdom form of the name has been variously interpreted but clearly represents a synthetic formulation developing on the notion of the bA-power being embodied in a physical form (Ht). 73 The name could be derived from the root HzA, ‘to be wild’; Wb. III: 161.1-10 (‘wild/grimmig sein’). 74 The name is consciously built upon the homophony between the words bA, ‘(sacred) ram’ (Wb. I: 414.9-14, ‘heiliger Bock von Mendes’) and bA, ‘bA-power’ (Wb. I: 411.1-5, ‘ba-mächtig sein/machen’; Wb. I: 411.6-412.10, ‘Seelenkraft als Teil der Persönlichkeit’). 75 Fitzenreiter 2013b: 134. 76 Fitzenreiter 2013a: 194. 70 71

176

Modelling Animal Worship linking sacr(alis)ed animals and high gods. On the one hand, from the perspective of the rite discussed above and substantiated by lexical scrutiny, the category appears to be hierarchically structured and both entities can be labelled as nTr(w) without contradiction, as they simply belong to different levels (‘ce qui est “dieu” depuis la creation (…) et ce qui deviant “dieu” à la suite d’un rite’77) of the same field of the ‘divine’. On the other hand, the (for us) apparently inconsistent association with a specific deity, as in the mentioned case of Apis and Ptah, emerges as a matter of theological interpretation rather than as an otherwise bizarre identification. There is no simple identity or symbolic correspondence between the animal and the god; they represent two distinct entities and aspects of the Memphite religious panorama, which can be addressed independently but also correlated in the framework of the theological activity worked out by the sacerdotal élite, as a way to explain the role and significance of the sacred bull within that system. The new forms of predication (bA; wHm) illustrate well this point, highlighting the complex hierarchical relationship between Apis and Ptah, and showing once more that their combination represents the product, historically contingent and consciously constructed, of significant intellectual developments starting with the New Kingdom. Even in those cases where the relationship assumes more stable and traditional configurations – the crocodiles of Sobek at Sumenu and the canids of Wpwawt at Asyut – the ritualised animal does not stand in a purely symbolic position toward the god but serves as an actual Kultobjekt, which is integrated into religious practice and cultic action and, on the other hand, becomes available for theological knowledge and reflection. In this regard, its conceptualisation as nTr remains circumstantial and conditional, depending on the practical situation and context the specimen is involved in. For multiple animals, it has already been noted, this designation appears to be especially related to the funerary sphere, thus reinforcing once more the analytical distinction (single-multiple) sketched above. Ultimately, the question of whether or not the use of nTr indicates a genuine understanding and veneration of animals as ‘true’ deities reflects our modern perspective and concerns about the (for us) crucial issue of placing gods and their definition at the core of religious phenomena rather than the ancient Egyptian experience and practice. Although well acknowledged, the discrepancy between the Egyptian concept of nTr (as ritualised object) and the Western notion of god (as transcendent personal being) is rarely reflected upon in historical-religious reconstruction: ‘bleibt es erstaunlich, wie wenig sich diese Erkenntnis in der ägyptologischen Alltagspraxis niederschlägt’.78 In this regard, since the two categories do not have identical semantic contents, it is only in the shift from one to the other at the moment of interpretation that the imputation of ‘divine’ agency and status to earthly creatures raises a problem of apparently irrational beliefs – the critical confusion between distinct classes (animals and gods) – and how they should be accounted for. All the explanations put forward miss the point of translation. If, however, one looks at the documents from an internal, ‘practical’ perspective, there appears that (1) real animals (living or dead) are made the focus of religious practice and display and that (2) this central position can be occasionally labelled as nTr, and become integrated within a complex system of predications, without any conceptual difficulty in the application of the term. It is not that the Egyptians cannot make the distinction between animals and deities. Animal worship is compatible with a high degree of sophistication as the various forms of religious predications demonstrate. The case of the Apis bull and its relationship with Ptah is especially indicative, in that it illustrates that there was no confusion between the two entities – rather they were hierarchically connected – even though both could be designated as nTr. Simply, the Egyptians held that in certain (liminal) circumstances and contexts, particular animals could be placed and act in the capacity as ‘divine’ agents, be attributed ‘divine’ qualities, and be addressed accordingly. The nTr-designation gives verbal expression to this kind of situation. If, on the other hand, we want to formalise that use 77 78

Meeks 1988: 445. Fitzenreiter 2013b: 134.

177

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt more analytically, we could articulate a distinction in primary and secondary divine agents, noting how it matches the emic hierarchy between what is ‘god’ since the primeval (mythical) times and what becomes ‘god’ through the ritual performance.

Primary divine agents

focus of religious practice High gods

Secondary divine agents

Individual animals

nTr-designation

=

Multiple animals

‘Divine’ status (since) Mythical times Present: ritually induced during lifetime (?)

Present: ritually induced post mortem

Ritual action/context Official (temple) cult Private cult Selection rites: temple Public celebrations: temple Funerary rites: necropolis Funerary rites: necropolis

Table 6.2. The semantic framework of the Egyptian category nTr and its hierarchical structure.

Although the Egyptian sources do not provide an entirely consistent and systematic view on the categorisation of sacr(alis)ed animals, they highlight some basic points that can be summarised as follows: 1. Indigenous designations focus on actual animal identities, which are referred to as real creatures (cattle, canids, crocodiles, etc.). 2. Specific religious characterisations are exceptional and limited to: • individual names designating selected single specimens kept in temples; • nTr(y)-conceptualisation, which variously applies to living and dead specimens according to precise contexts and conditions of their participation in religious practice. The term, however, has an admittedly limited attestation in the textual record of the periods taken into consideration and finds a more widespread use only in later sources. 3. Emic designations conceptualised sacr(alis)ed animals as empowered objects and effective agents of religious practice. In this capacity, they are assigned new meanings and descriptions beyond their original mundane category and can be occasionally denoted as ‘divine’ (nTr). This is an attempt to express and (re)construct their value as independent sacred entities, without there being contradiction with the fully ‘divine’ status of the high gods they might be connected to. Theology and local religious traditions provide the intellectual arena where this issue is further elaborated and reflected upon. 4. Emic characterisation conveys an underlying idea about a significant distinction between individual and collective animal agencies, which matches quite well the etic categorisation of single-multiple animals. 6.5.1.2 Actions Understanding ‘animal worship’ as a segment of religious practice means that performance and action are crucial aspects to the interpretation of the phenomenon. Such an understanding, it has been argued, prioritises activity and behaviour over beliefs and discourse. Sacr(alis)ed animals represent, at the same time, the material objects (Kultobjekte) and the secondary agents of a set of ritualised actions, according to a double movement: on the one hand, they are the product of a transformative process that sets them off from their conspecifics, invests them with a new meaning, and turns them into suitable mediators with the extra-human domain. On the other hand, once activated as sacred (or even ‘divine’) beings, animals are treated and deemed as ‘social others’ possessing the capacity to communicate, exert power, and affect changes that are perceived as significant by the human partners addressing them. 178

Modelling Animal Worship It is worth returning here to the term ‘sacralisation’ (cf. supra), which is adopted heuristically to describe such symbolic, discoursive and nondiscoursive acts by means of which the focused animals are given a special, ‘surplus’ value beyond everyday experience, and their religious status is triggered, enhanced, and legitimised so that it demands a different form of recognition and engagement. The sacred, therefore, is not an essential property of the object (here, the animal), rather it is conferred by acting (upon and with it) according to modes that are understood as different from normal activities, and by setting those actions within the framework of religious tradition(s). Taking a practice-based approach, it appears that the common and most obvious quality of this set of actions is their being ritual(ised). In this regard, Catherine Bell’s use of the concept of ‘ritualisation’ may be of some help in framing the modes and contexts of religious construction and distinction of sacr(alis)ed animals: I will use the term ‘ritualization’ to draw attention to the way in which certain social actions strategically distinguish themselves in relation to other actions. In a very preliminary sense, ritualization is a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, activities. As such, ritualization is a matter of various culturally specific strategies for setting some activities off from others, for creating and privileging a qualitative distinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’, and for ascribing such distinctions to realities thought to transcend the powers of human actors.79

As practice, ritual activities are highly situational and strategic, which means that a strong emphasis is put on the context of the ritual act. This focus on context also suggests that a practice approach is well suited for use in support of archaeological interpretation, especially when seeking to evaluate how rite is embedded in material forms and media, and what information can be extracted from material sources. Egyptian evidence (both archaeological, pictorial, and epigraphic) gives us a broad, though instructive, picture of ‘die komplexe Gestaltung eines Semiophor’ (‘bearer of meaning’) as well as of its ritual manipulation in order to ‘religiöse Praxis ausüben zu können’.80 The point is that religious value, which has to do with the identification of an authoritative status and effective capacity of the animal(s), is something that is constructed and (re)affirmed in the very moment of the performed ritual action rather than simply expressed through purely verbal statements. The variety of strategies underlying the sacralisation of certain animals is best exemplified, for the Late and Ptolemaic Period and in relation to single individuals, by the different procedures for the selection and the installation of the Apis bull and the falcon of Edfu, which are illustrated in detail by monumental texts (stelae and temple inscriptions) and classical accounts.81 The latter involved the participation of the god who, with a movement of his statue, would directly select the animal among a flock of raptors kept at the temple site; while the sources inform us that the cororonation ritual took place each year, Alain Charron has reasonably argued that it was intended as a renovation, and not as a replacement, of the special falcon, which remained a stable presence fully integrated into the daily life of the temple.82 On the other hand, the choice of Apis was based on the identification of the animal, searched out throughout the whole country after the death of its predecessor, by a set of distinctive bodily markings, and was followed by its introduction in grand style into its permanent residence, located at the south-western corner of the enclosure of Ptah at Memphis, where the bull was supposed to spend the rest of his life. Thus, although both ceremonies had the same goal – the selection of a special individual to be kept in the temple Bell 1992: 74. Fitzenreiter 2013a: 196. 81 An informed overview of both cases is given in Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1996: 129-140. On the selection and enthronement of the Apis bull, cf. Otto 1964: 15-17; Jurman 2010: 230-231; Thompson 1988: 195-198. For a detailed presentation and analysis of the coronation ritual of the living falcon at Edfu, the standard work is Alliot 1954: 561-676; cf. Alliot 1950. Recent valuable discussions also in Charron 2009 and Van den Hoven 2015. 82 Contesting the traditional idea that the bird was put to death at the end of its (supposed) yearly service, the scholar suggests that ‘[l] a cérémonie servait alors peut-être à renouveler toute son efficience à l’oiseau’ (Charron 2009: 56). 79 80

179

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Sphere Life

Contexts of actions Selection/Enthronement

Temple maintenance

Ceremonial role

Death

Funerary rites

Single animals

Multiple animals

‘Appearance/Coming’ of the Apis bull/Ram of Mendes/bnw-bird (Festnamen) ‘Festival of the Apis bull’ (Hb-Hp) Court and temple titles (Apis bull, White bull; Hesat-cow; Ram of Mendes) Royal endowments (White bull; Mnevis bull)

‘Scene of the pelicans’ Titles (km-cattle; Tntt-cattle) Toponym swnw-n-sbkw (P. Heqanakhte) Crocodile stelae from Sumenu Salakhana stelae Fish stelae from Mendes ‘Running of the Apis bull’ (pHrr-Hp) ‘Driving the four calves’ Procession of ‘Festival of the Apis bull’ (Hb-Hp) Wpwawt (Salakhana stelae) Sed-festival (Apis bull) Dedication of votive stelae (Salakhana; Oracular practices (Apis and Mnevis Sumenu; Mendes) bull?) Opening of the mouth Mummification Individual burials (isolated tombs Multiple burials (Ramesside inscribed of the Serapeum; Mnevis tombs at pottery fragment; Dendera catacombs; Heliopolis) Ghurob fish burials)

Table 6.3. Contexts of ‘animal worship’ as religious practice.

– their core structures differ (divine appointment vs check of physical features), and of course, they displayed extremely elaborate and variegated ritual frameworks that were rooted in the local traditions, landscape, and theological systems. For the earlier periods, we lack a comparable amount of detailed information on specific uses of sacr(alis)ed animals. However, by maintaining a focus on practical aspects – what they do and what is done with them – it is possible, at least, to single out multiple contexts or configurations of actions, where the animal presence is structured and ritually articulated as the focus of religious experience: the selection and formal appointment (enthronement) of single individuals; the inclusion of multiple animals as part of temple inventories and their maintenance within temple precincts; the protection and hierarchical arrangement of small groups around the single specimen or the divine image (statue, standard) of the local god; the employment of both single and multiple animals in cultic ceremonies, festivals and oracular practices; their funerary manipulation and burials in appropriate necropolises. All these situations – it has already been remarked – represent as many aspects of religious practice that can be subsumed under the label of ‘animal worship’, and certainly, each one of them included and consisted of a wider range of activities. In this regard, comparison with the two later and better-documented cases discussed above is useful in that it gives us an idea of how richly designed and orchestrated could be also those early contexts, and accordingly, of how much of them could have been lost. On the other hand, while the sketched patterns may appear rather abstract and their features are difficult to trace in the material record, careful consideration of the available attestations, as partial and indirect as they might be, can help to contextualise them and give them some tangible content and historical reality (Table 6.3). This way, even though gaps in the evidence limit our possibilities of reconstructing detailed and specific strategies of ritualisation, it is nonetheless possible to evaluate (or, at least, to approach) the solutions and responses adopted in different periods or places, and in relation to the different categories of animals, within a broad analytical perspective. A processional role of the sacr(alis)ed animals, for example, can be generally assumed but it appears to have been constructed and contextualised differently in various scenarios: one can just compare the particularly dramatised ‘running of the Apis bull’, with its strong royal connection and the marked individual character of the animal, with the cultic ceremony of the ‘Driving the four calves’

180

Modelling Animal Worship (where, similarly, the king played a major part), and the supportive role of the large group of canids participating in the procession of Wpwawt at Asyut. Despite the potential for great variations, ritualisation often (but not always) displays some general tendencies: it creates a symbolic environment, characterised by formalisation, a restricted space and time configuration, special objects and persons, controlled verbal and gestural patterns.83 Most of these features can be recognised as underpinning the ritual manipulation of the sacr(alis)ed animals and can be analytically addressed as ‘framing’, that is ‘the way, or performance, in which people and/or activities and/or objects are set off from others, spatially and/or chronologically, for ritual purposes. It is mainly achieved by creating a special place, a special time, and by the use of uncommon objects, whether on the micro (e.g. individual) or macro (e.g. public) scale’.84 Framing is thus understood as a key dynamic of ritual as ‘it creates a context in which elements of experience can be acted upon and potentially changed or transformed’.85 It can also be related to the two critical concepts of (a) ‘liminality’ – the transitional stage that marks the passage from one defined state or condition to another –, and (b) ‘(ritual) efficacy’ – how the actions and utterances performed under certain circumstances succeed in affecting changes and transformations that are seen as relevant from a given perspective. Applying these concepts to the contexts of ‘animal worship’, and testing them against the sources, allow one to refigure the religious role and position of sacr(alis)ed animals as a matter of distinction or, to be more precise, of situating, organising, and interpreting their presence within a ritual framework of action. Framing implies drawing a distinction, which, in turn, entails attributing a hierarchy, a difference in value between what the frame separates and what it encloses and is performed inside it. Accordingly, it defines a liminal situation where the animals involved are made the focus of (and available for) appropriate activities, which effectively transform their status and establish for them a different set of relationships both inside and outside the frame. It is from such a ritual manipulation in liminal conditions that the scar(alis)ed animals gain their agentive role and their own actions acquire religious significance and efficacy. Looking at the evidence presented above, such ritual dynamics can be identified in relation to both classes of single and multiple animals. Although indirectly, the available information indicates that already at an early stage the recognition of a special individual was based on its inclusion within an elaborate ritual frame: the ostracon from Tomb 3035 at Saqqara (Cairo JE 70149) and some personal names mentioning the ‘appearance’ (xai) and ‘coming’ (iw) of the Apis bull give us an idea of the performative dimension of this momentous event, while the reference to the ‘festival of the Apis bull in the palace of the god’ contained in the biography of Debeheni clearly emphasised that, whatever the exact content of the ritual practices involved, that frame was both spatially delimited (aH-nTr) and temporally structured (Hb-Hp).86 This way, a neat separation was drawn to set off the selected specimen from any mundane experience, and the transition to the new religious identity (simple bull > Apis) could be achieved. Once relocated in the liminal context of the temple and activated through specific ritual procedures, the status of the living specimen (cf. the ‘living Apis’ in PS r.IV.4) as a special being and a powerful medium of religious practice was maintained through regular liturgical actions and, in general, through a constant ritualisation of the animal’s existence itself. Just like with the king in his palace or the god(’s image) inside the sanctuary, the daily life of the chosen individual became restricted, (re)stylised, and (re)conceptualised as an exclusive and meaningful aspect. This can be seen on two levels: on the one hand, shifting to New Kingdom material, P. Turin 1887, which lists among the charges specified against the wabBell 1992: 204-205. Verhoeven 2011: 126, with further references. 85 Kapferer 2006: 516. 86 As already noted, we are not sure whether such festival was actually identical with the installation of the bull or with the pHrr-Hp mentioned in other sources; it could also refer to a completely different ceremonial occasion. Be that as it may, the attestation is used here to remark that the animal was evidently integrated within a well-structured religious environment, and to argue, accordingly, that the official appointment was reasonably expected to be performed in a similar ‘framed’ context. 83 84

181

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt priest Penanuqet the improper use and the selling of the calves of the Mnevis bull, incidentally suggests that also the breeding and the family relationships of the single individual were a serious matter of religious interest. It seems, therefore, that the bull was endowed with a ‘harem’ of cows which bore its offspring, and that, though hierarchically subordinated to the single Mnevis bull, these animals enjoyed a prestigious position that was likewise framed within a temple context and put under the care of sacerdotal personnel. While we lack substantial evidence for earlier periods and different individuals, comparison with later classical accounts and brief extracts from the Egyptian Book of the Temple as well as with tangible archaeological data confirms the high degree of institutionalisation and theologisation of this family dimension. On the other hand, the recurring episode of the pHrr-Hp, well attested since the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, clearly exemplifies how sacralisation and ritual framing impacted upon the resignification of the single animal’s behaviour: the simple running of the bull turned into a ceremonial performance played on specific occasions and at special arenas, which was of special value and efficacy for kingship. Although this rite had an ancient connection to the coronation and the Sed Festival (cf. the cylinder from Tomb 3035; the various Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom annalistic entries; the relief fragments from Niuserra’s sun temple), it was not limited to those contexts and could also be associated to other ceremonies (Opet Festival) and divine referents (e.g. Amon-Ra), as the scenes from Hatshepsut’s Red Chapel and the fragments from Dra’ abu elNaga vividly show. Another case where the actions of the single individuals could have acquired a marked religious quality is that of oracular procedures. Since, however, the main clue here is represented by the epithets wHm and sar mAat n + GN applied to Apis and Mnevis since the New Kingdom, one can only make an educated guess on the basis of later textual allusions, which report that the message was communicated through the movement of the animal. A similar ritual structure also informed and sustained the sacralisation of multiple animals. The inclusion and maintenance of various (marked or unmarked) groups of different size within temple areas can be deduced from the sources from the Old Kingdom onwards, while it is through their very integration into such contexts of religious action that their special status and value were practically shaped and made apparent. Religious and administrative titles inform us of a regular animal presence that was part of the temple inventories and made available for different purposes, while P. Turin 1887 and the various animal stelae of the New Kingdom give us an imperfect (yet informative) picture of how complex, multifaceted, and well-defined these practices could be, well beyond a purely sacrificial dimension. Moreover, the ‘scene of the pelicans’ not only confirms that such organised forms of participation in cultic activities of high level (the sun cult) were already developed as early as the Old Kingdom but also highlights most clearly the strategic importance of their proper location in time and space. Finally, the scene of the ‘Driving of the four calves’ provides the perfect parallel to the ‘Running of the Apis bull’ in illustrating how ritualisation produced a semantic shift in the connotation as well as in the expected impact of the animals’ actions: the restricted and symbolic stage, the precise characterisation of the animal agents, the identity and status of the other participants (the king and the gods) strategically signal that what is depicted is no ordinary event – it is cut off from the external world – but something of greater value and more effective consequences (regardless of the variable theological interpretation of the ritual given by the accompanying texts; see infra). The funerary treatment transferred the ritual framing and its performative dimension – again intended in the double sense of performed upon and by the sacr(alis)ed animal – to the permanent liminal location of the necropolis. In this regard, while we lack definite evidence for the earlier periods (Early Dynastic to Middle Kingdom), except for some obscure textual references (Pyr. 1313c) related to the Apis bulls – so that one cannot exclude the possibility that funerary practices were not a prominent focus at those times –, it is from the New Kingdom that this sphere of manipulation becomes more apparent and involves a number of patterned activities (both practical and verbal) ranging from the Opening of the Mouth to the preparation and burial of the body, to 182

Modelling Animal Worship the attribution of a range of divine identities to the final ‘product’ (osirisation; nTr[y]-predication; syncretistic association with one or more deities). All these aspects can be most easily detected in the archaeological and textual material belonging to single individuals. On the one hand, the vocabulary adopted in some Serapeum stelae (IM 4963, 5936, 6154[?]) alludes to a set of orchestrated and interconnected rites underlying the burial ceremony (e.g., irt wp r; irt snTr) as well as to their emplacement in the local landscape and within precisely designed spaces (e.g., Hwt-nbw; wabt), not to mention the multi-layered symbolism and rich ideological framework surrounding them. On the other hand, the tombs for the Apis and Mnevis bulls at Saqqara and Heliopolis, together with the poorly preserved (and documented) remains of the animal corpses, give a physical reality to the last stage of these practices and their outcome. The evidence concerning the possible deposition of multiple animals is more sparse, less explicit, and difficult to evaluate but still might point in the same direction, highlighting the funerary domain as a privileged arena for the sacralisation of (dead) animals as culturally constructed and ritually empowered artefacts and referents of religious experience. The inscribed Ramesside fragment (München ÄS 1383) contains a clear indication of how the funerary process was expected to transform the animal (nTry), but it remains unfortunately an isolated document, whose ritual configuration can be tentatively conjectured by looking, in comparison, to the contemporary contexts of single individuals as well as to later sources. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the New Kingdom necropolis for the internment of fish (mostly Nile perch) at Gurob represents a not irrelevant focus of local cult (votive?) practices, which displays a careful material arrangement but it is not reflected in the textual record and is scarcely illuminated by other correlated evidence. Both types of sources, however, are indicative of a wider and richer framework of activities revolving around the special treatment of the animals involved. From the previous discussion, temple and necropolis emerge, as already noted, as two outstanding institutional frameworks, with monumental and clearly demarcated settings, strong symbolism, and a high degree of formalisation, and almost all sources relate to these special arenas of religious practice. The passage of Henqu’s biography, however, suggests that – at least from a general cultural perspective – more informal situations could provide equally valid ritual contexts for recognition of and interaction with sacr(alis)ed animals. The last comment is especially significant as it raises the not secondary (but often overlooked) issue of the social dimension, range, and articulation of those configurations of religious action and conduct which have been presented so far. A detailed dissertation on this topic should draw on a focused analysis of specific case studies, but some general remarks can be put forward in a broad theoretical perspective as general lines to be tested in each context. When considering some key aspects of potential distinction between state and non-state religion (location; motivation; identity of the participants; nature of the action), it can be seen that the nature and extent of the differences are not as sharp as it is usually assumed;87 forms of ‘animal worship’ often occur in both realms or in an intermediate area of overlapping and interaction between them (Table 6.4). Combining the various types of evidence, it appears that religious practice and events focused on the inclusion of a special animal presence were strongly bound to temples (location), aimed at Location Motivation Participant Nature

State Religion Temple areas; necropolises Renewal of cosmic order King; priests Formalised

Animal worship ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔

Non-State Religion Private contexts Personal concerns/benefits Private individuals Various degrees of formalisation

Table 6.4. ‘Animal worship’ as an integrated arena of religious practice between state and non-state religion. 87

On such a distinction, and its terminological and theoretical implications, see the valuable discussion in Stevens 2006: 17-23.

