Visualizing the afterlife in the tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt 9781107048089, 9781107626669, 1107048087, 1107626668

Citation preview

Visualizing the Afterlife in the Tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt

Lost in Egypt’s honeycombed hills, distanced by its western desert, or rendered inaccessible by subsequent urban occupation, the monumental decorated tombs of the Graeco-Roman period have received little scholarly attention. This volume, which explores the narrative pictorial programs of a group of decorated tombs from Ptolemaic and Roman-period Egypt (ca. 300 bce–250 ce), serves to redress this deficiency. Its aim is to recognize the tombs’ commonalities and differences across what might be considered ethnic and religious divides and to determine the rationale that lies behind these connections and dissonances. Setting the tomb programs within their social, political, and religious context, it analyzes the manner in which the multicultural population of Graeco-Roman Egypt chose to visualize their negotiation of death and the afterlife. Marjorie Susan Venit is Professor Emerita of Ancient Mediterranean Art and Archaeology at the University of Maryland. She is the author of Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead and Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in Egyptian Museums. Her previous books have been supported by generous grants from the Kress Foundation and the J. Paul Getty Trust. Among her other awards are a Fulbright-Hays Fellowship and fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Research Center in Egypt, the American Association of University Women, and the American Philosophical Society.

Visualizing the Afterlife in the Tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt

M ARJORIE SUSAN VENIT University of Maryland

32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107048089  C Marjorie Susan Venit 2016

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2016 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Venit, Marjorie Susan. Visualizing the afterlife in the tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt / Marjorie Susan Venit (University of Maryland). pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-107-04808-9 (hardback : alkaline paper) – isbn 978-1-107-62666-9 (paperback : alkaline paper) 1. Egypt – Antiquities. 2. Tombs – Egypt. 3. Egypt – History – Greco-Roman period, 332 B.C.–640 A.D. 4. Death – Social aspects – Egypt – History – To 1500. 5. Decoration and ornament – Egypt – History – To 1500. 6. Narrative art – Egypt – History – To 1500. 7. Cultural pluralism – Egypt – History – To 1500. 8. Egypt – Ethnic relations – History – To 1500. 9. Egypt – Religious life and customs. I. Title. II. Title: Visualizing the after-life in the tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt. dt62.t6v46 2015 932 .02 – dc23 2015021259 isbn 978-1-107-04808-9 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation and a grant from the Dietrich von Bothmer Publication Fund of the Archaeological Institute of America.

To my mentors, in memoriam Bernard V. Bothmer Dietrich von Bothmer William Coulson Daoud abdu Daoud Colin N. Edmonson Clair`eve Grandjouan Donald P. Hansen Evelyn B. Harrison Fordyce Mitchell Henriette J. Rattner Evelyn L. Smithson Anne Venit Harry Venit Saul Weinberg

Contents

List of Illustrations

page xi

Acknowledgments

xvii

Introduction Egypt before Alexander Previous Scholarship and How This Book Approaches Its Subject 1

Death, Bilingualism, and Biography in the ‘Eventide’ of Egypt: The Tomb of Petosiris and Its Afterlife Greeks and Egyptians The Setting of the Tomb of Petosiris The Tomb of Petosiris The Chapel The Walls Devoted to Neshu The Walls Devoted to Djedthothiufankh The South Wall of the Chapel The Pilasters of the South Wall and the South Pillars The Pronaos The Inner Walls of the Pronaos The North Wall of the Pronaos The East and West Walls of the Pronaos The South Wall of the Pronaos

Bilingualism in the Tomb of Petosiris Visual Biography in the Tomb of Petosiris The Afterlife of the Tomb of Petosiris 2

Egypt as Metaphor: Visual Bilingualism in the Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria Ptolemaic-Period Tombs Hypogeum A The Tombs at Moustapha Pasha

vii

1 2 3

5 5 6 8 9 9 15 16 18 18 19 19 25 38 46 48 48

50 51 52 53

CONTENTS

The Tombs of Pharos Island The S¯aqiya Tomb

Roman-Period Tombs The Bilingual Tombs in the ‘Nebengrab’ The Main Tomb in the Great Catacomb at Kom el-Shoqafa The Pronaos of the Main Tomb The Burial Room The Imagery of the Main Tomb Situated within Alexandria Tomb Design The Tomb from Tigrane Pasha Street

Greek Eschatology and the Mystery Cults Greek Eschatology and Alexandria’s Bilingual Response Heroization and Alexandria’s Bilingual Response Imaging the Afterlife 3

Greek Myth as Metaphor in the Chora of Egypt Leontopolis The Tombstones

Tuna el-Gebel The Tomb of Isidora House Tombs with Painted Decoration at Tuna el-Gebel Tombs with Dionysiac Imagery Tombs with Greek Myth Narratives The Tomb of the Abduction of Persephone The Tomb of the Trojan Horse The Tomb of the Oresteia and of Oedipus The Myths and the Mysteries