183

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt granting order or had the state (in the person of the king) and the community as their beneficiaries (motivation), involved specialised personnel and were expected to be performed by the king himself or his representatives (actors), and included a number of highly formalised rites and activities related with both the daily life of the animal(s) and the special festival occasions (nature). Titles, monumental and textual evidence concerning the selection, keeping, and cultic use of certain specimens are especially indicative of this state dimension, which also played a relevant part in the promotion and institution of the large New Kingdom necropolis (at Saqqara, Heliopolis, Gurob, etc.). At the same time, the material points to a wider impact and a more integrated frame of participation. The festivals and processions referred to in the sources certainly had a marked open character and took place also beyond the limited space of the temple complexes, granting access and visibility to larger portions of society; processional routes and oracular practices – the latter likely though indirectly attested from at least the New Kingdom (wHmw and Maat-based epithets) – required a larger stage and stimulate public involvement. At local, provincial temples (Asyut; Sumenu) rules for access might have been less rigid, while priests or high-ranking figures likely acted as intermediaries toward private individuals, assisting in the liturgical actions or depositing votive offerings on behalf of the donors. The penetration of forms of ‘animal worship’ into society and the social profile of the people participating does not appear as uniform as one may assume at first. Personal names at all times may reflect a general interest in sacr(alise)ed animals – but one must remember that, at least for earlier periods, evidence remains centred almost exclusively on the inner élite –, while the New Kingdom stelae from both central and provincial sites (Saqqara, Heliopolis, Asyut, Sumenu) demonstrate the presence of multiple social groups that were engaged, at different levels, in formal religious events (festival and funerary processions). Types of conduct and actions seem to have included the offering of goods, libations, the dedication of stelae and other votive items, forms of direct or mediated engagement and communication with the animals, and, of course, the general attendance at public ceremonies. The intentions and motivations behind them cannot be ascertained with precision, but relate to ‘practical’ and personal concerns (request of protection, reaction to a crisis, etc.) as well as to the display and commemoration of personal piety (Gottesnähe), religious and social position. In all these situations, the mediating role of the animal agent was evidently perceived, approached, and addressed as particularly effective for the prescribed goals. One can see, therefore, how participation was not static and uniform but, also depending on the context, included various possibilities and degrees of action, ranging from direct contact and physical manipulation to mediated access and confrontation, to the marginal and passive role of the audience, an articulation that becomes particularly apparent when all these activities occur within the same framework of public festivals. The New Kingdom ‘animal stelae’ (from the Salakhana Trove; the Serapeum at Memphis; the Mnevis tombs at Heliopolis; Sumenu) provide the clearest exemplification of the points discussed above, as they belong to a category of objects that usually represents ‘the main source to investigate personal religion and religious practice in Egypt’88. These monuments were dedicated by private individuals on occasion of public state-sponsored ceremonies and processions, both cultic and funerary (the procession of Wpwawt; the funerals of the Apis and Mnevis bulls), which had the presence of sacr(alis)ed animals as a significant or even central component of the event. Such celebrations created an expanded religious environment (including shrines, processional routes, temple, and necropolis areas) where official rites (performed by the regular priests) and personal devotion could concurrently take place and be displayed. While inscribed and pictorial details (titles; clothing and hairstyle, items, etc.) reveal the variety of social identities of the donors, both the imagery and the text of the stelae encoded religious interaction and performance in standardised (though locally 88

Luiselli 2013: 21.

184

Modelling Animal Worship differentiated) and culturally recognisable forms, focusing on conventional gestures and selected features (offering and adoration scenes).89 The Apis and Mnevis stelae show this basic iconographic pattern, the donor appearing in adoration pose or while performing the offering before the sacred bulls, though some monuments highlight a more elaborate textual and visual content related to the impressive ceremony for the burial of the animals.90 The materials from Asyut and Sumenu introduce some interesting variations, as they focus on a larger number of animals. The Asyut stelae display the participation in the processional festival in honour of Wpwawt, often represented in the form of the divine standard (sometimes as animal or animal-headed god), adored by the donor and usually accompanied by various seemingly living canids that were probably part of the parade. While it seems that the combination of the animals with the standard visually refers to the central moment of the performance of the procession, the former could also be the main and only subject depicted, thus signalling their significance in the construction of both the cultic event and the religious experience of private individuals. This particular aspect of cult practice in the Ramesside period, however, is not exclusive of Asyut, as the stelae dedicated to Sobek Lord of Sumenu and most likely belonging to its temple complex and festive tradition demonstrate; here it is the sheer number of crocodiles that represents the focal point of display, being depicted both alone or as the object of reverence by the donor(s). The scenes, therefore, are codified pictorial forms of religious practice that express personal connection between the human and extra-human spheres, while sacr(alis)ed animals play a key role in the process and are depicted as directly approachable through private ritual actions within a defined cultic setting. In this regard, the limited set of gestures represented would condense and evoke, in the conventional language of art, a more articulated sequence of ritual acts and episodes, though whether (and how) they relate to an actual cultic situation is difficult to establish (cf. infra).91 Be that as it might, given the specific ‘situative Einbettung’ of the stelae, i.e. their embedding within a sacred context (temple, shrine, or necropolis) and ritual framework (procession; temple cult), the images could realise their performative role and continuously (re)produce the actions displayed, while also (re)affirming the social status of the donor – a distinctive aspect of Egyptian ‘hochkulturelle Bildproduktion’ that Jan Assmann aptly labels as Bildakt.92 At the very least, it was the stelae themselves that represent the material response of private individuals to that special animal presence associated with temple cult and regularly exhibited on specific occasions. Overall, these monuments reflect the performing of ‘animal worship’ in terms of personal, nonstate religious practices staged within a public, institutional framework, and invite us, accordingly, to a more balanced reconstruction of this particular field of religious experience than a mere alternative between the élite and the popular domains. On the other hand, although we lack any substantial data on strictly private (domestic, individual) contexts of action and display, it is still worth mentioning such a possibility from an analytical perspective, as it allows countering gaps in the record and leaves room for further refinement. The fact that some of the Asyut stelae have suspension holes, for example, would suggest, according to Eric Wells, that they were possibly displayed in private settings (like a household shrine) before being relocated within an official For a social and historical investigation of Ramesside votive stelae, see Exell 2009, who analyses the compositional form of the material and establishes a categorisation of the stelae in three main group on the basis of the position of the donor in relation to the deity depicted (Exell 2009: 20-21). A similar attempt focused on the Asyut material has been recently proposed by Wells 2014. For valuable discussions on the social and ritual context and on the religious imagery of this category of objects, see respectively Exell 2013 and Luiselli 2013: 21-24, 27-29, especially p. 29: ‘The scenes of adoration and offering, as represente on private stelae, visually represent an act of communication between human and divine (…) the adoration and the offering were the apex of the private ritual act (…)’. On votive stelae and ‘personal piety’, see Luiselli 2011. 90 This is the case, for example, of the three stelae of Piay from the Serapeum (IM 4963; IM5936; IM6154 [?] = SN 84; cf. Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1968: 3-7, no. 4-5; pls. I.6, II.4-5), which both show and describe the donor and main actor while censing, reciting, and performing the Opening of the Mouth ritual on the sacred bulls, thus indicating his participation in the preparation of the bodies and in their burial. For a detailed analysis of these monuments, see Frood 2016. 91 In particular, the question whether or not this interaction was mediated by a priest cannot be answered with certainty. In this regard, it is interesting to note that intermediation of priest is mentioned in the letters. If so, it was evidently omitted in pictorial representations; see Luiselli 2013: 29. 92 Assmann 1990. 89

185

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt temple context – a fact that would significantly enlarge and enrich the general picture93. This is even more so if one looks comparatively to the Graeco-Roman practice of sacralising animals for magical purposes, which represents at that time an important arena of personal religiosity beside (and stimulated by) the well-established public environments of temple and necropolis cults. In this perspective, one can compare the situation sketched for the New Kingdom with earlier (more sparse) and later (better known) configurations, in order to build better arguments in discussing the former and to trace possible trends of developments with the latter. On the one hand, temple-based performances like the ’Running of the Apis bull’, the ‘Festival of the Apis bull’, and the ‘Driving of the four calves’, dating back to the Early Dynastic and the Old Kingdom, might have been as many occasions of public engagement with the community and interplay between official and personal religious activities and concerns, while the relatively scarce visibility of the latter in the record (apart from personal names and scattered epigraphic sources) would reflect constraints of decorum and limitations in the access to resources, media, and modes for displaying religious participation in the events rather than an actual exclusion from them. On the other hand, from the large corpus of the Serapeum private stelae dating to the Late Period we learn that, besides the enthronement, the burial ceremonies for the mummified Apis bull had grown into a cultic episode of extraordinary public significance, which gathered people of different social and geographical provenance within a common ritual context of grief and mourning.94 Although the right to dedicate a monument appears to have been conferred by either a royal office or the priesthood of Ptah, Jean Vercoutter has drawn attention to several elite stelae where the high-ranking donor presents himself as taking part in the event together with common people and assuming the same modest behaviour as they did.95 On this strong integration, Claus Jurman remarks that ‘the burial of the Apis bull was considered by the Egyptians a period of time during which social boundaries were at least partially suspended (…)’.96 The analysis outlined so far demonstrates that, as a dynamic field of religious practice, ‘animal worship’ encompasses multiple situations and patterns of ritualised activities, revolving around the sacralisation of special individuals or groups, which were socially pervasive and articulated, i.e. they were performed and/or experienced by different social classes. This conclusion challenges the persistent trend to polarise discussion between the two opposites of ‘popular’ and ‘royal/élite’ levels, advocating a more nuanced and layered interpretive framework. At the very least, the evidence shows that ‘animal worship’ does not belong, exclusively and distinctively, to one or the other of these two spheres of religious action and beliefs, with their related socio-cultural milieux, and rather illustrates a more complex picture of interaction and intersection between them. In this regard, although most of the sources frame the presence of sacr(alis)ed animals within an official, temple-based context of ritual manipulation, while private settings and more informal situations scarcely emerge from the record, nonetheless they indicate a certain public orientation. Of course, participation was hierarchically structured and tightly defined. The integration of animals in a cultic environment was encapsulated in a largely exclusive ceremonial event – though material from Asyut and Sumenu suggest a certain local connotation –, and also the possibilities and ways of active engagement with sacr(alis)ed animals were limited, most people being relegated to a mere role of passive spectatorship. Even so, the processional role of the animals – possibly, one among the others, and also variously characterised according to the contexts and/or the periods (see Table 6.3) – points to a relatively enlarged dimension of visibility and movement that could be relevant for the outside viewers and the petitioners. Personal names and New Kingdom votive stelae offer a glimpse of the impact that these parts of ceremonies had on the general audience and highlight their significance in building personal religious experiences. Wells 2014: 131 (n. 302), 202. Alternatively, they could have been hung in the tomb itself. For an informed overview on the funerary rites and their topographical setting, on the basis of the Serapeum stelae and the ‘Apis Embalming Ritual’, see Jansen-Winkeln 1994; Jurman 2010: 231-235; Marković 2017; Vercoutter 1975: 338-342; Vos 1993: 30-42. 95 Vercoutter 1962: 128-129. Cf. Jansen-Winkeln 1994. 96 Jurman 2010: 233. 93 94

186

Modelling Animal Worship Two further points descend from these considerations, which will be elaborated on in the following sections. Firstly, the general increase of material correlates documenting and displaying practices of ‘animal worship’, and in particular of sources and data concerning the sphere of nonstate religion, is likely to be related to changes in decorum, though, of course, modes and focuses of actions also shifted and/or developed into new forms (e.g. the funerary aspects). Secondly, social variability and distinctions in the ritual engagement with sacr(alis)ed animals are likely to correspond to different levels of understanding of those practices by the social actors. That is, emic interpretation of practices of ‘animal worship’, as they are thematised in pictorial and written sources, was not homogeneous but varied among the population, reflecting their level of religious access and knowledge, though such variations are not easy to detect behind the conventions and constraints of monumental display. 6.5.1.3 Meaning and interpretation As repeatedly noted above, it is through ritualised actions that special animal figures (both individuals and groups) are sacralised, i.e. made into ‘social others’ (sensu Gell) endowed with effective religious agency. As part of the process, an attempt can be made to define both the transformation and the achieved condition, i.e. to interpret the ritual situation and the identities of the actors involved, while texts and images help to fix and transmit them as themes of a ‘monumental discourse’. Interpretation is also a function of religion and a form of religious practice.97 It is concerned with the reflection upon, and the communication of the meaning that is ascribed to relevant aspects, actions, and phenomena related to spheres of the sacred and the divine. As such, interpretation is primarily (but not exclusively) the object of theology, whether it is implicitly or explicitly formulated in a coherent discourse, and mainly a product of the high culture. Formalised knowledge is a prerogative of specialised groups (priests) and a restricted privilege of the literate monument-commissioning minority (kingship and the élite), to such an extent that the extant record is dominated by their viewpoint and level of understanding, though, of course, religious ideas and notions could be appropriated, participated, and reframed in different social contexts and according to different intellectual possibilities: ‘Theologie ist ein Elitephänomen, auch wenn z. B. die Tierstelen des Neuen Reiches bezeugen, dass größere Segmente der Bevölkerungzumindest hybride Formen der Aneignung theologischen Wissens betrieben’.98 With these premises, therefore, it appears that ancient Egyptian interpretation focuses on: (1) conceptualising the role and status of the sacr(alis)ed animals; (2) defining and (re)presenting the liminal situation where their ritual manipulation occurs. As for the first point, looking at the sources, it can be first recognised, with Martin Fitzenreiter, a basic approach according to which ‘das Tier als sakrale Entität grundsätzlich anerkannt ist und über eine deutende Beschreibung versucht wird, das Wesen dieser sakralen Entität zu erfassen’99. Analytically, one might then distinguish between designation and characterisation on the one hand and predication on the other. Individual and collective designations – it has been noted (supra) – mainly presented animal agencies as such, i.e. as real beings, while the specific names that identify certain specimens or groups (Apis, Mnevis, Buchis, Hesat; Ram of Mendes; Tntt-cattle) possibly encoded or drew on complex religious ideas, and certainly highlighted their special position. The use of animal determinatives confirms this general understanding. In this regard, the occurrence, occasional in the Pyramid Texts and more regular in the Coffin Texts, of the divine classifiers (G7 or A40) to mark the names of Apis (Pyr. 1998b; CT I 98b; II 394a; III 138a; III 140e; VI 198x; VI 231r; VII 485g), Mnevis (CT V 191b; V 250k), and Hesat (Pyr. 2080e; CT III 61c; IV 350a; V 376a) could be Fitzenreiter 2004: 29-31. Fitzenreiter 2013a: 198. 99 Fitzenreiter 2013a: 198. 97 98

187

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt interpreted as dependent on the mythological framework sketched by those corpora rather than as a proof of an actual categorisation of the animals as divine entities. Similarly, the elaborated form (sun-disk, necklace, robe) of the bovine sign E4 marking the identity of the Hesat-cow in the funerary chapel of Senbi (B1) at Meir seems to convey a precise hathoric connotation of the animal, though it is difficult to draw definite conclusions from such a limited piece of evidence. Nonetheless, the regular mobilisation of these figures as part of the funerary discourse and strategy of self-presentation of the élite as well as the apparent growing efforts in the visual presentation of their identities represent ipso facto a notable indicator of their cultural prestige and religious significance. It is only starting with the New Kingdom that a classification of the sacr(alis)ed animals as nTrbeings become more apparent (though not systematic), for example on the inscribed material from the Serapeum (e.g. IM 5305), while the sporadic designation as wpwAwt of the canids depicted on the Salakhana stelae (e.g. BM 1430) may work as a metaphorical designation expressing the association of these animals with the local deity. Perhaps, a similar intellectual mechanism could already be recognised behind the plural form sbkw appearing in the toponym swnw n sbkw from the Middle Kingdom Heqanakht Papyri (VI, 4). Early evidence from different contexts casually provides further minimal elements for characterisation. On the Palermo Stone (PS r.IV.4, reign of Ninetjer), to the name of Apis is appended the epithet ‘living’ (anx), which also returns, apparently, in a Middle Kingdom anthroponym (nytHpw-anx, ‘She who belongs to the living Apis), and seems to anticipate its use in later formulations denoting a selected individual as an active religious agent often mediating (or manifesting) the power of a high god (the ‘living Apis bull’ at Memphis; the ‘living falcon’ of Edfu; the ‘living Ram of Mendes’). Similarly, the name of the queen ny-mAat-Hp (‘Maat belongs to Apis’) which follows a well-known pattern based upon the critical notion of Maat, places Apis in a position usually occupied by other powerful deities (especially Ra), and is suggestive of an ideological framework that will become fully articulated in later times. Finally, in funerary texts from both royal and private (chapel B1 at Meir) contexts, the Hesat-cow features regularly in a maternal constellation with various figures (Apis; Anubis; the White Bull) as the provider of care and sustenance. A more focused interpretive approach than earlier periods can be deduced from the New Kingdom evidence. The ideological conceptualisation and presentation of the sacr(alis)ed animals assume now some distinctive and rather stable forms (both verbal and pictorial) which, drawing on the theological notions and phraseology of the time, try to articulate their special position as agents and medium of religious practice. There is here an important point to remark, theoretically and historically: it is probably not entirely appropriate to speak of a ‘theology of sacred animals’, as we are not dealing with a systematic exposition on that specific topic. Rather, what we see in the sources is that the interpretation, communication, and display of their significance are set within the contemporary intellectual framework of the so-called ‘explicit theology’, which revolves around the problem of the relationship between the hidden supreme god the multiplicity of the pantheon and the variety of the cosmos, and has its main outcomes in the solar discourse, in the doctrine of the bA, and in the growing phenomenon of ‘personal piety’100. Royal ideology and Osirian religion also integrate the frame of reference. This productive connection results, first and foremost, in new specific modes of predications, brief phrases that enrich the description by expanding the range of information and values assigned to the animals addressed. Two basic forms, the bA and wHm predications, have been already discussed, together with the formula sar mAat n + GN, in relation to conceptualisation of the sacred bulls (supra), so it suffices to remind few structural points. Firstly, they create meaningful relationships with various divine entities (Ptah, Atum, Ra) according to cultural and religious criteria that, however, 100

See Assmann 2001; 2004, with further bibliography.

188

Modelling Animal Worship are often difficult to elucidate. The predications that we read on monuments are just the snapshot of an interpretive process that depends on concrete ritual contexts and settings, on local or great traditions, on individual knowledge and choices, in brief on a range of factors that are rarely made explicit. Secondly, the association is clearly presented as hierarchical, therefore there is no identity (even less confusion) between the two terms of the formula (the animal and the god), which rather formalises the role of the sacred bulls within a distinct religious landscape and tradition (Memphite and Heliopolite).101 Though the connection may sound to us somewhat artificial, it was not superficially constructed but certainly fitted in the local milieu and system of beliefs. Finally, these predications possibly reflect a cultic (oracular?) dimension, as they both establish, theologically, an intermediary position for the sacred bulls as ‘secondary agents’ mediating between the divine and human spheres, i.e. extending the power of the high god(s) they are linked to and, on the other hand, eliciting a response from the human worshippers. Thus, assuming that sacr(alis)ed animals got their meaning from being entangled through social actions in a ritual context – they function, in Gellian terms, as a nexus of a network of relationships between human and extra-human actors –, the bA and wHmw formulas, accordingly, do not simply encode symbolic propositions but refer to their effective agentive role within that situation. As part of a ritual discourse, they conceptualise the transformation of the animals from mundane creatures into sacred beings, marking their capacity to act and impress the observer, and defining their authoritative identities in the relational configurations evoked and enacted through the ritual performance: powerful entities that can be addressed and engaged with by human participants (king; private individual) through formally structured behaviours (royal race, offering, petition, etc.) in order to achieve the expected results at state or personal level. Besides these, other significant modes of description emerge that increase the spectrum of possibilities. The locution wsir-NN, in which the name of the animal is prefixed by that of the god Osiris, becomes a common linguistic device to denote the dead animal and its transfigured status, after undergoing the funerary procedures and ceremonies, in analogy with what was the custom for the human deceased.102 The extension, during the New Kingdom, of this ‘Osirian model’ to the animal world,103 which, according to the Egyptian Weltanschauung, partakes of a similar condition as the human society,104 fits within a wider historical-religious process while, in the context of the sacralisation of animals, it is adopted as a distinctive strategy reflecting a growing interest in the funerary sphere as a suitable arena for manipulating (both physically and conceptually) a special animal presence. The Osirian interpretation, which will enjoy great popularity as a theological correlate of the mass burials of multiple animals in the Late and Graeco-Roman periods, first appears in the context of the funerary cult for the Apis and Mnevis bulls developing in the mid 18th dynasty and subsequent Ramesside period, as it is attested to in the epigraphic material coming from their tombs. For the single individuals, the osirisation, marked by the epithet Osiris-Apis/Mnevis, represents above all the culmination and projection of a life-cycle, which was symmetrical with that of royalty, into the afterlife. This fact, which is particularly well-illustrated for Apis, led to a full conceptual exploitation

See Bonnet 1952: 47; Jurman 2009: 227. On the complex relationship between Osiris and the deceased, see Smith 2008. 103 One of the earliest attestation is on the limestone coffin (CG 5003) dedicated by prince Thutmosis, eldest son of Amenhotep III, to his pet cat, labelled as wsir-tA miwt (‘Osiris-She cat’). The whole decorative programme of the monument presents the animal as an Osiris, receiving funerary offerings and being enmeshed in an Osirian constellation (Nut, Isis, Nephtys, and the Four Sons of Horus). See Borchardt 1907; Reisner and Abd-Ul-Rahman 1967: 392-394. 104 Hornung 1967: 71, defines the relationship between men and animals in terms of Partnerschaft. Cf. te Velde 1980: 77-78, and 81: ‘animals were not only mummified as epiphanies of a particular god, but because they are bearers of life as human are’ 101 102

189

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt of the ‘Osiris model’,105 implemented by a rich set of related epithets,106 and was complemented by a full range of syncretistic associations built around the (dead) animal.107 While Mnevis is closely linked with Ra and Atum, an emerging solar characterisation can be seen also for Apis as early as the time of Amenhotep III, when the bull starts being labelled as Hp-tm abwy.f tp.f, ‘Apis-Atum, his two horns are upon him’.108 The appellation presents Apis as a form of the solar god, and seems to be already well-codified at the beginning of our documentation, so we rather appreciate the final product than the intellectual mechanisms underlying it.109 The apex of this theological system is represented, for the Apis bull, by the complex formulation wsir-Hp/Hp-wsir-tm-Hr n sp nTr aA, ‘Osiris-Apis/Apis-Osiris-Atum-Horus altogether, the great god’, which is a sophisticated attempt to grasp and communicate ‘an extended nature and sphere of action’110 assigned to the deceased bull as a funerary divine being, by condensing in a single effective statement a number of meaningful connections. This complicated statement, which is attested already in the early Ramesside period,111 illustrates the growing complexity of the funerary cult of the Apis bull, but again it should not be understood as an abstract or mere glorifying phrase to celebrate the sacred animal. Rather, it reflects and encodes a precise cultic reality: the uninterrupted succession of sacred bulls, apparently institutionalised during the 18th dynasty, and marked by a sequence of distinctive ceremonial episodes of selection, enthronement, burial, and funerary cult, outlines and renovates a full royal cycle of life, reign (Horus, Atum) and death (Osiris, Atum), which Apis embodies and (ritually) performs during its whole existence, acting as a model and counterpart for the king. The sequence of divine names (Horus, Atum, Osiris), accordingly, is the conceptualisation of such a cyclically performed pattern.112 Religious ideas or theological notions may also be formulated pictorially or, at least, influence certain artistic expressions. So, the regular occurrence of the sun disc between the horns of the Apis and, of course, Mnevis bulls, as well as the red colour of their hide as depicted on different monuments articulated pictorially the distinctive and increasing solar characterisation of these specimens, as part of a wider intellectual trend.113 On the other hand, as noted above, the numerous representations of unmarked animals on votive stelae, usually combined with an individually defined figure (single specimen or statue; divine emblem), not only referred to specific episodes of locally constructed religious practice (the maintenance of a living animal presence within the temple area) but most likely encoded general ideas about the doctrine of the bA and the multilayered relationships between various sacred/divine manifestations. The previous overview of the Egyptian modes of conceptualising the social and theological status of sacr(alis)ed animals, allows refining few relevant arguments. First of all, if ‘sacralisation’ (re) For the different value of the two forms, Oisiris-Apis (earlier) and Apis-Osiris (later), see Devauchelle 1998: 593-595. According to him (1998 : 593), ‘La désignation Osiris-Apis (…) mentionne l’Apis mort devenu un Osiris’ while ‘Apis-Osiris est une figure d’Osiris (…). C’est une forme du dieu des morts dont il porte les titres’. 106 For Apis, the sequence xnty imnt nb nHH (nsw nTrw) (‘Foremost of the West, Lord of eternity, King of the gods’) is surely attested from the Third Intermediate Period onwards; cf. Malinine, Posener and Vercoutter 1968: 53 (no. 58), 89 (no. 111), 91 (no. 114), 138 (no. 181), 167-168 (no. 219), 169 (no. 221). For Ptolemaic variants of these epithets, cf. Devauchelle 1998: 606, 608-609. At Heliopolis, the name of Mnevis is sometimes followed by the epithet wnn-nfr (Wenennefer) in the inscriptional record from the two Ramesside tombs of the sacred bull. 107 An informed overview of the complex phenomenon of syncretism can be found in Hornung 1982a: 91-99. 108 The inscription, appearing in the chapel of Tomb A of the Apis 18.1/I (Amenhotep III), reads: Dd-mdw Hp anx wsir nb pt tm abwy.f tp.f (…), ‘The living Apis-Osiris, lord of the sky, Apis-Atum whose two horns are upon him (…)’. Cf. Mariette 1857:8; 1882: 125. 109 Cf. Otto 1964: 27: ‘Aber auch hier sehen wir nur das Ergebnis, nicht den Weg, auf dem es erreicht wurde’. The German scholar speculates that the connection would be rooted in the funerary nuance that both figures came to assume, Atum as the setting sun, and Apis thanks to the assimilation with Osiris. This appellation, with variants, continues to be attested during the Late and Ptolemaic periods; cf. Devauchelle 1994: 78, with bibliographic references. 110 Hornung 1982a: 92. 111 The appellation is first attested in the Tomb G for the Apis 19.2/VII (early reign of Ramses II) but recurs also in later documents. Cf. Devauchelle 1994: 80, n. 5. 112 Devauchelle 1998 : 594, n. 25: ‘(…) l’appellation “Apis-Osiris(/ Osiris-Apis)-Atoum-Horus à la fois” (…) décrit le cycle “Apis vivant (= Horus) - Apis mort (Osiris)” à l’image de la figure de Pharaon’. For the comparison between single animals and the king, cf. Meeks 1988:437 and the previous discussion. 113 On the positive symbolic connotation of the color red, and its implications in the representation of the sacred bulls, cf. Vos 1998: 712713. 105

190

Modelling Animal Worship frames selected animals as empowered meaningful entities (Kultobjeckte) of religious practice, then ‘[d]ie verschiedenen Bezeichnungen für die im Kult verwendeten lebenden oder toten Tiere sind unter dem Gesichtspunkt der religiösen Praxis also nicht mehr und nicht weniger als die Bestimmung des Objektes einer Kulthandlung’114. Meaning, therefore, is produced and negotiated through practice, while its articulation (verbally and/or pictorially) is not fixed nor static but flexible and dynamic. Such a strong variability in theological interpretation can be appreciated both diachronically, as a matter of historical development – the further expansion of the religious terminology (xprw; aHa.f n GN; GN pw) documented by Late and Graeco-Roman temple monographs and lists illustrates this point in exemplary fashion – and synchronically, as strategical and context-bound. The variety of divine associations appearing in New Kingdom sources belongs in this exegetic framework, where multiple combinations were exploited without freezing in rigid equations – though certain connections became quite canonical (e.g. the Apis bull with the god Ptah) –, because of that principle which has been characterised by Henri Frankfort as ‘multiplicity of approaches’. The interesting point, in this regard, is that deities functioned as indexing keys and semantic referents for interpreting sacr(alis)ed animals, a procedure that will be perfected by later manuals (like the P. Jumilhac). The reason why these associations could be multiplied or applied to different animals without contradiction (for the Egyptians), while they appear elusive and scarcely informative to us, is because they were not meant as explanations producing rational accounts, but as interpretations communicating (sacred) meaning. It was less a way to provide information than to define and assert, from different angles and in relation to different situations or intentions, the special (sacred) status ritually induced in the addressed animal(s). The role of images and, above all, language in (re)constructing meaning – a constitutive aspect of Egyptian religion and cult practice115 – becomes here especially apparent, and extends this semiotic approach to the whole ritual framework surrounding the manipulation and activation of the sacr(alis)ed animals. While a distinction between official (royal) and private scenes can be maintained and proved as relevant from a sociological perspective, a basic structure can be recognised where the three poles of (performed) action, (visual) representation, and (written) language combine and relate each other in complex ways. In contrast to the stronger limitations of earlier periods, New Kingdom (especially Ramesside) ‘animal stelae’ are the principal sources displaying private initiatives in the field of so-called ‘animal worship’. Like similar monuments of the period, they make use of a few selected iconographic and verbal patterns (offering or adoration scenes) to express individual participation in conventional form, and focus on a limited set of aspects.116 In particular, there is no clear reference to the spatial setting of the scene or the possible mediation of a priest, while the interaction is presented as a direct engagement between the devotee(s) and the animal(s) (alone or combined with other divine forms or symbols). The encoded information concerns:117 (1) the liminal situation, i.e. ritual framework, of the performed act, which is sometimes succinctly characterised as rdit iAw n (‘giving praise to’) or as Htp-di-nsw (‘funerary offering’); (2) the animal agent, which is variously defined or predicated according to the formulas discussed above, and presented as the recipient of the offering; (3) the performer, who is occasionally identified with precision by name and titles; (4) the goals of the action, which however cannot be determined at personal level (beyond educated guesses), as they are rarely explicitly formulated, while the public setting of the stelae, the dedication of which certainly was part of the performance (but, significantly, is never made object of the depicted scene), reflect the will of the devotee to (re)affirm his/her social position in front of the community by (re)presenting his/her involvement in local religious practice and belief system. To this end, the depiction of sacr(alis)ed animals, which evidently were part of temple ceremonies, was now deemed as an appropriate theme of display. Fitzenreiter 2003a: 25. Assmann 1992. 116 Cf. Exell 2009: 20-21; Luiselli 2005: 26-28; 2007: 90-92; 2013: 21-24. 117 Fitzenreiter 2003a: 24. 114 115

191

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt In brief, these codified scenes provide us with ‘interpreted rather than actual practice’,118 representing a generalised understanding of that practice. Whatever the articulation of cultic reality was, texts and images conceptualised and (re)signified the roles and the relationships enacted by human and non-human actors according to traditional cultural codes while possibly drawing on contemporary religious ideas and theological discourses elaborated by the élite (solar model; bA/wHm-predication, nTr-categorisation, etc.). Considering the private nature and the practical function and context of the sources, Martin Fitzenreiter aptly notes that ‘die Stifter oder Produzenten der vorliegenden Bild- und Textquellen gar nicht an einer konzeptuellen Auseinandersetzung mit dem Problem interessiert gewesen sein, sondern schlicht auf den vorliegenden Interpretationsstand zurückgegriffen haben, um genau das zu tun, was der Kern religiöser Praxis ist: die liminale Situation zu erzeugen und das kultische Objekt zu definieren, um religiöse Handlungen zu welchem Zweck auch immer ausüben zu können’.119 Of course, variations are to be expected and one can think of the three Ramesside Apis stelae of Piay as complex, very detailed (in both pictorial and textual decoration), and individualised (almost biographical) examples while, at the opposite end of the spectrum, the numerous clay stelae from Asyut, crudely manufactured and possibly prefabricated, show a simple decoration with no relevant inscriptions. This leads us to a crucial point, which has been rarely addressed in the historical analysis of this class of material, that is the social conditioning in religious participation and display. Religious concepts and ideas are not evenly distributed among the members of a community – especially when they are not fixed in dogmatic forms – but can vary between different groups even though they are rooted in a shared system of values and beliefs. This means that also the understanding of ritual practice and even of the same event can be differently constructed and expressed, depending on the social identity of the practitioners and on their more or less restricted possibility of engagement in ritual activities. The ‘animal stelae’ illustrate a public context of religious performance and display (the funeral for the Apis and Mnevis bulls; the procession of Wpwawt) which represent the backdrop for the dedication of those monuments and, of course, a significant experience for the community. The mobilisation of sacr(alis)ed animals was an integral part of the ceremonies. In this regard, while participation was – as discussed above – hierarchically structured, it appears that the depictions on private stelae could reflect different levels of interpretation: Durch festgelegte rituelle Praktiken und religiöse Gebetsformeln wurde die Sphäre des Göttlichen dem Individuum unmittelbar zugänglich gemacht. Die Erreichbarkeit des Göttlichen war je nach sozialer Schicht im unterschiedlichen Masse möglich, und zwar je nachdem, ob sie durch die theologische Kenntnis einzelner Spezialisten oder durch die magisch-rituelle Praxis von Individuen unterschiedlicher Gesellschaftsschichten erreicht wurde.120

The Salakhana stelae from Asyut, with their strong connection to the local religious landscape centred on the god Wpwawt and his festival, offers an exemplary case study. Moving from the assumption that ‘[v]otive stelae (and other votive objects) display the religious performance and understanding of the individuals who donated them’,121 Eric Ryan Wells has recently demonstrated the multi-layered perception of that event within the local community, identifying, for each of the five social groups of donors (local high élite; military; ritual specialists; lower élite; general populace), different trends in the monumental (re)presentation of their religious roles. In particular, he concludes that the different forms chosen to allude to the divine presence (living canids, seated statue in mixed form, divine standard) indicated different degrees of cultic engagement and religious knowledge: while the combination of the standard with a group of accompanying canids is a typical motif attested for all groups, thus evoking a shared cultic background (the Bussmann 2019: 83, with valuable methodological discussion. Fitzenreiter 2003a: 25. 120 Luiselli 2011: 23. 121 Wells 2014: 8. 118 119

192

Modelling Animal Worship procession), the mixed animal-human form is more frequently displayed on the stelae dedicated by the local high élite – a marker of their privileged (but not exclusive) access to the inner area of the temple; on the other hand, the depiction of multiple canids recurs regularly on those available to the common people who, however, are rarely represented.122 Evidently, the animals were (alone or associated to the standard) a highly visible component of the ceremony that was more easily accessible for interaction (at least in terms of visual contact) and available to display, while decorum restricted the access of other modes of expression to the members of higher groups, who had a greater social and religious prestige. In this regard, the prefabricated character of some stelae points toward a sort of mass-production that was meant to reach larger parts of society, and so its decoration reflects how formal religious practice was generally experienced and conceptualised. The theological implications behind these visual formulations were linked to the élite speculation, while to the individual devotee it was rather a matter of inferences and practical knowledge that were habitually evoked and drawn upon to sustain ritual activity, achieve effectiveness and express devotion (Gottesnähe). The representational and interpretive transformation of religious practice is monumentally illustrated by the cult scenes in royal temple reliefs. In that official context, the actual rites conducted by priests are represented (in canonical configurations) as an exclusive performance of the king in front of a deity, and interpreted, in the accompanying inscriptions (liturgical recitations), as the reenactment of mythical episodes related to the world of the gods. Jan Assmann argues that, within this ‘tripartite system of religious symbolization’ (1. action; 2. icon; 3. language), ‘Level 3 (language) refers to Levels 1 and 2 in the form of interpretation. What is said interprets what is “done” and “shown”’.123 We are dealing, therefore, with a highly erudite process of semiosis and exegesis developed by the sacerdotal class to (re)shape the meaning of ritual acts according to a mythical frame of reference, using language to link ‘the action “here” and the occurrence “there”’.124 The procedure reaches the climax in the decorative programmes of the Graeco-Roman times, when, as Assmann points out, ‘sacramental interpretation developed into an art of considerable complexity’.125 With specific regard to practices of ‘animal worship’, that is of ritual manipulation of sacr(alis) ed animals, the procession of the white bull of Min, and especially the ‘Driving of the four calves’ represent two particularly instructive contexts. They show, with their long history reaching well into the Ptolemaic period, how this hermeneutic strategy produced an ever-changing interpretation of those rites, whose origins were progressively obscured and overlaid by subsequent shifts in meaning. In the latter case, the combination of multiple themes (cardinal points; pastoral; agrarian; Osirian) operating at different levels (individual; social; cosmic), together with the variety of divine referents addressed,126 displays an extremely rich symbolism built upon and around the performed actions and developed into a sophisticated tradition of ritual exegesis.127 By means of such a multilayered symbolism, the rite could be incorporated into the liturgical settings of many different festivals, while the osirisation of the ceremony, in particular, reveals a historically significant trend.128 A certain flexibility can be also recognised in the semantics of the ‘running of the Apis bull’. In the end, we must admit that all the variability and differences in the forms of predication and conceptualisation of sacr(alis)ed animals and their actions (epithets, attributes, divine associations, Wells 2014: 309-320. Assmann 1992: 94. 124 Assmann 2001: 89. 125 Assmann 1992: 106. 126 Especially male gods (like Amon and Min), while goddesses are rare. Cf. Egberts 1995: 417. 127 Full discussion in Egberts 1995: 335-374. 128 Commenting upon the clustering of the ‘driving of the four calves’ and the ‘consecration of the meret-chests’ as early as the reign of Thutmosis I, Arno Egberts (1995: 433) remarks that ‘this would mean that the Osirian reinterpretation of the two rites was already accomplished by the early New Kingdom’. As for its inclusion in various festivals, cf. Egberts 1995: 386-388, 412, 418. 122 123

193

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt etc.) converge towards the centrality of the animal itself as a prominent focus of religious practice and its theological interpretation. From this perspective, therefore, as Martin Fitzenreiter aptly remarks, ‘gesehen sind die theologisch vorgenommenen Assoziationen zu abstrakten Entitäten meist als sekundäre bzw. dem theologischen Zeitgeist gemäße Interpretationen der besonderen Position dieser Tiere anzusehen’.129 As such, they are variable historical products, deeply rooted in the social setting and cultural milieu of the time, while also strictly linked to the material media and forms that transmit them (royal monuments, votive stelae, funerary compositions, etc.). The type and character of the sources, therefore, is also a significant factor as definitions and conceptions are not presented in terms of coherent information within a theoretical exposition, but rather evoked as part of ritual strategies that take place in specific religious contexts, with the specific purpose of realising extraordinary expectations and achieving powerful, durable effects (public celebration of gods and kings; answer to individual or family concerns; personal devotion and interaction with the gods; etc.). In doing so, of course, they make use of contemporary theological statements and notions that reflect and (re)adapt a wider framework of religious discourse and debate, mainly developed in the sphere of the élite. The foregoing considerations, together with the review of the pertinent material conducted in the previous sections, allows outlining few conclusive remarks that have been already variously addressed but need to be stressed as methodologically relevant in order to articulate an etic discourse on the Egyptian (emic) understanding of sacr(alis)ed animals: 1. religious interpretation and knowledge, just like (and as part of) ritual practice, are dynamic creations, shaped by (and related to) practice itself, and subject to change over time as well as in relation to different local systems and traditions. • While early forms of designation highlight the special character and prestige of certain (mostly individual) animal agencies and indirect evidence (personal names; funerary texts) provides sparse elements for further characterisation, it is only starting with the New Kingdom that a more developed interpretive approach can be detected. • New Kingdom modes of predications conceptualise the (ritually induced) sacred status of the animals according to some recurrent schemes influenced by contemporary theological ideas (bA-doctrine; solar theology; Osirian religion). In addition, the contingent, historical quality of this intellectual process can be assessed via comparison with later Graeco-Roman expressions elaborating on the same issue (cf. the formulas aHa.f n GN and GN pw or the reinterpretation of name of the Buchis bull). • As part of a ritual strategy, predications, with the plurality of divine associations they evoke, function as the verbal complement of a cultic reality and not as mere symbolic statements, i.e. the religious meaning ascribed to sacr(alis)ed animals is concretely situated within specific fields and a local contexts of practice and beliefs. 2. Religious interpretation is exteriorised in the material correlates of practice (like stelae), which are not aimed at a punctual ideological exposition but at a practical application of that knowledge, presenting the imagined encounter with sacr(alis)ed animals in monumental form, while interaction with monuments activates it permanently. Therefore, they only indirectly refer, through their decorative programme, to an élite domain of theological speculation. Moreover, the degree of understanding may vary in relation to social restrictions on religious access and to constraints of decorum (cf. the Apis/Mnevis stelae and those from the provincial contexts of Asyut and Sumenu). 3. The monumental thematisation of animal agencies and related cultic episodes repesents a partial, stereotyped, and aesthetically (re)constructed version of religious practice; while not corresponding to the actual unfolding of the ritual performance, it commemorates the event and celebrates the addressed animal presence as a significant focus of religious participation and display. 129

Fitzenreiter 2013a: 200. Cf. also Colonna 2017: 109; Fitzenreiter 2003a: 27.

194

Modelling Animal Worship 6.5.2 Reconstructing ‘animal worship’: historical synthesis The aspect of thematisation addressed above and explicitly formulated in the second part of the definition proposed in this study concerns the transposition of practices and contexts of ‘animal worship’ into the expressive forms of the ‘monumental discourse’, and thus introduces the modern analyst to the second level of interpretation, i.e. that of historical reconstruction. The argument that is made here is that, by evaluating the modes and times of the monumentalisation of these practices within the framework of pharaonic high culture, it becomes possible to reconsider the chronological development of ‘animal worship’ in different terms than as a mere ‘retrograde movement’. This point raises important issues about charting patterns in the distribution of the sources and ultimately relates to the rules of decorum, which regulated access to monumental display and affected the form, content, and setting of what was presented in texts and images. The implications of this system for the historical reading of the evidence are particularly relevant: on the one hand, its highly selective and hierarchical character (in terms of both material resources and intellectual efforts) implies that certain aspects or manifestations did not enter – or did it in restricted forms or different periods – into the ‘monumental discourse’. On the other hand, it is their reception within the formal high culture that marks a shift in their visibility in the record and allows setting them in a diachronic perspective, tracing major developments and ruptures. On these bases, an ‘Alternative Model’ has been designed (Figure 6.1) to challenge the ‘Standard Model’ already discussed (see supra, Figure 1.2).130 The two models move, evidently, from very different conceptual premises and approaches to the data, and accordingly diverge in the reconstructions produced: one (‘Standard Model’) is linear and regressive, the other (‘Alternative Model’) multifaceted and dynamic. It is articulated in three major phases that correspond to as many chronological configurations of the material evidence (Table 6.5): Phase

I

Period ED-NK

II

NK

III

LP-LA

Main Data Configuration Sparse epigraphic/pictorial material related to single/multiple animals Individual tombs ‘Animal stelae’ Mass burials Animal mummies/bundles

Main Forms of Conceptualisation Early bA-predication (Henqu ?) nTr-categorisation bA-predication wHm-predication Osiris-designation nTr(w)-categorisation bA/wHm-predication Osiris designation other modes of predications (xprw; aHa.f n GN; GN pw)

Table 6.5. The three macro-phases of ‘animal worship’ and their distinctive material configurations.

In particular, one can easily identify two macro-periods when the integration of practices of ‘animal worship’ with the ‘monumental discourse’ shows some distinctive patterns: in the New Kingdom (Phase II), with the institutions of the individual tombs of the Serapuem under Amenhotep III, and during the Late Period until the beginning of the Late Antiquity (Phase III), when the dramatic increase of manifestations of sacr(alis)ed animals (especially mummification and funerary cults) strongly characterised the religious panorama of the time, becoming a recurrent topos in the accounts of contemporary Greek, Roman, and Christian authors. Monumentalised forms of ‘animal worship’, however, are attested already from periods before the New Kingdom (Phase I), despite major gaps and inconsistencies in the record. Rather than 130

Colonna 2017: 109-110; 2018: 448-451.

195

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt

Figure 6.1. Historical development of ‘animal worship’ according to the ‘Alternative Model’. Slightly modified from Colonna 2017: Figure 2.

reflecting a real absence of this field of action, which would be difficult to reconcile with the as sporadic and indirect as positive references to specific figures and contexts (e.g. the Apis bull), this situation can be more reasonably understood as the product of powerful limitations in the access to the monumental media (architecture, relief decoration, etc.), in brief of the conventions of decorum, which were particularly restrictive during the 3rd millennium BC. In this perspective, the thematisation of such practices appears to have been first conditioned by their inclusion within the official spheres of temple and kingship; it is only via this appropriation that they acquired full visibility and visual impact as a focus of religious display and communication. The monumental (though fragmentary) attestations of the Apis bull, the so-called ‘Scene of the pelicans’, and the relief scenes of the ‘Driving of the four calves’ most effectively illustrate the ritual construction and mobilisation of both single individuals and small groups within already highly structured ceremonial contexts, linked with the celebration of kingship (pHrr-Hp; Sed-festival) and with state-run temple cults (like the solar cult). Outside these two domains, personal names and especially private titles give only a narrow formal expression to the presence of sacr(alis) ed animals within temples areas.131 In this regard, the mechanism of thematisation consisted in associating the animal agency with specific titles (e.g. mdw; Hm-nTr), which however are usually too concise to precisely reconstruct the related tasks and activities. The Apis bull plays again the lion share, but other specimens are also mentioned, mostly bovines (kA-HD-bull; HsAt-cow; Tntt-cattle). The standard composition of these titles and their proliferation are noteworthy for a double reason: on the one hand, they conceptualise the position of the stated animal agencies as part of the temple domain, even though their possible religious significance remains vague and evanescent (as their connection to the temple’s main deity) considering both the honorific (or simply poorly understood) character of most titles and the lack of sufficient comparative material; on the other hand, they demonstrate a remarkable social relevance, during the Old Kingdom, as a mode self-presentation for the élite, since the adoption of this type of titles was apparently 131

Cf. Fitzenreiter 2013a: 66-68.