Greek Myth at Leontopolis and Tuna el-Gebel 4

Tradition and Innovation in the Tombs of the Egyptian Chora Tuna el-Gebel House-Tomb 18 House-Tomb 20 House-Tomb 21 The Anteroom The Lower Frieze The Upper Zones The Burial Room The Three Long Walls

The Egyptianizing Tombs at Tuna el-Gebel The Siwa Oasis The Crocodile Tomb

viii

55 60 63 63 66 67 69 77 78 80 81 83 85 87 87 88 90 91 95 95 96 96 99 100 107 108 109 110 111 111 113 115 115 120 127 127 133 133 134

CONTENTS

The Tomb of Siamun The East Side of the North Wall The East Wall The West Wall The Ceiling The Pictorial Structure of the Tomb of Siamun

Athribis The Tomb of Psenosiris The Zodiac Tomb or the Tomb of the Two Brothers

The Zodiac Ceilings The ‘Traditional’ Tombs in the Graeco-Roman Chora 5

Bricolage and Greek-Collage in the Tombs of the Egyptian Chora Dakhla Oasis The Tomb of Petubastis The Tomb of Petosiris Room I Room II

Akhmim (Panopolis) The Tombs at al-Salamuni Bissing’s Tomb from 1913 Salamuni Tomb 8 Kaplan’s Tomb VI Kaplan’s Tomb VIII Bissing’s Tomb from 1897

Greek Elements in the Egyptianizing Tombs of Akhmim and Dakhla 6

Intersection and Interconnection in the Visualization of the Afterlife in Tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt Social Positioning The Image of the Patron Daemonic Protection of the Tomb The Efficacy of Afterlife Imagery in Graeco-Roman Egypt

136 136 137 141 144 147 148 149 151 154 156 157 157 158 165 166 175 182 183 183 184 185 185 185 192

196 197 198 199 200

Notes

203

Bibliography of Modern Works Cited

239

Index

255

ix

List of Illustrations

Map

M AP

1.12

Sites in Graeco-Roman Egypt Mentioned in this Volume, p. xviii

1.13 1.14

FIGURES

1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4 1.5

1.6 1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

1.11

Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Plan, p. 8 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, East Side of the North Wall, Lower Register, p. 10 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, East Wall, Funeral of Neshu, p. 11 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, East Wall, the Funeral Cart of Neshu, p. 13 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, East Wall, the Lowest Course, Offerings to Neshu, p. 14 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, West Side of the North Wall, p. 15 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, West Wall, the Lowest Register, Offering Bearers, p. 17 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the Lowest Register of the West Wall, Offering Bearers, Detail, p. 18 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West End of the North Wall, Metalworkers, p. 20 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, West End, Upper Preserved Register, Metalworkers, p. 20 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, the Lowest Preserved Frieze, Metalworkers, p. 21

1.15

1.16 1.17 1.18

1.19 1.20

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

xi

Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, Metalworkers, p. 22 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, Metalworkers, p. 23 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, East Side, Upper Registers, Perfumers, p. 24 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, the East Side, the Second and Third Registers from the Top, Perfumers, p. 25 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, Woodworkers, p. 26 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, Woodworkers, p. 26 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, the Manufacture of Reed Frames, p. 27 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, East End, Woodworkers, p. 27 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Middle Preserved Register, Left End, Cattle, p. 29 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Middle Preserved Register, Cattle, Middle Scene, p. 29 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Middle Preserved Register, Cattle, Right End, p. 30 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Lower Register, Picking the Grapes, p. 30 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Lower Register, Picking and Transporting the Grapes, p. 31

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1.25a Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, the Lower Register, Treading the Grapes, p. 31 1.25b Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, the Lower Register, Treading the Grapes, Detail, p. 32 1.26 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Lower Register, Filling and Sealing Jars, p. 33 1.27 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Lower Register, Recording the Vintage, p. 33 1.28 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, East Wall, Harvesting and Threshing Grain, p. 35 1.29 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, East Wall, Lower Register, Left End, p. 36 1.30 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, East Wall, Lower Register, Middle Section, p. 36 1.31 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, East Wall, Middle Register, p. 37 1.32 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, East Wall, Middle Register, p. 38 1.33 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, East Wall, Middle Register, Detail of Young Boy, p. 39 1.34 Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, East Wall, Upper Register, Threshing, p. 40 1.35 Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, South Wall, Offering Bearers and Three Women, p. 41 1.36 Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, South Wall, Bull Sacrifice, p. 43 1.37 Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, South Wall, the Bull Sacrifice, p. 44 2.1 Alexandria, Hypogeum A, Plan, p. 52 2.2 Alexandria, Hypogeum A, Reconstruction of the South Wall of the Anteroom, p. 53 2.3 Alexandria, Moustapha Pasha 1, Plan, p. 54 2.4 Alexandria, Moustapha Pasha 1, South Wall and Altar, p. 55 2.5 Alexandria, Moustapha Pasha 1, South Wall, Detail of Sphinxes, p. 56 2.6 Alexandria, Ras el Tin 8 Kline Niche, p. 57 2.7 Alexandria, Anfushy II.1, Egyptianizing Doorway, p. 58 2.8 Alexandria, Anfushy II, the Painting on the Upper Landing of the Staircase, p. 59 2.9 Alexandria, S¯aqiya Tomb, Herm, p. 60