196

Modelling Animal Worship confined to high-ranking officials and members of the central court, and was likely motivated by the prestige derived from the association with the mentioned animals and (possibly) their related ritual performances. Reasons of decorum, therefore, explain the scarce prominence of ‘animal worship’ in the early record and the uneven patterning of the latter. They confined the display of these activities to the royal initiative, which, during the Old and Middle Kingdom, apparently showed a limited involvement in the monumental presentation of these practices, the rituals for the Apis bull being a notable exception. Of course, participation in such activities could have concerned larger groups within society, but they were not allowed to publicly display their involvement on a larger scale. At the same time, the Middle Kingdom toponym in P. Heqanakht VI, 4 (swnw n sbkw, ‘pools of the crocodiles-Sobek’) suggests a wider geographical dimension, beyond the residence; it likely alludes to a cultic reality rooted in the local landscape, one that lied outside the scope and interests of the central court, and so did not rise to the dignity of monumental expression until later on, in the New Kingdom. In this period (Phase II), a more prominent and systematic involvement by the royal authority and the loosening of the constraints of decorum produced a major historical development, as noted above. This is marked on the one hand by Amenhotep III’s monumental (re)foundation of the necropolis for the Apis bulls and the direct intervention of the central administration in their funerals, and, on the other hand, by the rich production of votive stelae which, for the first time, clearly attest to a socially articulated and regionally expanded participation in these practices. The dominant (though not exclusive) funerary character of the materials and settings, together with the growing focus on conceptualising animal agencies, also indicates that the change was a matter of both religious display and action. Here, it is worth contextualising such transformation in relation to three core aspects of the time that can be briefly considered. Firstly, it has been noted how, during the New Kingdom, kingship shows greater attention towards the visible manifestations and/or aspects of the divine, a remarkable trend that encompasses other relevant phenomena like the promotion of rockcut temples and related cults, the multiplication of divine statues and images outside the inner sanctuary, the ‘reformed’ religion of the sun-disk (Aten) under Akhenaton: ‘Allen diesen Tendenzen ist eigen, daß sie vom Gedanken einer permanenten oder zeitweiligen Epiphanie der Gottheit in den Gegenstand der Verehrung ausgehen’.132 This notion of a divine presence (epiphany) within the world is then conceptually elaborated and formalised in the bA-theology and in the idea of the ‘indwelling’ (Einwohnung) of the deity in the cult images – a point already addressed above (supra). Finally, as for the pictorial forms and conventions, it appears that, starting from the New Kingdom, public display by non-royal individuals becomes more and more focused on religion and the gods, meaning that access to religious contents is now less restricted than it was in earlier periods133. The points sketched above, therefore, outline a fitting framework in which to set the rapid development of ‘animal worship’ and its spread in forms and media that involved both the state and the private people. Of course, in their monumental expression, the non-royal attestations could follow certain royal patterns or produce distinctive forms, while also containing more or less sophisticated and explicit references to the contemporary theological process. The last phase (III), spanning from the Late Period to the early Late Antiquity, falls outside the chronological boundaries of the present work. On the other hand, it is much better represented in the preserved archaeological and textual record, and as such it is usually made the focus of detailed studies on the subject, lying at the very core of the traditional perception and understanding of 132 133

Fitzenreiter 2003a: 16-17. Baines 2007: 21-25. For a focused discussion on the Ramesside developments in religious display, see Baines and Frood 2011.

197

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt ‘animal worship’. Therefore, it will not be discussed in depth, although some structural remarks shall be pointed out to complete the historical framework/picture. During this long period (ca. 7th century BC to 4th century AD), the extraordinary proliferation of religious manifestations based on sacr(alis)ed animals appears to be mainly related to the local dimension of divine cults, to the field of (magical) protection, and to the osirian-funerary sphere – all important and culturally distinguishing elements of contemporary religion. In this regard, the systematic inclusion of single and multiple animals within temple areas, the diffusion at a national scale of specifically designed breeding places as well as of necropolises for their mass burials,134 the considerable growth of funerary practices135 and associated traditions (i.e. oracles, incubations, and dream invocations)136 represent the specific tangible expression of those general trends, which greatly expand earlier configurations. All these aspects reflect a full-fledged institutionalisation of animal cults, which become well-integrated not just into the religious landscapes and belief systems, but also into the social and economic life of Egyptian communities.137 Of course, as Dieter Kessler has emphasised, kingship played a central role in the promotion, patronage, and administration of these cults.138 The royal authority was directly involved in supporting such practices, their organisation, and the related building programmes, while the explicit ideological connections between the status of kings and sacr(alis)ed animals (especially single individuals) reveal the strong concern of the former for the latter.139 However, contrary to Kessler’s neat opinion that ‘[e]ine Tierverehrung durch den einfachen Gläubigen hat es nie geben’140, it appears that the appeal of these activities extended well beyond the royal court and affected, at different levels and with different degrees of access, the whole society.141 The type and number of evidence coming from some of the major burial places (like the Sacred Animal Necropolis at Saqqara) call for a more balanced view, suggesting that ‘in addition to the premeditated state element, a spontaneous outflow of personal devotion, at every level of society, was also involved’.142 The significant amount of inscribed material (pleas, oracle questions, stelae, and dedicatory inscriptions) and votive offerings (bronze figurines, furniture, amulets, etc.)143 are indicative of the pervasiveness and the success of sacred animal cults, their participation being publicly experienced by the worshippers as a particularly effective way to address their needs and express their religiosity.144 The marked increase of burials of ‘votive’ animal mummies or bundles suits well this framework as a visible and highly distinctive product of such an intensified ritual activity. The exact dynamics and contexts of their manufacture, use, and deposition in cemeteries are still a matter of debate among scholars.145 The dominant interpretation of animal mummies as ex-votos, according to which local devotees and pilgrims purchased and ‘offered these mummies to the god, together with a prayer, request, For a full list cf. Kessler 1989: 17-29. See also Ikram 2005a: xviii-xx. On animal mummies and mummification procedures cf. Gaillard and Daressy 1905; Ikram 2004; 2005c; Ikram and Iskander 2002; Lortet and Gaillard 1903-1907. 136 General overview in Ikram 2005b: 8-9; Ray 2001: 346-347. On the literary tradition about the oracles of the Apis bull see Hopfner 1913: 81-82. Other oracular animals included rams (Kákosy 1966), ibises (Ray 1976: 130-136), beetles (Jasnow 1997). For a focused discussion on some textual materials from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara cf. Ray 2005; Smith 2002. On incubation practices at Saqqara cf. also Renberg 2017: 394-447. 137 An informed discussion on the economic impact of animal cults in Ikram 2015. See also Charron 2015. 138 Kessler 1989. 139 See Assmann 2002: ‘Because the kings also saw themselves as living incarnation of the supreme deity, they occupied the same theological category as the sacred animals. Perhaps this explains their consuming interest in the animal cult’. This point is best illustrated by some honorary titles adopted by the Ptolemies to display their intimate relationship with a single specimen like the Apis bull: ‘twin brother of the living Apis because of their craddle’ (Ptolemy VII); ‘ecellent through the origin of his reign in conjunction of the living Apis’ (Ptolemy IX); ‘resplendent in Egypt as the living Apis’ (Ptolemy X Soter II). Cf. Brugsch 1884; 1886. For general overview on the policy of the Ptolemies towards animal cults cf. also Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1891-1895. 140 Kessler 1989: 295. 141 See Hornung 1993: 22-23. 142 Davies and Smith 1997: 122; cf. Smith 2002: 370. For an informed overview of the cultic landscape at North Saqqara, see Nicholson 2005; Ray 1978; Smith 1974. 143 Charron 2012; Davies 2007; Green 1987. 144 Davies and Smith 1997: 122-124. 145 Reconstruction is largely dependent on the so-called ‘archive of Hor’ and other textual materials from Saqqara (Ray 1976). On this basis, it is concluded that mummies were ceremonially buried en masse once a year, after having been prepared in the embalming chamber (wabt) and temporarily stored in the ‘a house of waiting’ (awy n Hrry). A less regular pattern in the internment of multiple animals emerges from the Kom Ombo ostraca (Preisigke and Spiegelberg 1914). 134 135

198

Modelling Animal Worship or complaint’146 has been contested by Kessler.147 Based on his work at Tuna el-Gebel, he argues for a more structured frame of action, in which the mummies belonged to animals included in cult ceremonies (royal and divine festivals) and bred from sacred flocks kept in the god’s land, while only priests and people affiliated to specific cultic associations148 were enabled to dedicate them.149 Therefore, he does not acknowledge the possibility of a direct connection between mummies, with their huge numbers and types (pseudo-mummies and bundles), and pilgrimage activity, removing any individual or popular dimension from the discussion of the phenomenon.150 Overall, the whole system of rearing, maintaining, and interring sacred animals is referred, both administratively and theologically, to an exclusive sphere of official cult, which was regulated by the central authority and aimed at granting the cyclical renovation of the king and the great gods.151 Accordingly, every remains of animal living on the god’s land had to be carefully collected and properly processed; the state-sponsored multiplication of the cult places for sacred animals, and not the popular devotion, would thus account for the millions of mummies produced. Although probably too restrictive in its implications, Kessler’s (re)view rightly emphasises a critical point that is often overlooked in literature, i.e. sacr(alis)ed animals (large groups as well as single individuals) were a well-established component of regular temple cult at that time. This fact however does not exclude, as it has been already discussed above (see 6.5.1.2), larger participation and a more variegated interplay between state and popular acts. Gaps in the record as well as the distribution of the surviving material should be considered when trying to assess the social profile of the actors. First of all, given that the large majority of written evidence comes from temple areas administered by literate priests and members of local associations, it is not surprising to recognise that an institutional perspective is reflected so prominently in the sources. This becomes even more apparent in relation to major centres (like Saqqara or Tuna) where royal interests and sponsorship were strongly displayed, while provincial cemeteries would have remained more peripheral to the official sphere. Moreover, popular participation may have left little direct traces: priests and cult servants could have mediated presenting mummies, petitions, and other votive objects on behalf of common people, while ‘reciprocation for fiscal donations may not have been necessary, i.e. receipts need not be issued and the product purchased need not be physical (e.g., prayer)’.152

Ikram 2015: 3. See also Davies and Smith 1997: 122-124; Dodson 2009; Ikram 2005: 9-10; Ray 1978; 2001: 346-347; Smith 1974. 1989; 2003; 2018; von den Driesch et al. 2005; Kessler and Nur el-Din 2005. 148 The standard work is de Cenival 1972. Cf. also Bresciani 1994; Fitzenreiter 2011; Muszynski 1977. For the particular category of the ‘bearers of the gods’ (i.e. the animal mummies), see Dils 1995 and Quaegebeur 1984. 149 ‘Contrary to the common opinion and based on our research in Tuna el-Gebel, there is no evidence whatsoever for an intervention of the common Egyptian at any stage of the process from a bird corpse toward a deified mummy in a pottery jar. We are convinced that these gods were not handed over to the common people, except to those Egyptians belonging to the group of cult servants, who collected the animals, treated their corpses and transferred them to a building near the burial place, to be brought down into the galleries at a later stage by another group of servants, the ‘bearers of gods. To assume that millions of pilgrims bought and/or brought their personal animalmummies as a form of a personal medium god -a model proposed until nowto explain the presence of millions of mummies in the animal necropolis of Egypt – can hardly be valid for sites such as Tuna el-Gebel’ (von den Driesch et al. 2005: 239). Cf. Kessler 2003: 42-56; 2018: 557; Kessler and Nur el-Din 2005: 150-152. 150 ‘In reality not one single text, not even in Saqqara, mentions pilgrims buying or offering individual animal mummies in front of sanctuaries. Not one document reveals that lesser temples sold animal mummies to pilgrims. There is no evidence for the offering of animal mummies in different qualities, nor is there any textual or archaeological indications that there were temple boutiques open to the public. There is no proof for the claim that the Ptolemaic ibis organisations financed themselves privately by selling votive objects to pilgrims’ (Kessler 2018: 561). 151 ‘There are two main reasons for new ibis (and falcon) feeding places in Egypt, both unconnected with visits of pilgrims. One was an enormous economic factor, and the other was a growing theological importance of keeping flocks of sacred animals on a special sacred place. Firstly, the extension of The-Ibis organisations all over Egypt (…) led to a large number of new cult places that were sold and leased for money for the profit of the state. Secondly (…) each new chapel, combined with oracles (…) and installed by the state in a centrally administered nomos area, always needed special sacred animals. These came from newly founded and legally well-defined, local, sacred feeding areas with special cultic servants, chapels and local cult leaders. Near local chapels of Thot (…) special sacred ibises had be used in the role of a god-e.g. during the oracle ceremonies and feast events (…) This constant process of rebirth, life and death, with subsequent deification guaranteed the continuation of a religious cycle that ended in the appearance of gods and king on the days of their feasts, condensed in formulas such as rejuvenation (rnpjt) or “Giving of Life”’ (Kessler 2018: 554); cf. Kessler 1989: 248-290. 152 Scalf 2015: 366, n. 39. 146 147

199

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt A further point concerns the very existence of cultic associations and professional groups, besides and close to temple priests, which were involved at different titles in the preparation, burial, and funerary processions of animal cults, and thus allowed to enter the necropolis and make offerings. The statutes regulating their duties and organisation are remarkable in two respects: socially, they reveal variability in the composition of these local communities;153 religiously, they insist on a shared, cooperative dimension of participation, which had in the collective resource of the multiple animals buried a significant element of cohesion and self-representation.154 Furthermore, even assuming with Dieter Kessler that all these categories (regular priests; administrators and officials; cult servants and members of religious associations) were the main agents and referents of the extant corpus of texts and objects, working under the auspices of the central administration and royal cult, nonetheless, the content of the documents reveal also personal concerns and forms of action. Many votive formulas, petitions, and letters deal with private issues and questions and clearly demonstrate that it was important for the individual participants to have their identity (i.e. name) expressed or to commemorate personal roles and efforts.155 In addition, one must not forget that it was certainly not unusual even for priests and other people with official cult status to act privately, that is for their own benefit, as practitioners, donors, or pilgrims.156 It is also worth reminding that Late Period biographic stelae from the Serapeum describe the public mourning of the deceased Apis bull as a collective ritual that elicited socially heterogeneous participation, an extraordinary event where prominent figures like a nome administrator and a crown prince acted humbly and mixed themselves – so they claim – with the common people.157 Accordingly, even accepting the idea of restricted access to certain spaces, goods, or cult actions, the funerary processions to the necropolis areas for the entombment of multiple sacred animals were likely to take place in a similar context of flexible and differentiated participation, allowing people to attend the ceremonies in different ways and roles, from active engagement and contribution to more or less passive spectatorship. In the end, as pointed out by Foy Scalf, ‘caution should be taken in reconstructing one-dimensional scenarios for complex cultural interactions since the meager documentation probably hides a multi-faceted set of social circumstances’158. Under these circumstances, and returning to Kessler’s revisionism of votive mummies and objects, it is not unreasonable to envisage a number of concurrent situations behind the manufacture of these artefacts and their dedication in the necropolis, understanding the latter as a multifaceted deposit resulting from the combination of multiple factors. Theoretically, the millions of animal mummies and bundles accumulated could have belonged to sacred groups kept in temples for official cult reasons and entombed at the end of their religious cycle as well as to animals purposedly transformed in ‘gods’ to be addressed in the growing sphere of funerary practices (including oracular consultation), or to the remains of creatures b(r)ought by private individuals (local visitors and pilgrims) to be presented as a form of pious act.159 Their internment, in other words, would have provided a shared material In reviewing the evidence on the ‘bearers of the gods’, Peter Dils (1995 : 170) concludes : ‘Pour autant qu’il est possible de généraliser sur la base de données limitées et dispersées sur neuf siècles, on situerait les theagoi quelque part dans la classe moyenne des villages et villes de la chôra’. 154 See Fitzenreiter 2011 for general discussion. 155 Consider, for example, the votive formula rn nfr mn inscribed on some Demotic texts from the Oriental Institute Museum related to the funerary cult of the ibis (Scalf 2015), which declares that the ‘good name’ of the donor will ‘remanin’ before the god Thot or ‘the gods of the house of rest’ (i.e. the mummified birds of the necropolis). Similarly, some of the oracular texts from the archive of Hor deal with his own personal problems. Finally many several Serapeum stelae insist on the strong sense commitment of the devotee toward the Apis bull: ‘ils nous révèlent (…) un aspect humain particulièerement attachant (…): celui de l’extrême fatigue qui résutait des jeûnes et travaux accomplis pour l’enterrement du dieu’ (Vercoutter 1962: 127). 156 See Stevens 2006: 18-19. 157 The terms used in the texts are nDs, SwAw, Hwrw. For a detailed analysis see Vercoutter 1962: 37-43 (Texte E, ll. 4-5), 48-58 (Texte G, ll. 5-6, 9-10), 127-130. See also Jurman 2010: 232-233. 158 Scalf 2015: 369. 159 Of course, cultic reality was more articulated than the schematic overview given above, and the boundaries between the various situations were certainly blurred. The list might well be expanded and, in this regard, focused scientific researches on the rich zoological assemblages of sacred animal necropoleis are expected to greatly refine our understanding of the formation of these deposits and, in turn, our reconstruction of their religious meaning for the ancient Egyptian communities. An interesting case-study, developing an integrated perspective between taphological, osteological and philological analysis, is represented by the work conducted at the cemetery of Qasr ‘Allam (Late Period/early Ptolemaic period); see Colin, Adam and Pranjic 2014, with further bibliography. 153

200

Modelling Animal Worship outcome, a common context, and a unifying funerary meaning to a wider spectrum of interests and motivations. Though speculative, this understanding leaves room for complexity and variation. Rather than maintaining a monolithic view and opposing royal and popular participation as polar frames of explanation, one should recognise, with Martin Fitzenreiter, that ‘die Tierkulte insbesondere die mit nur flacher Hierarchie ausgestatteten Kulte an den Tierfriedhöfen - einem breiten Spektrum von Interessenten die Möglichkeit der Partizipation boten (…). So kam es, dass es offenbar gerade die Tierkulte waren, in denen unter den besonderen demographischen Bedingungen der Spätzeit auch ganz heterogene Bevölkerungsgruppen gemeinsame Formen der Religionsausübung fanden’.160 Sacr(alis)ed animals were thus a focus of state-run temples and an aspect of the official cult of the divinised ruler but they could also be made the object of ‘personal piety’ and attract popular attention. From a cultural-religious point of view, during the Late and Graeco-Roman periods, one can observe an intensification of liminality as an essential function of the religious configurations of ‘animal worship’: Die wesentliche Funktion der Tierkulte der Spätzeit – und zwar nun in ihren beiden „typischen“ Erscheinungeformen: der Haltung heiliger Tiere im Tempel und der Ablage von Tieren / Tierteilen in Katakomben – scheint es gewesen zu sein, in besonderer Weise Liminalität zu erzeugen. Durch die Schaffung einer liminalen Situation wird im Kult die Trennung zwischen der diesseitigen / profanen und der jenseitigen / sakralen Sphäre aufgehoben und es ergibt sich die Möglichkeit, Manipulationen im Grenzbereich der beiden Sphären vorzunehmen.161

Careful construction of a liminal dimension can be now easily recognised in the two main ritual frameworks of the temple and the necropolis (supra § 6.5.1.2). What is made explicit in contemporary sources is the ‘ritual sense’ – both as meaning and direction – that is given to the manipulations performed in there. On the one hand, a substantial though largely anonymous presence of dead gods (nA nTrw n pA awy n Htp, ‘the gods of the house of rest’) is established in the necropolis and regularly addressed via mortuary services and related practices (oracles and dream interpretation), their intercession being actively sought by the devotees – Fitzenreiter speaks of Friedhofsmagie –162 to gain advantages (spiritual or material) from this affiliation. On the other hand, the installation of a single living specimen within the restricted area of the temple is conceptualised, according to the late Egyptian ‘theology of inhabitation’ (Einwohnung), as a physical manifestation (‘appearing’) of the divine agency, one among other possibilities (statues and relief images) that makes it present into this world and available for religious activity and speculation.163 Two further remarks stem from these contexts of action and their verbal formulations. First, the terminology referring to (and categorising) sacr(alis)ed animals does articulate the idea of a material(ised) divine presence that is variously distributed and dispersed (spatially and temporally) and may enter multiple relationships with various human actors (king, priests and cultic servants, devotees, etc.): the living specimen(s), the Osirian form, the divinised mummies. Second, the sacred animal cults respond to a strong dramatisation of the ‘local or cultic dimension of divine presence’, which now extends the idea of liminality to the whole country, reinforcing cultural boundaries and culminating in the Egyptians’ self-perception as the ‘temple of the whole world’.164 Within this framework, the Late and Graeco-Roman temple functions as a protective zone, the ‘locus of connective practice’165 that ties together rites performed on/with material supports (images and animals), political power, and cosmic order, while religion develops into a powerful means to protect Egypt’s cultural identity in the face of external disruptive agents (chaotic forces Fitzenreiter 2013a: 170. Fitzenreiter 2003a: 18. Fitzenreiter 2003a: 18. 163 Assmann 2002: 407; Fitzenreiter 2003a:18. 164 Assmann 2001: 17-52; 2002: 389-408. 165 Assmann 2002: 408. 160 161 162

201

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt or foreign dominations). In this regard, temples, and cemeteries dedicated to sacred animals dotting the Egyptian landscape, help shape a cultic geography that confirms, at both regional and national level, the presence of (and engagement with) the divine, and at the same time reaffirms the integrity of the Egyptian civilisation in front of the crisis. Ironically, a direct consequence of this strategy of self-assertion and cultural demarcation is that ‘zoolatry’ and ‘idolatry’ become, in the standard view of Classical and Christian writers, the most typical markers of the Egyptian fixation on meaningless cults and insane religious superstitions (see supra § 1.3.1). To conclude this necessarily brief overview, some final observations shall highlight key issues surrounding the structure of the model proposed, its heuristic efficacy in analysing patterns of data, and the possibilities allowed for building better arguments in historical reconstruction: 1.

The three-tier scheme has been designed on the basis of the available evidence, and specifically to critically reassess patterns and gaps in their distribution. Therefore, it is not intended as an overarching abstract explanation, rather it identifies three main stages of distinctive (but not exclusive) material configurations, delineating broad trends and variations in their chronological development and situating them within the frame of religious tradition and decorum. Some consequences descends from this, which have been (in part) illustrated in the foregoing synthesis: • the model works with an interpretive, non-narrative strategy that focuses on arranging the extant objects (texts and artefacts) in meaningful connections representative of practices of ‘animal worship’ (as defined in this study); • the outlined patterns relate to general religious configurations that, in turn, integrate different contexts and modes of action (both as empirical and intellectual initiative or effort) structuring religious experience with varying degrees of social participation and appropriation – no specific content is thus assumed a priori or taken for granted; • religious development is not red nor presumed to be oriented according to a linear direction (whether forward or backward) within a teleological perspective, but is empirically charted and set against contextual analysis and discussion of parallel changes in the (access to) media and forms of monumental display; • further discoveries, of course, as well as advances in understanding (especially in relation to the early periods of Phase I) might well produce refinements of this internal partition. 2. The level and quality of attestations of ‘animal worship’ from the Early Dynastic to the Graeco-Roman periods inevitably shows great variation, increasing steadily over time in number and types. Such an uneven distribution has been incorporated in the common view of a late development of animal cults. In fact, it is here suggested that, despite the relative scarcity of material from before the New Kingdom, ‘animal worship’ was present at the time but is under-represented in the record since its monumental display remained restricted to royal patronage and official contexts of temple cults, with titles and onomastic evidence alluding to a certain interest for the core élite gravitating around the court, while focus of religious action and thought needs not to be identical with later periods. 3. The New Kingdom developments may well relate to changes in decorum as much as in actual belief and lived practice. Both aspects were certainly at play and may account for the chronological difference in the patterned evidence as well as for its historical value. As noted by John Baines, ‘[m]otivations for development may come from various directions, coinciding with considerations of decorum rather than being dominated by it’.166 The growing importance of sacr(alis)ed animals in the field of both state and non-state religion appears intricately linked to other cultural-religious transformations of the time (like the newly formulated bA-theology and the concerns for the earthly manifestations of the gods, or the emergence of ‘personal piety’). On the other hand, the weakening of the restrictions 166

Baines 2007: 20.

202

Modelling Animal Worship of decorum and the marked shift of iconographic conventions toward religious contents allowed for a more overt display of ‘animal worship’ in monumental contexts. It thus becomes an appropriate theme (among others) to exhibit by non-royal individuals, so as to articulate important issues concerning social status and prestige, local participation in official cults, religious knowledge, and (hierarchical) access to the gods. The so-called ‘animal stelae’ typical of the period belong in this framework and provide the medium through which such matters were appropriated and commented upon within larger segments of society. The dedication (possibly on festival occasions) of these monuments materialise individual activity focused on sacr(alis)ed animals in and around temple areas – setting, performance, and motivations, however, cannot be exactly determined –, while their iconography represents such participation in conventionalised forms, and also refers pictorially to contemporary theological discourse about the gods and their images. Thus, the complex relationship (if not discrepancy) between the lived and the interpreted practice evoked by these objects remarks the difficulties in their interpretation as well as their role in negotiating contact with the divine and accessibility to temple cults. 4. ‘Success bred diversification’ and new forms and traditions were invented or emphasised. Overall, the late evidence from the 1st millennium shows a considerable expansion in beliefs and practices of ‘animal worship’. They gained great visibility within the ‘monumental discourse’ and relate more openly to the wider society. In the aftermath of the New Kingdom, it is important to understand these later developments not in isolation but in the context of other transformations. In this regard, the increase in ‘animal worship’ meets two interconnected trends. Firstly, it was ‘in keeping with the general movement toward community practices in later Egyptian religion’.167 The collective character of the burials as well as the solidarity of the religious associations illustrate well this dimension, which used religious activities to reinforce social bonds within local groups. It also recurs in domains such as pilgrimages or healing practices, and other personal experiences (dreams and gift exchanges), which became more strongly situated within and around regional temples and local shrines.168 All this, in turn, suits that growing intensity in the religious focus of late Egyptian culture, which John Baines labels ‘sacralisation’.169 According to him, religion provided ‘a unified discourse, in terms of which more of life could be conducted’170 and he interprets the development in terms of both action and display, thus assuming that the ongoing lessening of decorum played a part in the process and made the presentation of religious themes more easily visible and accessible within society.171 5. Monumentalisation and material display provide a valuable though limited grid for reconstruction. Historically, the specific forms of the late New Kingdom and the GraecoRoman periods – ‘The animal worship’ in general understanding – are seen as the product of this relationship between lived religious practice and the formal modes of expression of the pharaonic ‘high culture’; as such, they are part of a broad historical movement. In short, while the sacr(alis)ed animals are the core objects (Kultobjekte) of an area of Egyptian religious practice, one which overlaps with other domains or techniques (funerary habits; oracles and divination; ‘magic’) but which we can single out as ‘animal worship’, the monumentalised expressions of this set of practices (and of its ideological correlates) are contingent and variable, thus approachable as an object of historical enquiry. 6. Scale is an important issue to consider. When modelled, the early patterns of evidence provide a valuable context for setting (and testing) later more abundant sources, suggesting a certain continuity between earlier and later periods, yet comparison shows that the Baines 1991: 197. Baines 1991: 195-197. For discussion on Roman Egypt see Frankfurter 1998: 97-144. 169 Baines 1984: 47-50. 170 Baines 1984: 49. 171 Baines 1984: 48: ‘Sacralisation reduces the role of “secular” ideology, both for the king, whose actions in reality and in how they are presented relate more and more to the gods and the temples, and for others, on whose monuments the “secular” element declines sharply with the 19th dynasty’. See also Baines 1991: 196, n. 200; 2007: 24-25. 167 168

203

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt outburst of ‘animal cults’ in the New Kingdom and much more in the Graeco-Roman periods was unquestionably a striking change. The major difference is certainly the scale and quality of the actions reviewed, while new media (animal mummies/bundles) also developed. Practices and beliefs of ‘animal worship’ feature marginally in the record of earlier periods but, in later times, old and new traditions become more closely integrated into both staterun cults and popular ritual activities, within a large more urban society. The New Kingdom lies at the core of the transition, and while political and theological conditions matter, it is only when combined with considerations of decorum, religious access, and display that a more fitting analytical framework of long-term historical development can be produced. 7. A final comment concerns contextualisation and historical interpretation. The approach designed focuses on the context and assessment of relevant sources (archaeological, textual, pictorial) related to practices of ‘animal worship’. The tripartition suggested basically highlights distinctive religious forms as reflected in certain material configurations and situates them both socially in the living community, and historically in a context of longue durée. Accordingly, while points of transition are underlined, development is understood (and modelled) as a slow movement, a nonlinear process where basic elements of continuity, transformations, changes of directions occur and variously combine on different scales or in relation to specific moments. In this perspective, ‘animal worship’ is viewed as a feature of Egyptian religion present in all periods but differently attested in the archaeological record. Of course, as a model, the outlined scheme is not a strict description but a representation, as artificial and detailed as possible, of relevant patterns of data that can help to make a better sense of the phenomenon, and improve the quality of historical discussion. It provides a broad framework where more precise distinctions might be fitted and ultimately serves as a provisional tool that might be adjusted or even replaced over time to match new (or better understood) sources, as the very use of the concept of ‘animal worship’ did in the past scholarship. 6.6 Conclusions In the traditional Egyptological narrative of ancient Egyptian religion, ‘animal worship’ (‘the veneration of animals as gods’) plays a peripheral and secondary role. The animal form may be significant only as a divine icon while cult practice is demoted to a late bizarre phenomenon, which simply closes – after a short-lived episode in prehistoric times – the arc of the pharaonic religious tradition. Such an episodic and discontinuous interpretation arises not much from a critical approach to the forms, modes, and manifestations of the religious fact as from an intellectual strategy chiefly aimed at the study of religion as a system of concept(ualisat)ions of the divine, i.e. religion as belief in gods. ‘Animal worship’ cannot play any other role in there but as a (visual, conceptual, symbolic) reference to a superior entity while its historical development as a dynamic field of religious practice is completely overlooked if not removed. It has been shown that this polarisation between ideology and action is the result of a longstanding tradition that still affects and permeates, more or less implicitly, the Egyptological debate. The construction of a new analytical model for interpreting ‘animal worship’ in relation (1) to the forms of ritual manipulation and mobilisation of the presence of selected animals (individuals and groups) within liminal contexts, and (2) to the modes and times of their monumentalisation by the formal high culture allow resolving certain ambiguities and conceptual drawbacks and developing the research diachronically. Following these criteria, the documentation, though sparse and fragmentary, shows that ritual actions focused on the participation of selected animals recur throughout the whole Egyptian civilisation, and thus represent a stable segment of religious practice. Theological interpretations (like the bA-ideology and the other forms of predication) are, from this viewpoint, secondary elaborations designed for giving explanation and conceptual vest to those practices and the 204

Modelling Animal Worship involved agents. Moreover, their integration into the ‘monumental discourse’ (Assmann) according to the rules and restrictions imposed by the system of decorum (Baines), allows us to frame them within a more nuanced chronological perspective, identifying configurations and tracing changes and continuities that are relevant for interpretation. All this significantly transforms our perspective. It means that we have to face the issue of Egyptian ‘animal worship’ not retrospectively, moving from a consolidated literary tradition that has preserved the (distorted) memory of the phenomenon and named it accordingly, but prospectively, making it the object of a historical-archaeological investigation built on the basis of the available evidence, and paying careful attention to the terminology we use to interpret and communicate the collected data. In this regard, while the notion of ‘animal worship’ emerges as the product of that heavy tradition – a product that the historical-religious methodology helps to historicise and expose in its strong ideological connotations (both ancient and modern) – the definition of its content must pass through the verification of its heuristic efficacy in characterising the concrete data of the historical experience and in establishing meaningful connections among them. The theoretical model so defined has the crucial advantage of triggering a more constructive approach to the extant documentation, paving the way for a critical evaluation of that ‘irreducible historical character’ (‘irriducibile carattere storico’)172 which makes ‘animal worship’ a vibrant and multifaceted expression of the extraordinary creativity of the ancient Egyptian religion.

172

Brelich 2002: 141.

205

Bibliography Adams, M. The Early Dynastic through Old Kingdom Stratification at Tell er-Rub’a, Mendes. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. Aglan, A. 2018. Hatshepsut and the Apis Race: New Quartzite Relief Fragments from Dra’ Abu elNaga Article. Études et Travaux 31: 17-26. Ali, N.O. 2009. Three stelae from Ain-Shams, in B.S. El-Sharkawy (ed), The Horizon Studies in Egyptology in Honour of M.A. Nur el-Din, 10-12 April 2007, vol. 3: 65-75. Cairo: American University in Cairo Aly M.I. and D.M. Rohl 1988. Apis and the Serapeum. Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 2: 6-26. Allam, S. 1963. Beiträge zum Hathorkult (bis zum Ende des mittleren Reiches) (Münchener Ägyptologische Studien 4). Berlin: Hessling. Allen, T.J. 1974. The Book of the Dead or the Going Forth by Day (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilzation 37). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Allen, J.P. 2001, Ba, in D. Redford (ed.) The Oxford encyclopaedia of ancient Egypt I: 161-162. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, J.P. 2002. The Heqanakht papyri (Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 27). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Allen, J.P. 2005. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Writings from the Ancient World 23) Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Alliot, M. 1949. Le culte d’Horus à Edfou au temps des Ptolémées. Revue d’Histoire des Religions 137: 59-104. Alliot, M. 1954. Le culte d’Horus à Edfou au temps des Ptolémées II (Bibliothèque d’Études 20). Le Caire: IFAO. Andrews, C.A.R. 2002. A Memphite Miscellany: Four New Demotic Texts, in K. Ryholt (ed.), Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999 (CNI Publications 27): 27-34. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Arnold, D. 1997. Royal cult complexes of the old and middle kingdoms, in B.E. Shafer and D. Arnold (eds). Temples of ancient Egypt: 31-85. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Arnold, D. 2003. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Arquier, B. 2013. Le double sarcophage de Mésehti S1C (CG 28118) - S2C (CG 28119): recherches sur l’organisation du décor iconographique et textuel. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Montpellier. Assmann, J. 1990. Die Macht der Bilder. Rahmenbedingungen ikonischen Handelns im Alten Ägypten. Visible Religion: Annual for Religious Iconography 7: 1-20. Assmann, J. 1992. Semiosis and Interpretation in Ancient Egyptian Ritual, in S. Biderstein, B. and A. Scharfstein (eds), Interpretation in Religion (Philosophy and Religion 2): 87-109. Leiden: Brill. Assmann, J. 1999. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete: Übersetzt, kommentiert und eingeleitet. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Assmann, J. 2001. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press. Assmann, J. 2002. The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Assmann, J. 2004. Theological Response to Amarna, in G.N. Knoppers and A. Hirsch (eds), Egypt, Israel and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford (Probleme der Ägyptologie 20): 179-191. Leiden – Boston: Brill. Assmann, J. 2005. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press. Assmann, J. 2006. Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Assmann, J. 2011. Cultural Memory and Early Civilization. Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aubert, J-F. and L. Aubert 1974. Statuettes égyptiennes. Chaouabtis, Ouchebtis. Paris: A. Maisonneuve. Baetens G. 2013. The mummified fish of Esna: a case study in animal worship. Göttinger Miszellen 239: 17-23 Baines, J. 1984. Interpretations of religion: logic, discourse, rationality. Göttinger Miszellen 76: 25-54. Baines, J. 1987. Practical Religion and Piety. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 73: 79–98. Baines, J. 1990. Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy, and Decorum: Modern Perceptions and Ancient Institutions. Journal of American Research Center in Egypt 27: 1-23. 206

Bibliography Baines, J. 1991. Society, Morality, and Religious Practice, in B. E. Shafer (ed.), Religion in Ancient Egypt: 123-200. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press. Baines, J. 2007. Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baines, J. 2013. High Culture and Experience in Ancient Egypt (Studies in Egyptology and Ancient Near East). Oxford: Equinox. Baines, J. and E. Frood 2011. Piety, Change and Display in the New Kingdom, in. M. Collier and S. Snape (eds), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen: 1-17. Bolton: Rutherford Press Limited. Baines, J. and N. Yoffee 1998. Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, in G.M Feinman and J. Marcus (eds), Archaic States: 199-260. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press. Bakry, H.S.K. 1971. The discovery of a temple of Sobek in upper Egypt. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 27: 131–146. Barbotin, Ch. 2001. L’inscription dédicatoire de Khâemouaset au Sérapéum de Saqqara. Revue d’Égyptologie 52: 29-55. Baud, M. 2003. Le format de l’histoire. Annales royales et biographies de particuliers dans l’Égypte du IIIe millénaire, in N. Grimal and M. Baud (eds.) Événement, récit, histoire officielle. L’écriture de l’Histoire dans les monarchies antiques (Etudes d’égyptologie 3): 271–301. Paris: Cybele. Baud, M. 2005. Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien (Bibliothèque d’Étude126). 2 vols. Le Caire: IFAO. Begelsbacher-Fischer, B. 1981. Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des Alten Reiches (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 37). Frieburg: Universitätsverlag. Bell, C. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press. Bell, C. 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press. Betrò, M. 2006. Sobek a Sumenu, in Pernigotti, S. and M. Zecchi (eds) Il coccodrillo e il cobra: aspetti dell’universo religioso egiziano nel Fayyum e altrove: atti del colloquio, Bologna - 20/21 aprile 2005: 91– 102. Imola: La Mandragora. Bickel, S. 2019. Projection of Self in Middle Kingdom Tombs and Coffins, in R. Nyord (ed.) Concepts in Middle Kingdom Funerary Culture: Proceedings of the Lady Wallis Budge Anniversary Symposium Held at Christ’s College, 22 January 2016 (Culture and history of the ancient Near East 102): 24-45. Leiden: Brill. von Bissing, F.W. 1956. La chambre des trois saisons du sanctuaire solaire du roi Rathoures (Ve dynastie) a Abousir, Annales du Service des Antiquites de l’Egypte 53: 319-338. von Bissing, F.W. and H. Kees 1923. Das Re-Heiligtum des Kônigs Ne-woser-re, Band II. Die kleine Festdarstellung. Leipzig: Hinrichs. von Bissing, F.W. and H. Kees 1922. Untersuchungen zu den Reliefs aus dem Re-Heiligtum des Rathures (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse 32). München Akademie der Wissenschaften. Blackman, A.M. 1914. The Rock Tombs of Meir, Part I: The Tomb Chapel of Ukh-hotp’s son Senbi (Archaeological survey of Egypt 22). London: The Egypt Exploration Fund. Blackman, A. M. 1915. The Rock Tombs of Meir, Part II: The Tomb Chapel Senbi’s Son Ukh-Hotp (B, No. 2) (Archaeological survey of Egypt 23). London: The Egypt Exploration Fund. Blackman, A. M. 1924. The Rock Tombs of Meir, Part IV: The tomb-chapel of Pepi’onkh the middle son of Sebkhotpe and Pekhernefert (Archaeological survey of Egypt 25). London: The Egypt Exploration Society. Blackman, A.M. 1938. Some remarks on a Clay Sealing Found in the Tomb of Hemaka. Studia Aegyptiaca 1: 4-9. Blackman, A. M. 1953. The Rock Tombs of Meir, Part V: The tomb-chapel A, No. 1 (that of Ni-‘Ankh Pepi the Black), A, No. 2 (that of Pepi‘onkh with the ‘Good Name’ of Ḥeny the Black), A, No. 4 (that of Ḥepi the Black), D, No. 1 (That of Pepi), and E, Nos. 1-4 (those of Meniu, Nenki, Pepi‘onkh and Tjetu) (Archaeological survey of Egypt 28). London: The Egypt Exploration Society. Bleeker, C.J. 1956. Die Geburt eines Gottes. Eine Studie über den ägyptischen Gott Min und sein Fest (Studies in the History of Religions – Supplements to Numen 3). Leiden: Brill. Bolshakov, A. 2005. Studies on Old Kingdom reliefs and sculpture in the Hermitage (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 67). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bonnet, H. 1952. Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: De Gruyter. Borchardt, L. 1905. Das Re-Heiligtum des Kônigs Ne-woser-re, Band I. Der Bau. Berlin: A. Duncker.

207

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Borchardt, L. 1907. Ein Katzensarg aus dem neuen Reich. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 44: 97. Borchardt, L. 1913. Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sʼaʼḥu-reʻ (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft in Abusir 1902–1908). Leipzig: Hinrich. Brelich, A. 1966. Introduzione alla storia delle religioni. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Brelich, A. 1976. Prolegomeni a una storia delle religioni. In H.C. Puech (ed.), Storia delle religioni I: 3-55. Roma – Bari: Laterza. Brelich, A. 2002. Mitologia, politeismo, magia e altri studi di storia delle religioni (1946-1977), a cura di Paolo Xella. Napoli: Liguori Editore, 2002 Bresciani, E. 1994. Nuovi statuti demotici di “Confraternite” dalla necropoli dei Coccodrilli a Tebtynis. Egitto e Vicino Oriente 17: 49-67. Brovarski, E. 1984. Seret, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexicon der Ägyptologie V: 879880. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Brovarski, E. 1987. Two Old Kingdom Writing Boards from Giza. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 71: 27-48. Brovarski, E. 1989. The inscribed material of the first intermediate period from Naga-ed-Dêr. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Brugsch, H. 1884. Der Apis-Kreiss aus den Zeiten der Ptolemäer. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 22: 110-136. Brugsch, H. 1886. Der Apis-Kreiss aus den Zeiten der Ptolemäer. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 24: 19-40. Brunner, H. 1977 Gottesnähe und -ferne, in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), Lexikon der Ägyptologie II: 817819. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Brunner, H. 1982 Persönliche Frömmigkeit, in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV: 951-963. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. de Buck, A. 1935-1961. The Egyptian Coffin Texts, 7 vols (Oriental Institute Publication 34, 49, 64, 67, 73, 81, 87. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burgos, F. and Larché, F. 2006. La chapelle Rouge: le sanctuaire de barque d’Hatshepsout. 1. Fac-similés et photographies des scenes. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations. Bussmann, R. 2019. Practice, Meaning and Intention: Interpreting Votive Objects from Ancient Egypt, in N. Staring, H. Twiston Davies and L. Weiss (eds), Perspectives on Lived Religion: Practices – Transmission – Landscape (Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 21): 73-84. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Caminos, R.A. 1954. Late-Egyptian Miscellanies (Brown Egyptological Studies 1). London: Oxford University Press. Cannuyer, C. 1999. Le pélican céleste dans les textes funéraires égyptiens, in C. Cannuyer, F. Mawet and J. Ries (eds) Le Ciel dans les civilisations orientales (Acta Orientalia Belgica 12): 43–58. Bruxelles: Société ́ belge d’études orientales. Charron, A. 1996a. Les animaux et le sacré dans l’Egypte tardive, fonctions et signification. Unpublished PhD Thesis, École pratique des hautes études (non vidi). Charron, A. 1996b. Les animaux et le sacré dans l’Egypte tardive, fonctions et signification. Annuaires de l’École pratique des hautes études 105: 517-519. Charron, A. 2002. Vie et mort des animaux sacrés, in. A Charron (ed.), La mort n’est pas une fin. Pratiques funéraires en Égypte d’Alexandre à Cléopâtre: catalogue d’exposition, Musée de l’Arles antique, 28 septembre 2002-5 janvier 2003: 173-214. Arles: Édition du Musée de l’Arles antique. Charron, A. 2005. Les animaux sacralisés, in Fr. Dunand and R. Lichtenberg (eds), Des animaux et des hommes. Une symbiose égyptienne: 165-200. Monaco – Paris: Éditions du Rocher. Charron, A. 2009. Le Faucon d’Edfou. Égypte, Afrique et Orient 53 : 49-58. Charron, A. 2012. Les bronzes « reliquaires » d’animaux à la Basse Époque », in Ch. Zivie-Coche and I. Guermeur (eds.), « Parcourir l’éternité » Hommages à Jean Yoyotte, tome I, (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études-Sciences religieuses 156): 281-304. Turnhout: Brepols. Charron, A. 2015. Les animaux sacrés, du sauvage à l’élevage, in M. Massiera, B. Mathieu and F. Rouffet (eds), Apprivoiser le sauvage/Taming the Wild (Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 11) : 165-181. Montpellier : Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3. Charron, A. and D. Farout 2008. Le premier sarcophage en pierre du taureau Apis. Égypte Afrique & Orient 48: 39-50.