2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15

2.16 2.17 2.18

2.19 2.20 2.21

2.22

Alexandria, S¯aqiya Tomb, Shepherd, p. 61 Alexandria, Ras El Tin 3, Herakles Soter, p. 61 Alexandria, S¯aqiya Tomb, Reclining Male, p. 62 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa “Nebengrab” Persephone Tomb 2, p. 64 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Plan, p. 66 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Facade of the Pronaos and Burial Chamber, p. 67 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Female Statue, p. 68 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Male Statue, p. 68 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Anthropomorphic Anubis, p. 70 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Anguiped Anubis, p. 71 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Central Niche, p. 72 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Back Wall of Right Niche, p. 73 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Back Wall of Left Niche,

p. 73 2.23

2.24

2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28

2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32

xii

Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Left Wall of Central Niche, p. 74 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Right Wall of Central Niche, p. 74 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Left Wall of Left Niche, p. 75 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Room, Right Wall of Left Niche, p. 75 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Room, Left Wall of Right Niche, p. 76 Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Burial Chamber, Right Wall of Right Niche, p. 76 Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, Dome, p. 78 Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, Male Figure in Entrance Corridor, p. 79 Alexandria 24040, Loculos Slab, p. 82 Loculus Slab from a Cemetery East of Chatby, p. 83

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

2.33 2.34 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9 4.10

4.11

4.12

Plinthine (Kom el-Nagous) Loculus Slab, p. 85 Alexandria 24863, Loculus Slab from Marsa Matruh, p. 85 Tuna el-Gebel, House Tombs, p. 91 Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Isidora, p. 92 Tuna el-Gebel, Kline in the Tomb of Isidora, p. 92 Tuna el-Gebel, House of Dionysos, Kline and Decoration, p. 96 Tuna el-Gebel, House of Dionysos, Wall Decoration, p. 97 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 16, Electra, p. 100 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 16, Electra and Cocks, p. 101 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 16, Oedipus and the Sphinx, p. 102 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 16, Zetema and Thebe, p. 103 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 16, Oedipus Painting, Right Side, p. 104 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 18, Isis, p. 111 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 18, Nephthys and Osiris, p. 112 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 20, Falcon, p. 113 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 20, Cocks and Grapevine, p. 114 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 20, Coitus of Frog-Headed Male and a Female, p. 114 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, North Wall, Lower Figured Frieze, Djed with Uraeae, p. 116 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, North Wall Lower Figured Frieze, Djed and Tiets, p. 116 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, West Wall, South End of Lower Figured Frieze, p. 117 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, West and South Walls, p. 118 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, West Side of South Wall, Lower Figured Frieze, p. 119 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, East Frieze, South End of Lower Figured Frieze, p. 120 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, East Side of South Wall, Lower Figured Frieze, p. 121

4.13 4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30

xiii

Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, North Wall, Upper Friezes, p. 122 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, West Wall, North End of Upper Figured Frieze, p. 123 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, West Wall, South End of Upper Figured Frieze, p. 124 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, East Wall, North End of Upper Figured Frieze, p. 124 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, East Wall, South End of Upper Figured Frieze, p. 125 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, East Wall, South End of Upper Figured Frieze, Detail of Priestess, p. 125 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, South Wall, Upper Figured Frieze, p. 126 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, West Side of North Entrance Wall, Isis and Nephthys and Wadjet, p. 128 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, East Side of North Entrance Wall, Nekhbet and Wadjet, p. 128 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, South Wall, Lustration of the Mummy, p. 129 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, Detail of Left Side of East Wall, Offering to Osiris, p. 130 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, Detail of Right Side of East Wall, the Solar Boat, p. 131 Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, Detail of West Wall, Nut Succoring the Mummy, p. 132 Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, East Wall, Hathor or Isis Pouring a Libation, p. 134 Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, North Wall, Lower Frieze, the Crocodile, p. 135 Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, East Wall, Canines and Grapevine, p. 135 Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, South Wall, Thoth Reporting to Osiris, p. 135 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, North Wall, Lower Register, Cart Transporting the Mummy, p. 137

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

4.31

4.32 4.33

4.34

4.35

4.36

4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42

4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 5.1 5.2 5.3

Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, North Part of the East Wall, Siamun and SemPriest, p. 138 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Left of Center of the East Wall, Deities, p. 139 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Right of Center of the East Wall, Mahes or LionHeaded Daemon and Female Deity(?), p. 140 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, South End of the West Wall, Lower Register, Siamun, Son as Sem-Priest, and Siamun’s Wife, p. 142 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, North Part of West Wall, Lower Register, Nut as Sycamore-Tree Goddess, p. 143 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, West Wall, Lower Register, North End, Siamun and Young Son, p. 144 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Ceiling, Nut, p. 145 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Boat with Djed Pillar, p. 146 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Boat with Harpocrates, p. 146 Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Ceiling, Horus and Nekhbet, p. 147 Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Lion Daemons at Entrance, p. 150 Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Anteroom, Rear Wall of Niche on North Wall, p. 151 Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Anteroom, Zodiac Ceiling, p. 151 Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Burial Room, Zodiac Ceiling, p. 152 Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, South End of West Wall, p. 153 Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, Niche on West Wall, p. 153 Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, Ceiling, Zodiac A, p. 154 Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, Ceiling, Zodiac B, p. 155 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, South Wall, p. 159 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, East Wall, p. 160 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, East Wall, Right End Detail, p. 161