208

Bibliography Chassinat, E. 1916. La mise à mort rituelle d’Apis. Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l›archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 38: 33-60. Chassinat, E. 1933. Le temple d’Edfou (Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire 28). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Clagett, M. 1989. Ancient Egyptian Science: a Source Book, Volume I: Knowledge and Order (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 184). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Colin, F., F. Adam, and I. Pranjic 2014. Harpocrate au chien et les cadaveres de Qasr ‘Allam. Perspectives sur le statut ritual des inhumations animales dans l’Égypte ancienne. Archimède : archéologie et histoire ancienne 1: 32-63. Colonna, A. 2014a. Panthe(ri)on: Costruzione culturale e sviluppo del culto degli animali. Messa in prospettiva di un motivo costante della pratica religiosa egiziana. Unpublished PhD Thesis, ‘Sapienza’ Università di Roma. Colonna, A. 2014b. Theoi and ‘Ieroi: some remarks on animal worship in ancient Egypt according to classical and Egyptian texts. In T. Lekov and E. Buzov (eds), Cult and Belief in ancient Egypt. Proceeding of the Fourth International Congress for Young Egyptologists: 102-111. Sofia: New Bulgarian University. Colonna, A. 2017. Rethinking Animal Worship (c. 3000 BC – c. 300 AD): towards a historicalreligious perspective, in G. Rosati, M.C. Guidotti (eds), Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists, Florence, 23-30 August 2015 (Archaeopress Egyptology 19): 107-111. Oxford: Archaeopress. Colonna, A. 2018. Nuove prospettive sul culto degli animali in Egitto. Il contributo dell’analisi storico-religiosa. Quaderni del Museo del Papiro 15: 439-457. Colonna, A. 2019. The “Scene of the Pelivans” in the Room of the Seasons: an Early Attestation of Animal Worship (?). Egyptian & Egyptological Documents Archives Libraries 6: 342-353. Crawford, D.J. 1980. Ptolemy, Ptah and Apis in Hellenistic Memphis, in D.J. Crawford, J. Quaegebeur and W. Clarysse (eds) Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis (Studia Hellenistica 24):1-41. Leuven: Peeters. Ćwiek, A. 2003. Relief Decoration in the Royal Funerary Complexes of the Old Kingdom. Studies in the Development, Scene Content and Iconography. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Warsaw University. Daumas, F. 1977. Hathor, in W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie II: Erntefest – Hordjedef. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Daressy, G. 1919a. Une Statue du Taureau Mnévis. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 18: 7576. Daressy, G. 1919b. La Tombe d’un Mnévis de Ramsès II. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 18: 196-210. Daressy, G. 1919c. La Tombe du Mnévis de Ramsès VII. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 18: 211-217. Davies, N. de G. 1902. The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi (Archeological Survay of Egypt). London: Kegan Paul. Davies, N. de G. 1935. The Work of the Graphic Branch of the Expedition. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 30/11: 46-57. Davies, S. 2007. Bronzes from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara, in M. Hill and D. Schorsch (eds), Gifts for the Gods: Images from Egyptian Temples: 174-188. New Haven – London: Yale University Press. Davies, S. and Smith, H.S. 1997. Sacred Animals Temples at Saqqara, in S. Quirke (ed.), The Temple in Ancient Egypt. New discoveries and recent research: 112-131. London British Museum Press. De Cenival, Fr. 1972. Les Associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques (Bibliothèque d’Études 46). Le Caire: IFAO. De Sardan, J.-P.O. 1998. Émique. L’Homme 38/147 : 151-166. Derchain, P. 1981. Divinité. Le problème du divin et des dieux dans l’Égypte ancienne, in Dictionnaire des Mythologies et des Religions des Sociétés Traditionalles et du Mond Antique (sous la direction de Yves Bonnefois) I: 324-330. Paris: Flammarion.     Devauchelle, D. 1993. Le Sérapéum de Memphis au Nouvel Empire. Égyptes: Histoires et Cultures 3: 41-44. Devauchelle, D. 1994. Notes et documents pour servir à l’histoire du Sérapéum de Memphis (I - V). Revue d’Égyptologie 45 : 75-86.

209

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Devauchelle, D. 1998. Une invocation aux dieux du Sérapéum de Memphis, in W. Clarysse, A. Schoors and H. Willems (eds), Egyptian Religion : the Last Thousand Years. Studies dedicated to the Memory of Jean Quaegebeur (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 84), vol. I: 589-611. Leuven: Peeters. Dils, P. 1995. Les TAj (nA) ntr.w ou Θεαγοἱ. Fonction religieuse et place dans la vie civile, Bulletin de l’Institut Française d’Archéologie Orientale 95 : 153-171. Dodson, A. 1990. Crown Prince Djehutimose and the Royal Sons of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 76: 87-90. Dodson, A. 1995. Of Bulls and Princes: the Early Years of the Serapeum at Sakkara. KMT 6/1: 18-32. Dodson, A. 2000. The Eighteenth Century Discovery of the Serapeum. KMT 11/3: 48-53. Dodson, A. 2005. Bull Cults, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: 72105. Cairo–New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Dolzani, C. 1961. Il dio Sobek (Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie, Serie VIII/10:4). Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Donadoni-Roveri, A. M. 1969. I sarcofagi egizi dalle origini alla fine dell’Antico Regno (Serie Archeologica 16). Roma: Istituto di studi del vicino Oriente, Università di Roma. Donohue, V.A. 1988. The Vizier Paser. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 74: 103-123. Dreyer, G.1992. Horus Krokodil, ein Gegenkönig der Dynastie 0, in R. Friedman and B. Adams (eds) The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1949–1990: 259–263. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Dreyer. G., J. Boessneck, A. von den Driesch and S. Klug 1990. Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 3./4. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 46: 53–90. Dreyer, G., E.M. Engel, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E.K. Kohler, F. Pumpenmeier, and A. von den Driesch, A. and Peters, J. 1996. Umm el-Qaab, Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 7/8 Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 52: 11-81. von den Driesch, A., D. Kessler, F. Steinmann, V. Berteaux and J. Peters 2005. Mummified, Deified and Buried at Hermopolis Magna - The Sacred Birds from Tuna el-Gebel, Middle Egypt, Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 15: 203-244. Duarte, C. de Araújo, 2010. Estudo sobre a iconografia de Ápis durante o período faraônico. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo. Dunand, Fr. and Zivie-Coche, Fr. 2004. Gods and Men in Egypt, 3000 BCE to 395 CE. Itacha – London: Cornell University Press. Dunand, Fr. and Lichtenberg, R. 2005. Des chiens momifiés à El-Deir. Oasis de Kharga. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 105: 75-87. Dunham, D. 1937. Naga-ed-Dêr Stelae of the first intermediate period. London: Milford. DuQuesne, T. 2007. Anubis, Upwawet, and Other Deities. Personal worship and official religion in ancient Egypt. Catalogue of the Exhibition at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, March 2007. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities. DuQuesne, T. 2009. The Salakhana Trove: Votive Steale and Other Objects from Asyut (Oxfordshire Communications in Egyptology 7). London: Darengo Publications. Durisch, G.N. Culte des canidés à Assiout: trois nouvelles stèles dé-diées à Oupouaout. Bulletin de l’Institut Française d’Archéologie Orientale 93: 205-222. Eaton-Krauss, M.1984. The Representations of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 39). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ebeid, M. 2006. Demotic Inscriptions from the Galleries of Tuna el-Gebel. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 106: 57-74. Edel, E. 1961. Zu den Inschriften auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs des ‘Weltkammer’ aus dem Sonneheiligtum des ‘Niuserre’. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil-hist. Klasse 8: 209–255. Edel, E. 1964. Zu den Inschriften auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs des ‘Weltkammer’ aus dem Sonneheiligtum des ‘Niuserre’ II. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philhist. Klasse 4-5: 89-217. Edel, E. and S. Wenig 1974. Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Konigs Ne-User-Re. Berlin. Akademie-Verlag. Egberts, A. 1995. In quest of meaning: a study of the ancient Egyptian rites of consecrating the meret-chests and driving the calves (Egyptologische uitgaven 8). Leiden: Nederlands Institut voor het Nabije Oosten. 210

Bibliography Ejsmond, W., A. Skalec and J.M. Chyla 2020. The Northern Necropolis of Gebelein in the Light of Old and Current Fieldwork. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 106: 105-122. Emery, W.B.1938. Excavations at Saqqara. The Tomb of Hemaka. Cairo: Government Press. Emery, W.B. 1958. Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Erman, A. 1907 A Handbook of Egyptian Religion, London: Archibald Constable. Exell, K. 2009. Soldiers, Sailors and Sandalmakers: A Social Reading of Ramesside Period Votive Stelae (GHP Egyptology 10). London: Golden House Publications. Exell, K. 2013. Sidestepping Belief: Ritual and Performance in Ramesside Egypt, in. R.J. Dann and K. Exell (eds.), Egypt: Ancient Histories, Modern Archaeologies: 101-132. New York: Cambria Press. Eyre, J. 2002. The cannibal hymn: a cultural and literary study. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Fakhry, A. 1961. The Monuments of Sneferu at Dashur. 2: The Valley Temple. Part I – The Temple Reliefs. Cairo: General Organization for Government Printing Offices. Faulkner, R.O. 1969. The ancient Egyptian Pyramid texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Faulkner, R.O. 1973-1978. The ancient Egyptian coffin texts (Modern Egyptology series). Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Fazzini, R. 1972. Some Egyptian Reliefs in Brooklyn. Miscellanea Wilbouriana 1: 33-70. Feder, F. 2003. Der ägyptische Tierkultnach den griechischen und römischen Autoren. In M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich (Internet Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanärcheologie IV): 159–165. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Fischer, H.G. 1968. Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C. Down to the Theban Domination of Upper Egypt). New York: J.J. Augustin. Fischer, H.G. 1981. Three Stelae from Naga ed-Deir, in W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis, Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of His 9th Birthday, June 1, 1981. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Fischer, H.G. 1996. Egyptian Studies III : varia nova. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fischer, M.M. 2001. The Sons of Ramesses II (Ägypten und Alten Testament 53). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fitzenreiter, M. 2003a. Einleitung, in. M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IV): 1-31. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Fitzenreiter, M. 2003b. Die ägyptischen Tierkulte und die Religionsgeschichtsschreibung, in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IV): 229-263. Berlin: HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin. Fitzenreiter, M. 2004. Bemerkungen zur Beschreibung altägyptischer Religion. Mit einer Definition und dem Versuch ihrer Anwendung. Göttinger Miszellen 2002: 19-53 Fitzenreiter, M. 2011. Trinken für den Frieden (swr Hnq dj.t nfr HA.tj). Assoziatives zu den associations religieuses, in F. Feder, L.D. Morenz and G. Vittmann (eds), Von Theben nach Giza. Festmiszellen für Stefan Grundert zum 65. Geburtstag (Göttinger Miszellen Beihefte Nr. 10): 49-59. Göttingen: Hurbert & Co. Fitzenreiter, M. 2013a. Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten (Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft 5). München: Wilhelm Fink. Fitzenreiter, M. 2013b. Neues vom Netscher, in M.C. Flossmann-Schütze, M. Goecke-Bauer, F. Hoffmann, A. Hutter, K. Schlüter, A. Schütze and M. Ullmann (eds), Kleine Götter – Grosse Götter. Festschrift für Dieter Kessler zum 65. Geburtstag (Tuna el-Gebel 4): 131-143. Vaterstetten: Verlag Patrick Brose. Fogelin, L. 2007. The Archaeology of Religious Ritual. Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 55-71. Franke, D. 1984. Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (20.-16. Jahrhundert v. Chr.): Dossiers 1-796 (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 41). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Frankfort, H. 1948. Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: The Univ. of Chicago Press. Frankfurter, D. 1998. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Friedman, F.D. 1995. The Underground Relief Panels of King Djoser at the Step Pyramid Complex. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 32:1-42.

211

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Frood, E. 2007. Biographical Texts from Ramesside Egypt (Writing from the Ancient World 26). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Frood, E. 2016. Role-play and group biography in Ramessid stelae from the Serapeum, in R. Landgráfová and J. Mynářová (eds.), Rich and great: studies in honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the occasion of his 70th feast of Thoth: 69-87. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology. Gaillard, C. and Daressy, G. 1905 Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire: La Faune Momifié de l’Antique Égypte. Le Caire: IFAO. Galán, J. M. 1994. Bullfight Scenes in Ancient Egyptian Tombs. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 80: 81–96. Galvin, M. 1981. The Priestess of Hathor in the Old Kingdom and the 1st Intermediate Period. Unpublished phD dissertation, department of classical and Oriental Studies, Brandeis University, Michigan. Gamer-Wallert, I. 1970. Fische und Fischkulte im alten Ägypten (Ägyptologie Abhandlungen 21). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gamer-Wallert, I. 1977. Hatmehit, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexicon der Ägyptologie II: 1042-1043. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gardiner, A.H. 1935. Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Third Series: Chester Beatty Gift, 2 vols. London: British Museum. Gardiner, A.H. 1948. Ramesside Administrative Documents. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardiner, A. H. 19733. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garnett, A. 2011. The Like of Which Never Existed: The Memphite Building Programme of Amenhotep III, in J. Corbelli, D. Boatright and Claire Malleson (eds), Current Research in Egyptology 2009. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Symposium, University of Liverpool, 7–9 January 2009: 53-66. Oxford: Oxbow. Gasperini, V. 2010a. Archeologia e storia del Fayyum durante il Nuovo Regno. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Bologna. Gasperini, V. 2010b. Necropoli di animali a Gurob, in S. Pernigotti, Mario Zecchi (a cura di), Il tempio e il suo personale nell’Egitto antico. Atti del quarto Colloquio, Bologna - 24/25 settembre 2008: 33-42. Imola: La Mandragora. Gauthier, H. 1915. Quatre nouveaux fragments de la pierre de Palerme, in G. Maspero (ed.) Le Musée Egyptien. Recueil de Monuments et de Notices sur les Fouilles d’Egypte, vol. 3: 29–53. Le Caire: IFAO. Gauthier, H. 1931. Les fêtes du dieu Min (Recherches d’Archéologie, de Philologie et d’Histoire). Le Caire: IFAO. Geertz, C. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretative Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gillam, R. 1995. Priestesses of Hathor: Their Function, Decline and Disappearance. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 32: 211-237. Godenho, G. 2007. Manifestations of elite culture in Egypt’s First Intermediate Period. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool. Goelet, O. 1982. Two Aspects of the Royal Palace in the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University. Goldbrunner, L. 2004. Buchis. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des heiligen Stieres in Theben zur griechischrömischen Zeit (Monographies Reine Elisabeth). Turnhout: Brepols. Gomaà, F. 1973. Chaemwese: Sohn Ramses’ II und Hoherpriester von Memphis (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 27). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gomaà, F. 1975. Chaemwese, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexicon der Ägyptologie I: 897-898. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gomaà, F. 1980. Medinet el-Fajjum, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexicon der Ägyptologie III: 1254-1255. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Garindorge, C. 2005. Le taureau blanc du dieu Min et l’offrande de la gerbe de blé, in S. Georgoudi, R. Koch Piettre and F. Schmidt (eds), La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne : 47-76. Turnhout: Brepols. Grandet, P. 1994. Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999), I–II, (BdE 99/1–2). Paris: IFAO. Green, C.I. 1987. The Temple Furniture from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara 1964-1976 (Egypt Exploration Society, Excavation Memoirs 53). London: Egypt Exploration Society. Griffith, F.L. 1889. The Inscriptions of Siut and Der Rifeh. London: Trübner & Co.

212

Bibliography Griffith, F.L and Petrie W.M.F. 1889. Two Hieroglyphic Papyri from Tanis (EEF Extra Memoir), London: Trübner. Grunert, S. 2008. Nur Für Erwachsene - Political Correctness Auf Altägyptisch? Neue Lesungen Und Interpretationen Der Biographischen Inschrift Des Gaufürsten Henqu. Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur 37: 131-46. Guarnori, S. 1982. Les vases canopes du Musée d’Art et d’Histoire de Genève. Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie, Genève 6 (1982): 19-42. Guilhou, N. 2010. Myth of the Heavenly Cow, in J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: University of California. Guilmot, M. 1962. Le Sarapieion de Memphis : Étude topographique (Chronique d’Égypte 37). Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Gunn, B. 1926. Inscribed Sarcophagi in the Serapeum. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 26 : 82-91. Hauseman, M. 2006. Relationality, in J. Kreinath, J. Snoek and M. Stausberg (eds) Theorizing Rituals. Classical Topics, Theoretical Approaches, Analytical Concepts, Annotated Bibliography (Studies in the History of Religions 114): 413-428. Leiden: Brill. Helck, W. 1954. Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des Ägyptischen alten Reiches (Ägyptologische Forschungen 18). Glückstadt: Augustin. Helck, W. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 45). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hendrickx, S.2002. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Iconography, in F.A. Hassan (ed.) Droughts, Food and Culture. Ecological Change and Food Security in Africa’s Later Prehistory: 275318. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Hendrickx, S. and M. Eyckerman 2010. Continuity and Change in the Visual Representations of Predynastic Egypt, in F. Raffaele, M. Nuzzolo and I. Incordino (eds) Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology. Naples, June 18th20th 2008: 121-144. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hendrickx, S. and M. Eyckerman 2012. Visual Representation and State Formation in Egypt. ArchéoNil 22: 23-72. Hendrickx, S., M. De Meyer and M. Eyckerman 2014. On the Origin of the Royal False Beard and its Bovine Symbolism, in M. Jucha, J. Dębowska-Ludwin and P. Kołodziejczyk (eds) Aegyptus est imago caeli. Studies Presented to Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz on his 60th Birthday: 129-143. Krakow: Archaeobooks. Hendrickx, S., K. Piquette, M. Eyckerman, K. Madrigal and C. Graves-Brown. 2014/2015. The Origin and Early Significance of the White Crown. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 70/71: 227-238. Hlouchová, P.M. Old Kingdom sun cult on the basis of theophoric anthroponyms. Pražské egyptologické studie (Prague Egyptological Studies) 17: 67-78. Hodjash, S. and Berlev, O. 1982. The Egyptian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers. Hölbl, G. 1994. Geschichte des Ptolemaerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiose Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur romischen Eroberung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Hölbl, G. 2001. A history of the Ptolemaic Empire. London – New York: Routledge. Hopfner, Th. 1913. Der Tierkult der alten Ägypter nach den griechisch-römischen Berichten und den wichtigeren Denkmälern. Wien: A. Hölder. Hornung, E. 1967. Die Bedeutung des Tieres im alten Ägypten. Studium Generale 20: 69-84. Hornung, E. 1982a. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. The One and the Many. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press. Hornung, E. 1982b. Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh: Eine Ätiologie des Unvollkommenen. 2nd edition (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 46). Freiburg: Academic Press; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hornung, E. 1993. Kessler, Dieter: Die heiligen Tiere und der König, Teil I. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 88: 21-24. Houlihan, P.F. 1986. The Birds of Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, cop. 1986. Ibrahim, M and Rohl, D. 1988. Apis and the Serapeum. Journal of Ancient Chronology Forum 2: 6-26.

213

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Ikram, S. 2004. Beloved Beasts: Animal Mummies from Ancient Egypt. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities. Ikram, S. 2005a. Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. Cairo – New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Ikram, S. 2005b. Divine Creatures: Animal Mimmies, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: 1-15. Cairo – New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Ikram, S. 2005c. Manufacturing Divinity: The Technology of Mummification, in in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: 16-43. Cairo– New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Ikram, S. 2015. Speculations on the Role of Animal Cults in the Economy of Ancient Egypt, in M. Massiera, B. Mathieu and F. Rouffet (eds), Apprivoiser le sauvage/Taming the Wild (Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 11): 211-228. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3. Ikram, S. and Iskander, N. 2002. Catalogue Général of the Egyptian Museum: Non-human mummies. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities. Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. Oxford – NewYork: Routledge. Insoll, T. (ed.) 2011. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacquet-Gordon, H. 1962. Les noms des domaines funéraires sous l’ancien empire égyptien (Bibliothèque d’étude 34). Le Caire: IFAO. James, T.G.H. 1962. The Heqanakhte Papers and Other Early Middle Kingdom Documents (Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition XIX). New York:The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Janák, J., 2016, Ba, in J. Dieleman, W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: University of California. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1994. Zu den Trauerriten bei der Apisbestattung. Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie Genéve 18: 33-39. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1998. Noch einmal zur ‘Pelikanszene’ in Sonnenheiligtum des Niuserre. in Göttinger Miszellen 166: 39–41. Jasnow, R. 1997. A demotic omen text? (P. BM 10238), in J. van Dijk (ed.), Essays on ancient Egypt in honour of Herman te Velde (Egyptological Memoirs 1): 207-218. Groningen: Styx. Jéquier, G. 1918. La queue de taureau insigne des rois d’Égypte. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 15: 165-168. Jimenez-Serrano, A. 2002. Royal Festivals in the Late Predynastic period and the First Dynasty (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1076). Oxford: Archaeopress. Jones, D. 2000. An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom (British Archaeological Reports International Series 866). Oxford: Archaeopress. Jurman, C. 2010. Running with Apis: The Memphite Apis Cult as a Point of Reference for Social and Religious Practice in Late Period Elite Culture, in L. Bareš, F. Coppens and K. Smoláriková (eds) Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE, Proceedings of an International Conference, Prague, September 1–4, 2009: 224–267. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. Kahl, J. 1994. Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.–3. Dynastie (Göttinger Orientforschungen, Reihe: Ägypten 29). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kahl, J. 2007a. ‘Ra is my Lord’: Searching for the Rise of the Sun God at the Dawn of Egyptian History (Menes 1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kahl, J. 2007b. Ancient Asyut: The First Synthesis after 300 Years of Research (The Asyut Project 1). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Kahl, J., M. El-Khadragy, U. Verhoeven and A. Kilian (eds) 2012. Seven Seasons at Asyut First Results of the Egyptian-German Cooperation in Archaeological Fieldwork: Proceedings of an International Conference at the University of Sohag, 10th-11th of October, 2009 (The Asyut Projecct 2). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Kahl, J. and C. Kitagawa 2016. Canids at Asyut: Tombs and Temples, in C. Kitagawa, The Tomb of the Dogs at Asyut Book Subtitle: Faunal Remains and Other Selected Objects (The Asyut Projecct 9): 1-20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kaiser, W. 1971. Die kleine Hebseddarstellung im Sonnenheiligtum des Neuserre. Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde 12: 87–105.