5.4

Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, East Wall, Portrait, p. 162 5.5 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, North Wall, p. 162 5.6 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, Niche on North Wall, p. 163 5.7 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, West Wall, p. 164 5.8a Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, Zodiac on Ceiling, p. 165 5.8b Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, Detail of Ceiling Zodiac, p. 165 5.9 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Plan, p. 166 5.10 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, South Wall, p. 167 5.11 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, South Section of East Wall, p. 168 5.12 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, North End of East Wall, Petosiris, p. 169 5.13 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, West Wall, p. 171 5.14 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, West Wall, Lower Register, Detail, p. 172 5.15 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, North Wall, p. 173 5.16a Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, Zodiac Ceiling, p. 174 5.16b Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, Zodiac Ceiling, Detail, p. 175 5.17 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, South Side of East Wall, p. 176 5.18 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, North Side of East Wall, p. 177 5.19 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, South Wall, p. 178 5.20 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, North Wall, p. 179 5.21 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, South End of West Wall, p. 180 5.22 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, North End of West Wall, p. 181 5.23 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, Zodiac Ceiling, p. 182 5.24 Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, Detail of One of the Winged Figures Supporting Zodiac, p. 182 5.25 Akhmim, Salamuni 8, Room I, Orthostates, Figured Frieze, and Zodiac Ceiling, p. 184

xiv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31

Akhmim, Salamuni 8, Room I, Ceiling, Isis-Sothis and Zodiac, p. 184 Akhmim, Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, Orthostats and Figured Zone, p. 185 Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, Plan, p. 186 Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, Burial Room, p. 187 Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, Wall D-E and Ceiling, p. 188 Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, Wall E-F, p. 189

XV

Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, East Wall, Lower Figured Frieze XVI Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, South Wall XVII Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, East Wall XVIII Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Burial Room, West Wall XIX Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, East Wall, Siamun before Osiris XX Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, West Wall, Upper Register, Osiris and Thoth XXI Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, West Wall. Lower Register, Lustration of the Mummy XXII Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, West Wall, Lower Register, Siamun and Isis XXIII Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, Wall East of Entrance XXIV Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, Wall West of Entrance XXV Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, View to Northeast XXVI Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, View toward South XXVII Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, South and East Walls, Lower Register XXVIII Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, North End of East Wall XXIX Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, West Wall, South Section, Lower Register XXX Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, Center of Ceiling Zodiac XXXI Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, Ceiling Zodiac and Winged Figure XXXII Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb from 1897, Wall D-E XXXIII Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb from 1897, Wall A-B, Upper Register XXXIV Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb from 1897, Wall E-F, Lower Register

PLATES

I II

III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV

Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel Relief, Nut and the Parents of Petosiris Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel Relief, Petosiris and Neshu Alexandria, Anfushy Tomb II, Wall in Anteroom Alexandria, Anfushy Tomb V, Room 4 Alexandria, the S¯aqiya Tomb, S¯aqiya Alexandria, the S¯aqiya Tomb, Facade of Sarcophagus Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, Central Niche Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, Right Niche Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, Left Niche Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 3, Abduction of Persephone Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 23, Trojan Horse Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 16, Oedipus Cycle Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, Anteroom, West Wall, Lower Figured Frieze

xv

Acknowledgments

This book has taken far, far too long to complete. The unconscionable length of time, however, permitted me to meet numerous persons whom I otherwise would not have met and to renew and sustain old acquaintanceships and friendships. I am greatly indebted to everyone whom I called upon in one capacity or another. I owe a great debt to those who provided photographs for this project: Felix Arnold of the DAI in Cairo; Roger S. Bagnall, Iris M. Fernandez, and David Ratzan of ISAW and the NYU Amheida Excavations; Nadine Cherpion, Nevine Kamal, and Florence Albert of IFAO; Jean-Yves Empereur of the ´ Centre des Etudes Alexandrines; M´elanie Flossmann¨ Sch¨utze and Patrick Borse of the Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel”; G¨unther H¨olbl; Naguib Kanawati; Klaus Peter Kuhlmann; Katja Lembke; and Kathleen Scott and Andreas Kostopoulos of the American Research Center in Egypt. I am equally indebted to those who sought out for me and introduced me to those who might be able to provide photographs: Hans Rupprecht Goette, W. Raymond Johnson, Irene Kaplan, Susanna McFadden, and Susanne Nakaten. Others have also contributed greatly to this work in different ways, and I wish to thank them for their part in this book. Evelyn T. Beck, Robert S. Bianchi, Frederick Brenk, Rita Freed, Ogden Goulet, Quint Gregory, Maxine Grossman, Suzy Hyo-Sil Hwang-Eschelbacher, Olaf Kaper, Andrew Leung, Abigail McEwen, Joan

R. Mertens, Martina Minas-Nerpel, Rachel Mittelman, Mary B. Moore, Ursula Quatember, Linda J. Roccos, Lauree Sails, Eva M. Stehle, Stewart Venit, Miguel John Versluys, and Andrew Wilburn each know what they have furnished and how much their contributions have meant, and I thank each of them warmly. I should also like to thank the librarians at the University of Maryland’s Art and McKeldin libraries, the librarians at the Institute of Fine Arts, the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, and the Elmer Holmes Bobst libraries of New York University, those at the Dumbarton Oaks and the Center for Hellenic Studies libraries in Washington, DC, and at the Thomas J. Watson Library of the Metropolitan Museum and the New York Public Library. Importantly, a Dietrich von Bothmer Publication Fund subvention from the AIA and a Loeb Classical Library Foundation grant allowed the inclusion of the halftones in this volume that are more than double the number contractually permitted me by Cambridge University Press, as well as the two signatures of color plates. Additionally, the generous support provided by a University of Maryland Research and Scholarship Award allowed for a semester’s leave to research chapters of this book. Lastly, my sincerest thanks to everyone at Aptara and at Cambridge University Press, but especially to Beatrice Rehl and Anastasia Graf, without whom there would not have been a book.

xvii

ALEXANDRIA

MARSA MATRUH

SAIS

PLINTHINE

TANIS

NAUKRATIS

LEONTOPOLIS

SAQQARAH Gebel el-Mawtā

MEMPHIS

FAYUM

SIWA OASIS

BAHARIYA OASIS ANTINOOPOLIS HERMOPOLIS MAGNA Tuna el-Gebel FARAFRA OASIS PANOPOLIS (AKHMIM) al-Salamuni ATHRIBIS DENDERA el-Muzawwaqa THEBES DAKHLA OASIS

KHARGA OASIS

ELEPHANTINE

Map. Sites in Graeco-Roman Egypt Mentioned in this Volume

Introduction

W

hile writing my last book, Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead,1 I realized that Alexandrian tombs were but one aspect of the complex eschatological landscape of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Yet, though Alexandria had provided an entr´ee for a non-Egyptologist into the prospect of Egypt, it certainly afforded its own richness, and I chose to investigate that facet of Graeco-Roman Egypt for much of the first decade of this century. The tombs in the rest of Egypt that I had called upon for comparanda, either in print or in cerebration, remained a dormant issue. And not only so far as I was concerned.

Lost in Egypt’s honeycombed hills, distanced by its western desert, or rendered inaccessible by subsequent urban occupation, the monumental decorated tombs of the Graeco-Roman period had received little scholarly attention. Though published in descriptive reports with varying degrees of detail,2 by the early first decade of the twenty-first century none had been subjected to critical analysis or interpretation, and most had largely been ignored. Only in the past few years has the decoration of a discrete number of these tombs been seriously addressed,3 and then only as a singular event. Greeks emigrating to Egypt in the wake of Alexander’s conquest in 332 bce carried with them their own conception of death and afterlife, as well as other crucial social and cultural certainties. Yet despite the elite status their role as conquerors conferred, Greeks still recognized that Egypt had dominion over death: Egypt had early learned to negotiate the realm of the dead, and, in the fourth century bce, with the dissolution of the polis and a concomitant focus on the individual, the negotiation of death had become for Greeks of even greater urgency. Egyptians, for their part, having suffered centuries of foreign rule, had lost some of their earlier eschatological self-confidence. Each group stood psychologically ready

to cast a wider net to ensure a blessed afterlife, and the cultural and social complexity of Graeco-Roman Egypt elicited new forms of eschatological visualization. This volume explores the narrative pictorial programs of a group of decorated tombs from Ptolemaic and Roman-period Egypt (ca. 300 bce to 250 ce). Its aim is to recognize their commonalities and differences across what might be perceived as ethnic and religious divides and – as closely as possible – to determine the rationale that lies behind these connections and dissonances and to set the tomb programs within their social, political, and religious context. Its further goal is to employ the analysis of these programs to interrogate the manner in which the multicultural population of Graeco-Roman Egypt chose to negotiate “the radical alterity of death.”4 Social stratification based on ethnic heritage and domicile was certainly in play during the Ptolemaic period, and under Roman rule this social stratification was calcified by law, though of course exceptions existed in both periods.5 But this book is about tombs, and therefore when I use the word ‘ethnicity’ I am not taking it in the onomastic sense, which has proven difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate, but rather in a more fluid sense based on the choice that the members of the population made