214

Bibliography Kákosy, L. 1966. Prophecies of Ram Gods. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19/3: 341358. Kákosy, L. 1977. Götter, Tier-, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexicon der Ägyptologie II: 660-664. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kanawati, N. 1991. Bullfighting in Ancient Egypt. Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 2: 5158. Kanawati, N. 1992. Akhmim in the Old Kingdom. Part I: Chronology and Administration (Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies 2). Sydney: Australian Centre for Egyptology. Kanawati, N. 2005. Deir el-Gebrawi I, The northern cliff (Australian Centre for Egyptology. Reports 23). Oxford: Aris and Phillips. Kapferer, B. 2006. Dynamics, in J. Kreinath, J. Snoek and M. Stausberg (eds) Theorizing Rituals. Classical Topics, Theoretical Approaches, Analytical Concepts, Annotated Bibliography (Studies in the History of Religions 114): 507-522. Leiden: Brill. Kaplony, P. 1962. Gottespalast und Götterfestungen in der ägyptischen Frühzeit. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 88: 5-16. Kaplony, P.1963. Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 8), 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kaplony, P. 1977. Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reichs I (Monumenta Aegyptiaca 2). Bruxelles: Fondation égyptologique Reine Elisabeth. Kaplony, P. 1981. Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reichs. II. Katalog der Rollsiegel (Monumenta Aegyptiaca 3). Bruxelles: Fondation égyptologique Reine Elisabeth. Kawai, N. 2013. Khaemwaset, in R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine,and S.R. Huebner, The Encyclopedia of Ancient History: 3739–3741. Malden: Wiley-Blacwell. Kees, H. 1912. Der Opfertanz des ägyptischen Königs. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Kees, H. 1928. Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-woser-re (Rutheres), Band III. Die grosse Festdarstellung. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Kees, H. 1956. Der Götterglauben im alten Ägypten, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Kessler, D. 1986. Tierkult, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexicon der Ägyptologie VI: 571-587. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kessler, D. 1989. Die Heiligen Tiere und der Konig, Teil I (Ägypten und Altes Testament 16), Wiesbaden. Kessler, D. 1995. Der Gott Thot-Stier, in D. Kessler and R. Schulz (eds), Gedenkschrift für Winfried Barta. (Münchener Ägyptologische Untersuchungen 4). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kessler, D. 2003. Tierische Missverständnisse: Grundsätzliches zu Fragen des Tierkultes, in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IV): 125-129. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Kessler, D. 2018. The Economical and Theological Importance of the Birthplace of The-Ibis, ISIMU Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la Antiguedad 20-21: 553-583. Kessler, D. and A. Nur el-Din 2005. Tuna al-Gebel: Millions of Ibises and Other Animals”, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: 120-163. Cairo–New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Kitagawa, C. 2016. The Tomb of the Dogs at Asyut Book Subtitle: Faunal Remains and Other Selected Objects (The Asyut Projecct 9). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kitchen, K.A. 1982. Pharaoh Triumphant. The Life and Times of Ramses II, King of Egypt. Warminster: Arris and Philllips. Kloth, N. 2002. Die (auto- )biographischen Inschriften des Ägyptischen Alten Reiches : Untersuchungen zu Phraseologie und Entwicklung. Hamburg: Buske. Kloth, N. 2018. Quellentexte zur Ägyptischen Sozialgeschichte/ 1, Autobiographien des Alten Reichs und der Ersten Zwischenzeit. (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 12). Berlin: Münster: Lit. Kozloff, A.P. 2012. Amenhotep III: Egypt’s Radiant Pharaoh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krauss, R. 1991. Zur Pelikanszene und Damit Zusammenhangenden Darstellungen in den Reliefs der Sog. ‘Jahreszeitenkammer’. Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie, Geneva 15: 69–80. Kreinath, J., J. Snoek, and M. Stausberg (eds) 2006. Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts (Numen Book Series 114/1-2). Leiden – Boston: Brill Lacau, P. 1904-1906. Sarcophages antérieurs au Nouvel Empire (Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 28001, 28126), 2 vols. Le Caire: IFAO. Lacau, P. and Chevrier, H. 1977. Une chapelle d’Hatshepsout à Karnak, 2 vols. Le Caire: IFAO. 215

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Lauer, J.-P. 1961. Mariette à Sakkarah: du Sérapéum à la direction des Antiquités, in Mélanges Mariette (Bibliotheque d’Études 32). Le Caire: IFAO. Lepsius, K.R. 1849. Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien. Vol. II. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung.  Lichtheim, M. 1973. Ancient Egyptian Literature (Vol 1). Berkeley: University of California. Lichtheim, M. 1988. Ancient Egyptian autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom : a study and an anthology (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 84). Fribourg (Suisse): Ed. universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. von Lieven, A. 2003. Wo faß ich dich, göttliche Natur..., in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IV): 125-129. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. von Lieven, A. 2004. Das Göttliche in der Natur erkennen. Tiere, Pflanzen und Phänomene der unbelebten Natur als Manifestationen des Göttlichen (mit einer Edition der Baumliste P. Berlin 29027), Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 131: 156-172. Lloyd, A.B. 1976. Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1-98 (Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain). Leiden: Brill. Lloyd, A.B. 1978. Strabo and the Memphite Tauromachy, in M. B. de Boer and T.A. Edridge (eds), Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren ii: 609-626. Leiden: Brill. Loat, F.Z.S. 1904. Gurob. London: Bernard Quaritch. Lortet, C. and Gaillard, C. 1903-1909 La faune momifiée de l’ancienne Égypte (Archives du Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Lyon 8-10). Lyon: Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Lyon. Lortet, L. and Gaillard, C. 1905. La Faune Momifié de l’Antique Égypte. Lyon: Henri Georg Éditeur. Luiselli, M.M. 2005. La partecipazione dell’individuo alla religione: rituali personali tra norma e individualità. Aegyptus 85/1: 13-31. Luiselli, M.M. 2007. DAs Bild des Betens. Versuch einer bildtheoretischen Analyse der altägyptischen Anbetungsgestik. Imago Aegypti 2: 87-96. Luiselli, M.M. 2008. Personal Piety (modern theories reated to), in J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: University of California. Luiselli, M.M. 2011. Die Suche nach Gottesnähe: Die persönliche Teilnahme an der Religion in Ägypten von der 1. Zwischenzeit bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches (Ägypten und Altes Testament 73). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Luiselli, M.M. 2013. Images of Personal Religion in Ancient Egypt: An Outline, in M.M. Luiselli, J. Mohn and S. Gripentrog (eds.), Kult und Bild. Die bildliche Dimension des Kultes im Alten Orient, in der Antike und in der Neuzeit (Diskurs Religion. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und religiösen Zeitgeschichte 1): 13-39. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag. MacArthur, E.V. 2010. The Pots and People of Tarkhan. Cahiers Caribéens d’Egyptologie 13/14: 73-98. MacArthur, E. V. 2011. In search of the sDm=f: the conception and development of hieroglyphic writing through the reign of Aha, in R. Friedman and P.N. Fiske (eds),  Egypt at Its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State: Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt,” London, 27th July–1st August 2008: 1195-1216. Leuven: Peeters. Malek, J. 1983. Who was the First to Identify the Saqqara Serapeum?. Chronique d’Égypte 58: 65-72. Malinine, M., G. Posener and J. Vercoutter 1968. Catalogue des stèles du Sérapéum de Memphis, 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Mariette, A. 1857. Le Sérapéum de Memphis decouvert et décrit par Aug. Mariette. Ouvrage dédié à S. A. I. Mgr. le Prince Napoléon et publié sous les auspices de S. E. M. Achille Fould , ministre d’état. Paris: Gide. Mariette, A. 1882. Le Sérapéum de Memphis par Auguste Mariette-Pacha: Publié d’après le manuscrit d’auteur par G. Maspero. Tome premier. Paris: F. Vieweg. Marković, N. 2015. The cult of the sacred bull Apis: History of Study, in M. Tomorad (ed.), A History of Research into Ancient Egyptian Culture Conducted in Southeast Europe (Archaeopress Egyptology 8): 135-144. Oxford: Archaeopress. Marković, N. 2016. A look through his window: the sanctuary of the divine Apis bull at Memphis. The Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 1: 57-70. Marković, N. 2017. The Majesty of Apis has gone to heaven: Burial of the sacred Apis bull within the landscape of Memphis during the Late Period (664-332 BCE), in K.A. Kóthay (ed.), Burial and Mortuary Practices in Late Period and Graeco-Roman Egypt. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 17-19 July 2014: 145-154. Budapest: Museum of Fine Arts. 216

Bibliography Martin, G.T. 2008. The Stela and Grave of Merka in Saqqara North, in E.M. Engel, V. Müller and U. Hartung (eds), Zeichen aus dem Sand: Streiflichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Günter Dreyer (Menes: Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und Alten Reiches 5): 463476. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Massenzio, M. 2005. The Italian school of ‘history of religions’. Religion 35: 209-222. Mathieu, B. 2015. Chacals et milans, pâturages et marécages, ou le monde selon Henqou, in M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, Fr. Rouffet (ed.), Apprivoiser le sauvage – Taming the Wild, Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et méditerranéenne 11: 263-274. Meeks, D. 1973. Le nom du dauphin et le poisson de Mendès. Revue d’Égyptologie 25: 209-216. Meeks, D. 1986. Zoomorphie et image des dieux dans l’Égypte ancienne. Le temps de la réflexion VII: 171-191. Meeks, D. 1990. Les oiseaux marqueurs du temps. Bulletin du Cercle Lyonnais d’Égyptologie 4: 37-52. Meeks, D. and Favard-Meeks, Chr. 1996. Daily Life of the Egyptian Gods. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press. Menu, B. 2005. Egypte pharaonique: Nouvelles recherches sur l’histoire juridique, économique et sociale de l’ancienne Egypte (Collection Droits et cultures 4). Paris: Harmattan. van der Molen, R. 2000. A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts. Leiden: Brill. Mond, R. and O.H. Myers 1934. The Bucheum (Egypt Exploration Society). 3 vols. London: Milford. Montet, P. 1957. Géographie de l’Égypte ancienne. Première parte: To-Mehou, La Basse Égypte. Paris: Klincksieck Moreno-Garcia, J.C. 2013. Ancient Egyptian administration. Leiden: Brill. Morenz, L.D. 2003. Die Sobeks – Spuren von Volksreligion im ägyptischen Mittleren Reich, in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IV): 83-97. Berlin: HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin. Morenz, L.D. 2004. Bild-Buchstaben und symbolische Zeichen: die Herausbildung der Schrift in der hohen Kultur Altägyptens (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 205). Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Morenz, L.D. 2010. Die Zeit der Regionen im Spiegel der Gebelein-Region Kulturgeschichtliche. ReKonstruktionen (Problem der Ägyptologie 27). Leiden – Boston: Brill. Morenz, L.D. 2014. Anfänge der ägyptischen Kunst Eine problemgeschichtliche Einführung in ägyptologische Bild-Anthropologie (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 264). Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Morenz, S. 1955. Rote Stiere. Unbeachtetes zu Buchis und Mnevis, in O. Firchow (ed.), Ägyptologische Studien: Hermann Grapow zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet: 238-243. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Morenz, S. 1962a. Tierkult, in K. Galling (ed.) Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft VI: 896-899. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Morenz, S. 1962b. Ein neues Dokument der Tierbestattung. ZÄS 88: 42-47. Morenz, S. 1992. Egyptian Religion. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press. Moret, A. 1909. Catalogue du Musée Guimet, galerie égyptienne : stèles, baś-reliefs, monuments divers. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Moser, S. 2020. Painting Antiquity. Ancient Egypt in the Art of Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Edward Poynter and Edwin Long. New York: Oxford University Press. Moursi, M.I. 1983. Corpus der Mnevis-Stelen und Untersuchungen zum Kult der Mnevis-Stierein Heliopolis. Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 10: 247-266. Moursi, M. 1987. Corpus der Mnervis-stelen und Untersuchungen zum Kult der Mnevis-stiere in Heliopolis II. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 14: 225–237. Munro, P. 1963. Einige Votivstellen an WpwAwt. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 88: 48-58. Murnane, W. and van Siclen, C. 1993. The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. London: Kegan Paul International. Muszynski, M. 1977. Les “Associations religieuses” en Égypt d’après les sources hiéroglyphiques, démotiques et grecques. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 8: 145-174. Naville, E. 1901. The Temple of Deir el Bahari. Part IV: The Shrine of Hathor and The Southern Hall of Offerings (EEF Memoir 19). London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Naville, E. 1903. La pierre de Palerme. Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archèologie ègyptiennes et assyriennes 25: 64-81. 217

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Nicholson, P.T. 2005. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: 44-71.Cairo – New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Nuzzolo, M. 2019. The Fifth Dynasty Sun Temples. Kingship, Architecture and Religion in Third Millennium BC Egypt. Prague: Charles University Faculty of Arts. Nuzzolo, M. and R. Pirelli 2011. New archaeological investigation in the sun temple of Nyuserre in Abu Ghurab, in M. Bárta, F. Coppens and J. Krejčí (eds) Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2010/2: 664–679. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University. Nyord, R. 2019. Egyptian and Egyptological Concepts, in R. Nyord (ed.) Concepts in Middle Kingdom Funerary Culture: Proceedings of the Lady Wallis Budge Anniversary Symposium Held at Christ’s College, 22 January 2016 (Culture and history of the ancient Near East 102): 24-45. Leiden: Brill. Otto, E. 1951. Das Pelikan-Motiv in der altaegyptischen Literatur, in G. E. Mylonas and D. Raymond (eds) Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson on his Seventieth  Birthday: 215-222. Saint Louis: Washington University. Otto, E. 1960. Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Otto, E. 19642. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stierkulte in Aegypten (Untersuchungenzur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 13). Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. Otto, E. 1975. Buchis, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexicon der Ägyptologie I: 874-875. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pagliari, G. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham. Pasquali, S. 2009. Un ou deux taureaux Apis inhumés sous Horemheb?. Revue d’Égyptologie 60: 41-46. Pasquali, S. 2011. Topographie cultuelle de Memphis 1 a. Corpus Temples et principaux quartiers de la XVIIIe dynastie (Cahiers Égypte Nilotique et Méditérranéenne 4). Montpellier. Peet, T.E. 1924. A Historical Document of Ramesside Age. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 10: 116-127. Petrie, W.M.F. 1900. Dendereh 1898 (Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs 17). London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Petrie, W.M.F. 1901. Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties, 1901. Part II (Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs 21). London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Petrie, W.M.F. 1913. Tarkhan I and Memphis V. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt. Pettazzoni, R. 1959. Il metodo comparativo. Numen 6: 1-14. Pfeiffer, S. 2008. Der ägyptische ‘Tierkult’ im Spiegel der griechisch-römischen Literatur, in A. Alexandridis, M. Wild and L. Winkler-Horaček (eds), Mensch und Tier in der Antike - Grenzziehung und Grenzüberschreitung: 263-283. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Piacentini, P. 2002. Les scribes dans la société égyptienne de l’Ancien Empire. Vol. I. Paris: Cybele. Porcier, S. 2006. Un tareau sacré Mnévis à Tell el-Amarna?. Égypte, Afrique et Orient 44: 35-40. Porcier, S. 2009. Mnévis. Recherches surle culte du taureau sacré d’Héliopolis, 2vols. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Montpellier: Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3 (non vidi). Porcier, S. 2014. Le Mnévis d’Héliopolis: Bos primigenius ou Bos taurus?, in A. Gardeisen and C. Chandezon (eds.) Équidés et bovidés de la Méditerranée antique. Rites et combats. Jeux et savoirs (Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne, Hors série 6): 19-28. Lattes: Association pour le développent de l’archéologie en Languedoc-Roussillon. Porcier, S. 2014b. L’animal sacré en Égypte ancienne, medium entre les vivants et les morts : un témoignage du Nouvel Empire, in I. Bede and M. Detante (eds), Rencontre autour de l’animal en contexte funéraire : actes de la rencontre de Saint-Germain-en-Laye des 30 et 31 mars 2012: 97-101. SaintGermain-en-Laye: Groupe d’anthropologie et d’archéologie funéraire. Porter, B. and R.L.B. Moss (eds) 1927-2007. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, 8 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Preisigke, F. and Spiegelberg, W. 1914. Die Prinz-Joachim-Ostraka. Griechische und demotische Beisetzungsurkunden für Ibis- und Falkenmumien aus Ombos. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner. Quaegebeur, J. 1984. La Désignation “porteur(s) des dieux” et le culte des dieux-crocodiles dans les textes d’époque tardive”, in Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub: 161-176. Montpellier: Université de Montpellier. Quack, J.F. 2003. Die Rolle des heiligen Tieres im Buch vom Tempel, in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und 218

Bibliography Sudanarchäologie IV): 111-123. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Ranke, H. 1925. Tiernamen als Personennamen bei den Ägyptern. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 60: 76-83. Ranke, H. 1935. Die ägyptischen Personennamen, I. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin. Ranke, H. 1943. Zum ‘Phönix’. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 78: 54. Ranke, H. 1952. Die ägyptischen Personennamen, II. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin. Ranke, H. 1977. Die ägyptischen Personennamen, III. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin. Ray, J.D. 1976. The Archive of Hor (Excavations at North Saqqara Documentary Series 1; Texts from Excavations 2), London: Egypt Exploration Society. Ray, J.D. 1978. The World of North Saqqara. World Archaeology 10/2: 149-157. Ray, J.D. 2001. Animal Cults, in D. Redford (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt I: 345-348. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ray, J.D. 2005. An Inscribed Linen Plea from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 91: 171-179. Redford, D.B. 1986. Pharaonic king-lists, annals and day-books: a contribution to the study of the Egyptian sense of history. Mississauga: Benben Publications. Redford, D.B. 2010. City of the Ram–Man. The Story of Ancient Mendes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Redford, S. and D.B. Redford 2005. The Cult and Necropolis of the Sacred Ram at Mendes, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt: 164-198.Cairo – New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Reisner, G.A. and Abd-Ul-Rahman, M.H. 1967. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire : No. 4001-4740 and 4977-5033 : Canopics: 392-394. Cairo: IFAO. Renberg, G.H. 2017. Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 184). Leiden – Boston: Brill.  Roccati, A. 1982. La littérature historique sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 11). Paris: Cerf. Roche, A. 2014. Et le roi tua l’hippopotame. Enquête sur les origines d’un rite égyptien. Archimède : archéologie et histoire ancienne 1: 71-87. Romano, J.F., K. Parlasca and J.M Rogers 1979. Luxor Museum of Ancient Egyptian Art: Catalogue. Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt. El-Saady, H.M. 1995. Two Heliopolitan Stelae of the New Kingdom. Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 122-2: 101-104. Sadek, A.I. 1987. Popular religion in Egypt during the New Kingdom (Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 27) Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. Satlow, M.L. 2005. Disappearing Categories: Using Categories in the Study of Religion. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 17/4: 287-298. Säve-Söderbergh, T., 1953. On Egyptian representations of hippopotamus hunting as a religious motive (Horae Soederblomianae 3). Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund, i distribution Scalf, F. 2015. Resurrecting an Ibis Cult. A collection of Demotic Votive Texts from the Oriental Institute Museum of the University of Chicago, in: F. Heikal (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Ola el-Aguizy, (Bibliothèque d’Études 164): 361-388. Cairo: IFAO. Schäfer, H. 1899. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen bei Abusir im Winter 1898/99. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 37: 1–9. Schäfer, H. 1902. Ein Bruchstück altägyptische Annalen (Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften). Berlin: Verlag der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Scheele-Schweitzer, K. 2014. Die Personennamen des Alten Reiches: altägyptische Onomastik unter lexikographischen und sozio-kulturellen Aspekten (Philippika, 28). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schenkel, W. 1965. Memphis, Herakleopolis, Theben: die epigraphischen Zeugnisse der 7.-11. Dynastie Ägyptens. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schenkel, W. 1982. Onuris. in W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV: 573–574. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schneider, H.D. 1977. Shabtis: An Introduction to the History of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Statuettes with a Catalogue of the Collection of Shabtis in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden (Collection of the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden 2), 3 vols. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudhen.

219

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Schott, S. 1950. Altägyptischen Festdaten (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10). Wiesbaden: Steiner. Schott, E. 1972. Das Goldhaus unter König Snofru. Göttinger Miszellen 3: 31–36. Sethe, K. 1908-1922. Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte, 4 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Sethe, K. 1912. Zur altägyptischen Sage vom Sonnenauge, das in der Fremde war (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 5.3). Leipzig. Shalomi-Hen, R. 2000. Classifying the divine: determinatives and categorisation in CT 335 and BD 17 (Gottinger Orientforschungen, IV. Reihe: Agypten 38). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Simpson, W.K. 1957. A Running of the Apis in the Reign of the ‘Aha and the Passages in Manetho and Aelian. Orientalia 26: 139-142. Smelijk, K.A.D. 1979. The Cult of the Ibis in the Graeco-Roman Period, in M.J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religions (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 78): 225-243. Leiden: Brill. Smelijk, K.A.D. and Hemelrijk, E. A. 1984. ‘Who knows not what monsters demented Egypt worships?’ Opinions on Egyptian animal worship in Antiquity as part of the ancient conception of Egypt. In W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 17, 4: 1852–2000. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter. Smith, H.S. 1974. A Visit to Ancient Egypt: Life at Memphis and Saqqara (500-30 B.C.), Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Smith, H.S. 2002. The Saqqara Papyri. Oracle Questions, Pleas and Letters, in K. Ryholt (ed.), Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999 (CNI Publications 27): 367-375. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Smith, J.Z. 1992. To Take Place. Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press. Smith, M. 2008. Osiris and the Deceased, in J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: University of California. Snape, S. 2011. Piety, Khaemwaset and the Present Past: History and the Individual in Ramesside Egypt, in. M. Collier and S. Snape (eds), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen: 465-473. Bolton: Rutherford Press Limited. Spanel, D. 1984. The Date of Ankhtifi of Moalla. Göttinger Miszellen 78: 87-94. Spiegelberg, W. 1891. Ein Papyrus aus der Zeit Ramses’ V. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 29: 73-84. Spiegelberg, W. 1920. Ein Buchstück des Bestattungsrituals des Apisstieres. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 56: 1- 33. Stadler, M. 2008. Procession, in J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: University of California. Stadelmann, R. 1984. Sonneheligtum, in W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie V:1094–1099. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Stephenson, B. 2015. Ritual, A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stevens, A. 2006. Private Religion at Amarna. The Material Evidence (BAR International Series 1587). Oxford: Archaeopress. Stewart, H.M. 1979. Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings from the Petrie Collection. Part Two: Archaic to Second Intermediate Period. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Störk, L. 1982. Nashorn, in W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV: 351–352. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Strudwick, N. 2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age (Writings from the Ancient World, 16). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Teeter, E. 1997. The Presentation of Maat. Ritual and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 57). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Thompson, D. J. 1988. Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thompson, S.E. 2001. Cults: an Overview, in D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt I: 326-332. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tilley, C. 2001. Ethnography and Material Culture, in P. Atkinson et alii (eds), Handbook of Ethnography: 258-272. London: Sage Publications. Traunecker, Cl. 2001. The Gods of Egypt. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press. 220

Bibliography Trumble, A. 2001. Love & Death: Art in the Age of Queen Victoria. Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Australia. Valbelle, D. 1992. Les métamorphoses d’une hypostase divine en Égypte. Revue de l’Historie des Religions 209/1: 3-21. Vandekerckhove, H. and R. Müller-Wollermann 2001. Die Felsinschriften des Wadi Hilâl (Publications du Comité des fouilles belges en Egypte 6). Turnhout: Brepols Publisher. Van den Hoven, C. 2015. Le couronnement du faucon sacré à Edfou : les rituels de confirmation du pouvoir royal, in Ch. Zivie-Coche (éd.), Offrandes, rites et rituels dans les temples d’époque ptolémaïque et romaine. Actes de la journée d’études de l’équipe EPHE (EA 4519) « Égypte ancienne : Archéologie, Langue, Religion » Paris, 27 juin 2013 (Cahiers « Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 10) : 185-198. Montepellier : Université Paul Valéry (Montpellier III). Van Neer, W. and J. Gonzalez 2019. A Late Period fish deposit at Oxyrhynchus (el-Bahnasa, Egypt). Documenta Archaeobiologiae 15: 311-342. Vandier, J. 1950. Mo’alla. La tombe d’Ankhtifi et la tombe de Sébekhotep (Bibliothèque d’Étude 18). Le Caire : IFAO. Varille, A. 1968. Inscriptions concernant l’architecte Amenhotep, fils de Hapou (Bibliothèque d’Études 44). Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. te Velde, H. 1980. A Few Remarks upon the Religious Significance of Animals in Ancient Egypt. Numen 27: 76-82. Verbrugghe, G.P. and J.M. Wickersham 1996. Berossos and Manetho, introduced and translated: native traditions in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Vercoutter, J. 1962. Textes biographiques du Sérapéum de Memphis. Contribution à l’étude des stèles votives du Sérapéum (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences historiques et philologiques, fascicule 316). Paris: Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion. Vercoutter, J. 1975. Apis, in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), Lexikon der Ägyptologie I: 338-350. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Verhoeven, M. 2011. The Many Dimensions of Ritual, in T. Insoll (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ritual and Religion: 115-132. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Verhoeven, U. 2010. Tomb N13.1: More literary graffiti and the title ‘scribe of the estate of jackals’. Studien zur Altagyptischen Kultur 39: 196-198. Verhoeven, U. 2012. The New Kingdom Graffiti in Tomb N13.1: An Overview, in J. Kahl, M. El-Khadragy, U. Verhoeven and A. Kilian (eds) 2012. Seven Seasons at Asyut First Results of the Egyptian-German Cooperation in Archaeological Fieldwork: Proceedings of an International Conference at the University of Sohag, 10th-11th of October, 2009 (The Asyut Projecct 2): 47-58. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Verner, M. 2006. Contemporaneous Evidence for the Relative Chronology of Dyns. 4 and 5, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss and D.A. Warburton (eds) Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbuch der Orientalistik 83): 124–158. Leiden: Brill. Vernus, P. 1978. Athribis: Textes et documents relatives à la géographie, aux cultes, et à l’histoire d’une ville du Delta égyptien à l’époque pharaonique (Bibliothequé d’Étude 74). Le Caire: IFAO. Vernus, P. 2003. Affairs and Scandal in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press Vernus P. And J. Yoyotte 2005. Bestiaire des Pharaons. Paris: Agnès Éditions; Éditions Perrin. Vischak, D. 2001. Hathor, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt: Volume 2: 82–85. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Vittmann, G. 2013. Personal Names: Structures and Patterns. in J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles: University of California Vos, R.L. 1993. The Apis Embalming Ritual (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 50). Leuven: Peeters. Vos, R.L. 1998. The Colors of Apis and other Sacred Animals, in W. Clarysse, A. Schoors and H. Willems (eds), Egyptian Religion, the Last Thousand Years. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeuer (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 84): 709-718. Leuven: Peeters. Voß, S. 2004. Untersuchungen zu den Sonne Heiligtümern der 5. Dynastie. Bedeutung und Funktion eines singulären Tempeltyps im Alten Reich. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg. Waddell, W.G.1964. Manetho. London: William Heinemann. Wasef, S. et alii. 2019. Mitogenomic diversity in Sacred Ibis Mummies sheds light on early Egyptian practices. Plos One 14/11 Way, T. von der 1989. Tell el-Fara‘in–Buto. 4. Bericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 45: 275-307.