1

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

Rameses XI, about 1070 bce, Egypt devolved into a politically bifurcated polity ruled by foreigners: Dynasty Twenty-one saw a line of kings ruling Lower Egypt from the Delta city of Tanis and a succession of priests of Amun ruling Upper Egypt from Thebes. According to most recent scholarship, this division was one of accord, with the high priesthood settled in Thebes and the royal house centered in Tanis – members of which may well have been related to one another – acting in concert to govern the land. These kings and priests might have been Libyan immigrants, though firmly egyptianized, and speculation suggests that the Libyan concept of coexisting rulers may have determined this division of power. This inherited concept also permitted a member of another powerful family of Libyan descent, who proclaimed himself “Great chief of the Libyans,” to rule concurrently just south of Tanis, in the city of Bubastis.7 Then, in about 945 bce, with the death of the Tanite king Psusennes II (and following the marriage of Psusennes II’s daughter to the son of Osorkon, the Bubastite “great chief” Sheshonq), Sheshonq I became king of all Egypt – a kingship ratified by the priests of Amun – with Tanis as his capital, and thus ushering in Dynasty Twenty-two. Libyan kings of this dynasty continued to rule from Tanis, but beginning in the late-ninth century bce, they shared their authority with kings ruling from other cities in Egypt, many of whom styled themselves as King of Upper and Lower Egypt (these kings are those of Dynasties Twenty-three and Twenty-four).8 Egypt was once again a fragmented polity. As early as 750 bce, Nubia, the land south of Egypt, had begun to exert its influence over Upper Egypt. Around 711 bce, under King Shabaqo, Nubia annexed a reunited Egypt, and Nubia’s conflict with Assyria brought war to Egypt’s shores. The Assyrian king Assurbanipal seized and looted Memphis and Thebes and set up vassal kings from among the Egyptian elite, including Psamtik, the Greek Psammetichos, who secured control of the entire country in 664 bce. Proclaiming himself King of Upper and Lower Egypt in 657/56 bce, he became the first native Egyptian to rule Egypt since Rameses XI, and native kings ruled Egypt until its conquest by the Persian king Cambyses II in 525 bce. Egypt then remained under Achaemenid control until 404 bce, when Amyrtaeus, a prince of the city of Sais in the Delta, led a successful revolt that ushered in a final period of native rule, but Egypt was a frail specter of its former self. In 343 bce, the Persians, under King Artaxerxes III, again conquered Egypt, and the land remained part of the Achaemenid

(whether a product of intermarriage or not) to adhere to one or another religious system in the design of their tomb program. It is how patrons chose to be buried, the identity they sought in constructing their afterlife, that underlies the tombs’ ethnic identification. I identify the tombs as those wedded to Egyptian or to Greek eschatological concerns primarily on the basis of two factors: the use of language and the inclusion of Greek – or Egyptian – specific narrative, whether figurally or in texts. Hieroglyphic inscriptions and captions are discrete to tombs that rely prominently on Egyptian visual eschatological content, and Greek tags are specific to tombs with overwhelmingly Greek narrative content; conversely, real hieroglyphs never appear in tombs in Alexandria regardless of the amount of Egyptian visual content these tombs employ or in the ‘Greek’ tombs at Tuna el-Gebel, though Greek inscriptions may. As important, tombs I consider Egyptian rely, to a great degree, on traditional Egyptian narratives to implement the deceased’s journey to the afterlife; in contrast, tombs in Alexandria that include Egyptian content reduce that content to Egyptian signs and symbols or (rarely) to Egyptian architectural embellishment and constrict narrative almost universally to the signature scene of the lustration of the mummy.6 The Graeco-Roman period is one of rich cultural exchange, and the decorated tombs bear out the reciprocity between Egypt’s two major population groups. Diaspora Jews in Egypt also found themselves in intimate contact with Greeks, and though discussed here to a far lesser extent, their mortuary monuments, too, reflect this contiguity (the gravestones at Leontopolis discussed in Chapter Three are identified as Jewish based on context). Graeco-Roman Egypt accommodates one of the most effervescent regions for Hellenistic thought, and the decoration of the monuments addressed in this book provides concrete evidence for an interchange of ideas concerning the visualization of death and afterlife. It also contributes a unique perspective on the problems posed by ethnic identification, cultural assimilation, and intentional differentiation. EGYPT BEFORE ALEXANDER

The end of the Ramessid Dynasty in the eleventh century bce saw a dramatic change in Egypt, as the ensuing Third Intermediate Period ushered in a period of internal warfare and foreign rule that changed the land forever. After the death of the last pharaoh of the Twentieth Dynasty,

2

INTRODUCTION

Empire until its conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 bce.

‘Orphisim’ is concerned (see Chapters Two and Three), the two eschatological systems nevertheless show fundamental differences that set them apart from one another. One of the most basic differences is Egyptian afterlife religion’s dependence on the preservation of the body (or a likeness of the body), a consideration that is nonexistent in Greek and Roman religion. In Greece (and Rome), though burial is of utmost importance, cremation and inhumation exist concurrently: despite the appropriation of mummification in Roman-period Egypt by seemingly ethnic Greeks (and Romans), in Greek and Roman eschatological religion, preservation of the body is not a necessary factor for achieving a beneficent afterlife. The same holds true for Jews, who often practiced secondary burial. A second major difference between Greek and Roman eschatology (and the apparent reason for the first) surrounds the consideration of the life force or ‘soul’ – the Egyptian ba and the Greek (and Roman) psyche (see Chapter Two): though their depiction may have traits in common with one another, the psyche leaves the body at death, whereas the ba, though it leaves the body, can and must return. As with the body, the preservation of the ba after death is crucial to a beneficent afterlife in the Egyptian canon. The visual similarity of the ba and psyche, however, permits the interchange of images between the two dissimilar religious systems and permits one of the bilingual elements in Greek tombs. The tombs in this study that I describe as bilingual or as bricolaged are not, I would argue, to any great degree, hybrid, nor are they the product of a hybrid culture.20 Despite intermarriage, onomastic fluidity, and the interchange of cultural artifacts, both legal enjoinders and a strong cultural identification kept the two main constituencies that inhabit these pages separate insofar as their afterlife ambition is concerned. Egyptians had a millennium-long eschatological tradition that had served them remarkably well; Greeks, while perhaps more open to new ideas, had their social superiority at stake, and as much as they may have respected Egyptian tradition, they too had a strong eschatological heritage.21 The interchange of visual material that occurs in the tombs in this volume is highly reflective and purposeful rather than merely a product of intermarriage or chance, and the intersection of Greek and Roman ideas is one in which the heritage of each group can be easily differentiated, rather than the fusion that hybridity implies.22 The fragmentary Rosetta Stone and other bilingual decrees stand as testimony that under Greek (and, though not legislatively, Roman) rule, Egypt was a bilingual

PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP AND HOW THIS BOOK APPROACHES ITS SUBJECT

The study of interaction between Greeks and Egyptians in Late-Period and Graeco-Roman Egypt is certainly not new. My earliest articles and my first book, written in the 1980s,9 engage the theme in the sixth century bce, and papyrologists, such as Roger Bagnall10 and Willy Clarysse,11 have long studied the phenomenon primarily from an onomatological or a prosopographical view. Cultural historians Kurt Goudriaan12 and U. Østerg˚ard,13 among others – also relying on texts – have tried to tease out the ethnic intersections that occurred; and art historians Robert Bianchi,14 Bernard Bothmer,15 and others have addressed the question of this interaction in Ptolemaic- and Roman-period sculpture. My previous book16 speaks to the debt Greeks in Alexandria owed to Egypt, and, more recently, Christina Riggs17 investigates images on Egyptian coffins within their bicultural context. It is primarily through recent literary studies, such as those of Susan Stephens18 and Jacco Dieleman,19 however, that the interlaced debt of Greeks and Egyptians is underscored. This volume stands parallel to these latter works, though it admits other aspects of multiethnic contiguity. In my previous book, I suggested that Alexandrians intentionally appropriated Egyptian imagery because, on the one hand – despite a rich literary tradition – they lacked the visual vocabulary necessary to articulate their new and most pressing eschatological aims and, on the other, they respected the efficacy of Egypt in all things eschatological. Here I not only question these interpretations but complicate this interaction by focusing on case studies from the chora, the countryside of GraecoRoman Egypt. My goal is to investigate how the tomb in Graeco-Roman Egypt concretizes nuanced social and religious relationships as individuals attempt to palliate death. The roughly 500-year period under investigation offers a rich opportunity to recognize the changing cultural and social climate in Graeco-Roman Egypt and, through a lens focused on its visual presentation, to assess how this changed climate, and the interchange of ideas that the contiguity of cultures generated, acted upon eschatological expression. Although correspondences exist between Egyptian and Greek afterlife religion, especially insofar as Greek

3

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

polity.23 The Stone preserves part of a coronation decree for the young Ptolemy V that was destined to be erected in temples throughout Egypt, and it carries two languages and three scripts – Egyptian hieroglyphic for the gods and the Egyptian priests, Egyptian Demotic for literate Egyptians, and Greek for the administration and other literate Greeks.24 Yet since relatively few Egyptians were literate,25 the bilingualism of this decree and others like it must be taken metaphorically: the decree was not designed necessarily to be read, but to acknowledge the two major ethnic components of the polity. Nevertheless, some variation of bilingualism insofar as verbal interaction occurred: Egyptians who wished to deal with Greeks and the ruling administration had to learn the language of the conqueror, and, with the quotidian propinquity of Egyptians, ordinary Greek inhabitants of Egypt were soon familiar with the Egyptian language, too.26 It is abundantly clear that ordinary Greeks in Alexandria were adept at code-switching27 insofar as visual imagery is concerned almost from the time of their immigration following Ptolemy’s seizure of Egypt in 323 bce, and this insertion of elements of Egyptian visual vocabulary by private citizens occurs most frequently in the mortuary realm; code-switching happens later in Egyptian tombs in the chora, yet also with purposeful intent.