221

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt van Walsem, R. 2006. Iconography of Old Kingdom elite tombs: analysis and interpretation, theoretical and methodological aspects. Leuven: Peeters; Hadleigh: BRAD. Ward, W.A. 1982. Index of Egyptian administrative and religious titles of the Middle Kingdom: with a glossary of words and phrases used. Beirut: American University of Beirut. Wells, E.R. 2014. Display and Devotion: A Social and Religious Analysis of New Kingdom Votive Stelae from Asyut. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California Los Angeles. Wiedemann, A. 1889. Le Culte des Animaux en Égypte. Le Muséon 8: 211-225, 309-318. Wiedemann, A. 1905. Quelques remarques sur le culte des animaux en Égypte. Le Muséon N.S.: 113128. Wiedemann, A. 1912. Der Tierkult der alten Ägypter (Der Alte Orient 14.1), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs: 3-32. Wiedemann, A. 1917. Der Apis als Totenträger. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 20: 298-303. Wilkinson, T.A.H. 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London: Routledge. Wilkinson, T.A.H. 2000. Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its Associated Fragments. London: Kegan Paul International. Žabkar, L.V. 1968. A study of the ba concept in ancient Egyptian texts (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Žabkar, L.V. 1975. Ba, in W. Helck, E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie I: 588-589. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Zecchi, M. 2001. Geografia Religiosa del Fayyum. Dalle origini al IV secolo a.C. Imola: La Mandragora. Ziegler, Ch. 1996. Les pierres précieuses de l’Égypte pharaonique, l’exemple des bijoux du Sérapéum de Memphis. Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France (Séance du 12 juin): 244251. Ziegler, Ch. 1999. L’Égypte pharaonique: l’exemple des bijoux du Sérapéum, in A.Caubet (ed.), Cornaline et pierres précieuses: la Méditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée du Louvre parle Service culturel les 24 et 25 novembre 1995 : 15-41. Paris: Documentation française.

222

Index A

Asyut 91, 111, 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 153, 154, 161, 168, 175, 177, 181, 184, 185, 186, 192, 194 Assmann, Jan iii, 4, 10, 11, 12, 23, 59, 95, 97, 124, 125, 163, 172, 173, 185, 188, 191, 193, 198, 201, 205 Athribis 82 Aton 136 Atum 68, 84, 85, 116, 129, 131, 133, 164, 166, 188, 190

Abu Ghurob 54, 60 Abu Roash 73 Abydos 29, 34, 35, 38, 39, 48, 65, 91, 92, 105, 106, 155, 156 Aelianus 31 Aha 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 76, 79, 81, 173, 191, 194, 195 Ahmose 129, 135 Ain-Shams 134 Akhenaton 117, 135, 136, 197 Akhmim 91, 106 Al-Mahamid Qibli 31, 102, 103, 110, 151 Allam, Shafik 53, 70, 71 Allen, James 9, 81, 82, 101, 102, 162 Amenemhat II 91 Amenhotep II 129, 130, 134, 148, 151 Amenhotep III 17, 72, 83, 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 122, 125, 151, 152, 164, 173, 189, 190, 195, 197 Amenhotep IV 117, 118, 134 Amun 126, 150, 164 Animal cult 198 Animal worship 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 40, 44, 50, 53, 63, 87, 89, 99, 109, 110, 111, 126, 148, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 191, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 Ankh-khaf 66 Ankhtify 95, 96, 97, 98, 102, 107, 172 Anubis 94, 108, 118, 124, 144, 173, 188 Apis 5, 7, 11, 12, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 146, 147, 148, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200 Arab el-Tawil 129, 130, 134, 135, 136 Armant 102, 110, 148, 149, 151, 163 Arnold, Dieter 31, 34 Arsinoe II 41 Artaxerxes III 41

B Baines, John 4, 23, 24, 35, 197, 202, 203, 205 Banebdjed 35, 139, 176 Baud, Michel 49, 63, 64, 66, 69, 82 Bay 130, 131 Beautiful Festival of the Valley 126 Bebi 71 Benu-bird 85 Betrò, Marilina 102, 103, 151, 152, 154 Biga 137, 138 Birds 59, 60, 61, 62, 79, 86, 141, 155, 156, 200 Book of the Dead 102, 141, 161 Brelich, Angelo 19, 20, 21, 205 Browarski, Edward 36, 89, 90, 91, 106 Bucheum 148 Buchis 133, 148, 149, 161, 163, 164, 175, 176, 187, 194 Bull 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 186, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200 Bull of Heliopolis 83, 84, 128, 131, 138 Bussmann, Richard 192 Buto 33 C Cairo 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 44, 58, 60, 64, 65, 71, 92, 106, 116, 117, 130, 132, 134, 135, 164, 181 Calves 50, 51, 52, 53, 82, 87, 107, 110, 132, 137, 138, 150, 166, 167, 180, 182, 186, 193, 196 Cambyses 41 223

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt Cannibal Hymn 48, 82 Cannuyer, Christian 59, 60, 61 Coffin Texts 61, 89, 97, 98, 102, 105, 108, 109, 110, 128, 162, 167, 172, 187 cows 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 87, 91, 96, 100, 101, 107, 109, 110, 127, 132, 161, 166, 176, 182 Crocodile 29, 30, 38, 39, 43, 76, 102, 151, 152, 154, 180 Crocodilopolis 30, 31 Cusae 70, 71, 72, 73, 87, 100, 101

Fish Stelae 141, 180 Fitzenreiter, Martin 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 56, 70, 94, 101, 109, 111, 140, 163, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 187, 191, 192, 194, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201 Frankfort, Henri 8, 9, 10, 55, 172, 191 Friedman, Florence 33, 34 Frood, Elizabeth 36, 116, 117, 124, 185, 197

D

Gaillard, Claude 83, 116, 131, 133, 142, 198 Galán, Emanuel 97, 98, 100, 101 Galvin, Marianne 70, 71, 72 Gardiner, Alan H. 29, 79, 127, 136, 137, 138, 162 Gasperini, Valentina 141, 142, 143 Gebel Asyut al-Gharbi 143 Gebelein 51, 102, 151 Gegi 90 Gilliam, Robyn 71 Goelet, Ogden 34, 67, 68 Graeco-Roman period 162, 174 Graindorge, Catherine 149, 150, 151 Grandet, Pierre 127, 128, 136, 137, 163 Grunert, Stefan 93, 94, 95 Gurob 141, 142, 143, 183, 184

G

Dahamsha 151 Dashur 46, 47 Debeheni 56, 63, 67, 68, 87, 169, 181 Decorum 3, 23, 24, 25, 26, 63, 73, 74, 103, 111, 123, 154, 174, 186, 187, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 202, 203, 204, 205 Deir el-Bahari 71, 100, 101, 127 Deir el Gebrawi 93 Den 5, 9, 13, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 47, 67, 68, 71, 82, 94, 101, 114, 160, 163, 175, 176, 179, 190, 192, 197, 198, 199, 201 Dendera 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 109, 127, 161, 180 Diodorus Siculus 41 Djaw 69 Djefai-Hapi I 91 Djefai-Hapi III 144 Djer 38, 40, 60 Djoser 34, 39, 40, 55, 64, 68, 82, 112 Dolzani, Claudia 29, 30 Donadoni-Roveri, Anna Maria 66, 67 Dra’ Abu el-Naga 127, 182 Driving of the calves 51, 52, 53, 107, 110 Dwa-en-ra 75

H Hagarsa 75, 78, 90 Hathor 50, 51, 52, 53, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 99, 100, 101, 109, 127, 143 Hatiay 117 Hatshepsut 47, 71, 100, 126, 127, 129, 130, 166, 182 Heliopolis 38, 39, 40, 41, 49, 50, 80, 83, 84, 85, 105, 108, 111, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 148, 163, 180, 183, 184, 190 Hemaka 56 Hemiunu 66 Henqu II 93, 94, 95, 101, 155, 161, 167, 172, 183, 195, Henu 100 Henuttawy 148 Hepi 70 Heqanakht 101, 102, 103, 110, 151, 154, 180, 188, 197 Herakleopolis Magna 34 Hermopolis 91 Herodotus 1, 5, 41, 102, 114 Heryshef 34 Hesat-cow 37, 66, 67, 84, 85, 87, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 106, 108, 109, 110, 127, 131, 161, 167, 173, 175, 176, 180, 187, 188 Hesy 69, 74 Hippo 38, 76 Horapollo 60

E Early Dynastic 2, 3, 24, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 55, 56, 67, 68, 74, 75, 77, 108, 139, 149, 162, 171, 172, 182, 186, 202 Edel, Elmar 58, 59, 61, 62 Egberts, Arno 50, 51, 52, 193 Elephantine 137, 138 el-Hawawish 65, 75, 78 Elkab 65, 72, 88 Esna 140, 141, 142 Eyre, Christopher 81, 82 F Fakhry, Ahmed 46, 47 Faulkner, Raymond 82, 106, 107, 108 Fayyum 29, 30, 31, 102, 106, 141, 142, 143 Field of Offering 108, 124 224

Index Horemheb 83, 114, 115, 118, 122 Hori 155, 156 Horsiaru 117 Horus 30, 31, 33, 34, 44, 45, 46, 48, 68, 74, 81, 83, 104, 108, 113, 114, 116, 118, 124, 173, 189, 190 Hotep-Ptah 123

M Maat 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 64, 73, 74, 78, 122, 130, 131, 134, 135, 155, 164, 165, 168, 171, 182, 184, 188 Manetho 31, 35, 40, 41, 42, 49, 77, 88 Mansion of gold 46, 47, 124 Mariette, Auguste 7, 82, 83, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 190 Medinet el-Fayyum 31 Medinet Habu 149 Meeks, Dimitri 2, 58, 60, 62, 128, 139, 155, 160, 163, 166, 177, 179, 190 Mehu 78, 79 Meir 65, 70, 73, 88, 90, 97, 98, 100, 106, 188 Memphis 40, 41, 69, 71, 72, 82, 90, 99, 100, 106, 111, 112, 116, 117, 123, 124, 127, 138, 179, 184, 188 Mendes 13, 14, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 76, 77, 79, 86, 87, 88, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 153, 161, 163, 165, 166, 168, 176, 180, 187, 188 Menes 31 Menkaure 64, 67 Merehw 69 Merenptah 124, 130, 131 Merenre 64, 81 Mererwka 69 Merka 37, 69 Mery-hetep 37 Meryre-ankhw 69 Meseh 101 Mesehti 91 Metjen 47, 77 Michailides 31, 32, 36, 40 Middle Kingdom 31, 39, 51, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 144, 154, 159, 182, 188, 197 Min 52, 81, 90, 148, 149, 150, 151, 193 Min-Kamutef 149, 150 Mnevis 40, 41, 42, 49, 50, 58, 77, 83, 84, 90, 101, 108, 111, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 146, 147, 148, 161, 164, 165, 166, 168, 175, 176, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 192, 194 Moalla 95, 102 Montu 148 Monumental discourse 23, 45, 47, 50, 62, 99, 110, 172, 187, 195, 203, 205 Morenz, Ludwig 2, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, 30, 31, 33, 102, 103, 133, 151, 152, 154, 162, 164 Multiple animals 63, 65, 92, 95, 109, 140, 145, 154, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 189, 195, 198, 200 Mummy 1, 99, 115, 118, 119, 120, 130, 199 Murnane, William 136

I Ibi 65, 69 Imi 65, 71 Ipi 101, 102 Ipi the Younger 102 Ires-ankh 71, 72 Iri-en-wr 66, 93 Isis 94, 118, 143, 150, 189 Iy-hebenef 152 J Jackal 145 Jansen-Winkeln, Karl 62 Jurman, Claus 31, 116, 179, 186, 189, 200 K Ka 37, 48, 49, 50, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 74, 78, 84, 92, 96, 97, 98, 104, 106, 108, 109, 124, 127, 128, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 196 Kahl, Jochem 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 42, 74, 91, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 Kaiechos 31, 40, 41, 42, 86 Kaiser, Werner 57 Kaplony, Peter 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48 Karnak 126 Kees, Herman 8, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 68, 90 Kessler, Dieter 4, 13, 14, 19, 31, 32, 40, 61, 71, 91, 138, 141, 144, 154, 155, 156, 162, 165, 198, 199, 200 Khaemwaset 83, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122 Khasekhemwy 38, 40 Khnum 76, 79, 137, 138, 163 Khufu 46, 64, 66, 93 Khufu-ankh 66, 93 Khufu-khaf 66 Khwen-wekh 70, 71 Kultobjeckte 115, 191 Krauss, Rolf 33, 34, 59, 62 L Lacau, Pierre 71, 91, 126 Late Period 2, 9, 11, 16, 17, 35, 36, 37, 38, 68, 69, 77, 82, 84, 86, 90, 104, 124, 139, 142, 144, 148, 186, 195, 197, 200 Lortet, Louis 116, 131, 133, 142, 198 225

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt N Nakhthorheb 148 Naqada 30, 32 Narmer 29, 30, 32, 33 Nebnefer 152 Neferhor 117 Neferhotep 148 Neith 81, 142, 143 Nekhbet 50, 68, 72 Nepherites I 139 Nephthys 94 Nepri 96 New Kingdom 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 15, 17, 23, 24, 26, 36, 39, 42, 51, 71, 77, 83, 86, 95, 98, 100, 101, 103, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134, 139, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 189, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 202, 203, 204 New Year’s festival 150 Ninetjer 35, 36, 38, 42, 45, 188 Niuserre 54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 86, 88, 95, 155 Nut 60, 124, 189

Pelican 59, 60, 61, 175 Penanuket 137, 138 Pepy-ankh the Middle 70, 93 Pepy I 64, 65, 69, 71, 81 Pepy II 64, 65, 78, 79, 81, 84 Petrie, William Matthew Flinders 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 70, 71, 114, 133, 148 pHrr-Hp 40, 42, 44, 81, 87, 172, 180, 181, 182, 196 Physical marks 39, 53, 109, 166 Pia 152 Piay 124, 125, 133, 134, 149, 185, 192 Plutarch 5, 6, 15, 41 Porcier, Stephanie 84, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136 Psamtik I 36, 113 Ptah 7, 50, 68, 74, 82, 99, 100, 111, 116, 117, 123, 124, 127, 128, 133, 163, 164, 166, 172, 173, 177, 179, 186, 188, 191 Ptahmose 116 Ptolemaic period 36, 51, 52, 69, 179, 193, 200 Ptolemy II 41, 139 Pyramid Texts 29, 44, 48, 49, 60, 61, 68, 74, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 98, 105, 128, 162, 187

O

Qaa 35, 37, 38, 42, 85

Old Kingdom 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 109, 110, 128, 129, 139, 144, 149, 150, 151, 162, 164, 166, 182, 186, 196 Onuris 89, 90, 110, 161 Opening of the mouth 46, 47, 123, 124, 148, 171, 180, 182, 185 Opet Festival 52, 126, 182 Osiris 5, 41, 51, 52, 111, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 131, 135, 155, 163, 189, 190, 195 Otto, Eberhard 8, 9, 18, 31, 32, 33, 36, 45, 47, 49, 50, 55, 60, 69, 81, 82, 84, 90, 116, 124, 131, 133, 136, 138, 148, 164, 172, 179, 190 Oxyrhynchus 141, 142 P P. Chester Beatty IX 127, 136 P. Harris I 127, 128, 129, 136, 138, 154, 163 P. Heqanakht 154, 197 P. Jumilhac 191 P. Sallier IV 127 P. Turin 1887 137, 138, 154, 181, 182 P. Vindob 3873 55 Palermo Stone 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 45, 48, 68, 104, 188 Panopolite nome 91 Paser 116, 117, 119

R

Q

Ra 31, 42, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, 62, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 84, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 100, 106, 107, 108, 122, 125, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 152, 153, 154, 155, 163, 164, 166, 182, 188, 190 Ra-Atum 129, 131, 133 Ra-Horakhty 84 Ramesseum 102, 149 Ramesside period 129, 136, 139, 144, 152, 155, 165, 185, 189, 190 Ram of Mendes 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 77, 86, 88, 139, 161, 163, 165, 166, 168, 180, 187, 188 Ramses I 155, 156 Ramses II 36, 48, 83, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 139, 142, 143, 146, 152, 190 Ramses III 120, 121, 127, 128, 136, 149, 163 Ramses IX 121, 122, 134 Ramses V 137 Ramses VI 121, 122, 140 Ramses VII 129, 130, 131, 133, 134 Ramses XI 121, 122 Raneb 41, 42 Ranke, Hermann 37, 38, 39, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 103, 104, 105

226

Index Redford, Donald B. 35, 36, 41, 49, 76, 79, 86, 87, 139, 140 Religious display 23, 50, 147, 172, 174, 196, 197 Religious efficacy 53, 63, 165, 175 Remen-wi-kai 71, 72 Rensi 100 Rika 130, 131 Ritual 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, 116, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 131, 133, 136, 139, 140, 141, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 159, 160, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 204 Ritual context 31, 43, 46, 50, 63, 169, 174, 185, 186, 189 Ritualisation 22, 25, 50, 160, 169, 179, 180, 181, 182 Ritual manipulation 53, 77, 86, 155, 172, 175, 179, 181, 186, 187, 193, 204 Robyn Gilliam 71 Roccati, Alessandro 44, 45, 48, 49 Room of the Seasons 54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 101, 155 Royal jubilee 52, 63, 67 Running of the Apis bull 31, 33, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 55, 126, 168, 180, 182, 186, 193

Senbi 97, 98, 100, 106, 188 Sepa 66 Serapeum 7, 17, 36, 68, 77, 82, 104, 111, 112, 117, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 131, 133, 138, 149, 173, 180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 200 Serekh 29, 30, 33, 45, 46 Sesostris I 51, 52, 91, 100, 101 Sethe, Kurt 45, 71, 81, 93 Seti I 48, 83, 118 Shedet 29, 30, 31 Shedyt 43 Single animal 31, 40, 99, 165, 182 Siptah 120, 121, 122, 130 Snefru 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 56, 66 Snefru-khaf 66 Sobek 29, 30, 31, 76, 102, 103, 110, 151, 152, 153, 154, 163, 166, 167, 177, 185, 197 Sokar 52, 81, 116 Spiegelberg, Wilhelm 55, 154, 155, 156, 198 Step Pyramid 82 Sumenu 110, 111, 140, 151, 152, 153, 154, 161, 168, 175, 177, 180, 184, 185, 186, 194 T Tanis Geographical Papyrus 114, 133, 148 Tarkhan 29, 30, 31, 38, 43 Tayt 96 Tell el-Amarna 135 Tell el-Fara‘in 33 Thinite nome 89, 90, 91, 109 Third Intermediate Period 142, 190 This 90 Thutmosis 50, 117, 118, 123, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 134, 139, 141, 142, 143, 151, 189, 193 Thutmosis I 126, 151, 193 Thutmosis III 50, 132, 134, 139, 141, 142, 143, 151 Thutmosis IV 129, 130 Tjaenro 148 Tjawenef 133 Tjentet-cattle 70 Tjeti 69 Tntt 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 100, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 127, 161, 175, 180, 187, 196 Tntt-cattle 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 87, 89, 91, 100, 104, 105, 109, 175, 180, 187, 196 Tuna el-Gebel 13, 14, 155, 156, 199 Turin Indictment Papyrus 137 Tutankhamon 118, 122

S Sacralisation 167, 168, 169, 174, 179, 182, 183, 186, 189, 190, 203 Sacr(alis)ed animals 23, 111, 115, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203 Sacred animals 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 25, 61, 77, 104, 106, 124, 128, 152, 156, 160, 161, 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 188, 198, 199, 200, 202 Sahure 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 64, 87, 169 Sais 124 Salakhana Trove 143, 166, 175, 184 Saqqara 7, 13, 14, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 47, 51, 65, 66, 69, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 87, 106, 108, 111, 112, 114, 116, 136, 148, 152, 155, 156, 181, 183, 184, 198, 199 Schäfer, Heinrich 36, 54, 58 Schott, Erika 45, 46, 47 Sed-festival 34, 47, 52, 54, 55, 56, 67, 68, 69, 81, 166, 172, 180, 196 Sekhat-Hor 96 Sekhmet-nefret 123

U Ukh-hotep 100, 101 Unas 51, 52, 53, 64, 65, 78, 79, 80, 82 227

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt V Valley Temple 46, 47, 62 Verhoeven, Ursula 22, 143, 146, 181 Vernus, Pascal 14, 38, 60, 69, 80, 137, 138, 139, 143 Voß, Susanne 54, 57, 58

Wells, Eric Ryan 144, 145, 147, 185, 186, 192, 193 Werner Kaiser 57 White bull 37, 48, 49, 66, 69, 84, 87, 108, 109, 128, 148, 149, 150, 151, 161, 167, 180, 188, 193 Wilkinson, Toby 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 53 Wnennefer 126 Wpwawt 33, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 161, 173, 177, 180, 181, 184, 185, 188, 192 Wserkaf-ankh 69

W Wadi Hilâl 65, 72 Wainwright, Gerald A. 144

228

Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worship in Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom presents an articulated historical interpretation of Egyptian ‘animal worship’ – intended as a segment of religious practice focused on the mobilisation of selected animals within strategically designed ritual contexts – from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom, and offers a new understanding of its chronological development through a fresh review of pertinent archaeological and textual data. The goal is twofold: (1) to re-conceptualise the notion of ‘animal worship’ on firm theoretical and material bases, reassessing its heuristic value as a tool for analysis; (2) to demonstrate, accordingly, that ‘animal worship’ did not represent a late degeneration of traditional religion, socially (popular cult) and thematically (animal mummies and burials) restricted, but a complex domain of religious practice with a longer history and a larger variety of configurations than usually assumed.

Angelo Colonna is Research Fellow in Egyptology at Sapienza University of Rome, where he graduated in 2010 and completed his PhD in 2014. In 2017 he was Academic Visitor at the Oriental Institute – Oxford University. His research on animal worship has been awarded by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (2016) and the Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica (2017).

Archaeopress Egyptology www.archaeopress.com