The tombs chosen for this volume are limited to Graeco-Roman period tombs in Alexandria and the Egyptian chora whose eschatological programs are well enough preserved to permit interpretation.28 Two seeming anomalous genres are also considered: first, the gravestones from Leontopolis are admitted to acknowledge the presence of Jews in Graeco-Roman Egypt, where they early on formed a large minority, and to simultaneously explain by implication why no monumental tombs that can be definitively identified as Jewish have been discovered; second, the poems written in the tomb of Isidora at Tuna el-Gebel are included to underscore by textual means the complicated relationship of the Greek and Egyptian strands that inform the tomb decoration. The volume itself is arranged thematically and, so far as possible, roughly chronologically. Within this thematic structure, because tombs at individual sites share commonalities, the material is further grouped by site. Though to a great extent lost to the depredation of time and the degradation of modern incursion, these tombs repay close attention. They stand as monuments of a period in which two (or three) eschatologically and visually distinct cultures recognized similarities in their religious systems that permitted visual interchange and in which they embraced elements of each other’s visual vocabulary to better engage their own journey to the afterlife.

4

one

Death, Bilingualism, and Biography in the ‘Eventide’ of Egypt The Tomb of Petosiris and Its Afterlife

T

he tomb of petosiris at tuna el-gebel (pl. i), constructed shortly after Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 bce, endures as a remarkable monument. Strikingly well preserved, it nevertheless remains surprisingly understudied. Built “in order that [his] father’s name be pronounced and that of [his] elder brother,”29 the tomb also indelibly preserves the spokesman’s own name and his prestige. Among the most immediately recognizable monuments in Egypt from the late-fourth century, the tomb that sheltered the body of Petosiris and his family is also among the most telling. The inscriptions and figurative reliefs activating the tomb walls provide the most complete document of eschatological expression in the interstice between the height of Egyptian power and the encroaching subjugation accompanying Greek and Roman rule. Its inscriptions furnish a handbook of religious thought and practice, preserving, in the words of Miriam Lichtheim, one of “the most elaborate statements of personal morality and philosophy that [has] survived from the Late Period,”30 while its reliefs provide Petosiris’ biography in visual form. Later, when Petosiris had achieved the status of a hero and the tomb attracted both Greek and Egyptian pilgrims, on it one worshiper recorded the most ancient Greek epigram in Egypt to address immortality.31 The tomb’s figurative reliefs signal the tomb, in both subject and style, as the earliest mortuary monument to acknowledge the presence of Greeks in Egypt visually,32 as they herald the interaction between Greeks and Egyptians that – lasting for more than five centuries – greatly enriched each community’s visualization of their negotiation with death. Yet despite the stylistic and conceptual nod to Greece, the reliefs and inscriptions explicate the continuity of Egyptian eschatological thought and practice in the period after the Macedonian conquest of Egypt. GREEKS AND EGYPTIANS

fought in the Trojan War knew Egypt,33 and – if the historicity of the Trojan War itself remains unproven – Mycenaean pottery found especially in Upper Egypt34 and wall paintings executed by Minoan artists that

Interchange between Greeks and Egyptians had been initiated long before the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great. Homer considered that Bronze Age Greeks who

5

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

the Egyptian deity Isis had a temple in the Piraeus, the port of Athens. The fifth and fourth centuries bce witnessed complicated military alliances between Greece and Egypt, as both polities attempted to repel the advancing Persians. When the Persians under Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525 bce, Greeks – especially Athenians – rightly wary of the power rising in the East, joined Egypt in an attempt to overthrow the invaders and, after Greece itself had been invaded by the Persians, Greeks were even more eager to come to Egypt’s aid. Between 462 and 459 bce, both Cyreneans and Athenians supported the Egyptian Inaros, who held Marea, forty kilometers to the southwest of where Alexandria would be founded (Thucydides I.104). An initial victory was short-lived, however, ending in a disastrous defeat in 454, and Egypt remained under Persian rule, except for part of the Delta held by Amyrtaeus of Sais (Thucydides I.109–110). Finally, in 449 bce, the Athenian commander Kimon sent a squadron to support Amyrtaeus (Thucydides I.112), who won Egypt’s independence from the Persians. Alliances persisted. Between 385 and 383, Athenian mercenaries assisted the pharaoh Achoris and successfully defended Egypt against reconquest by the Persians (Isocrates 4.140). In 361, Spartans, aided by Athenian mercenaries, joined the pharaoh Tachos (also known as Teos and Djedhor) again against Persia, but that campaign ended disastrously.50 Then, when Persia sought to reconquer Egypt in 351 bce, Athenians and Spartans again assisted Nectanebo II (360–343 bce), the last native Egyptian king, in his stand against Artaxerxes III, and in the last campaign against Artaxerxes in 344/43 bce, Athenians and Spartans once more arrived to direct what proved to be the unsuccessful defense of the Delta. Persia triumphed, and Artaxerxes III ruled Egypt.51 Such was the situation before the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 332 bce. Greeks and Egyptians intersected and interacted both in mainland Greece and on Egyptian soil, but it was after Alexander’s death, with the subsequent rule of the Macedonian Ptolemies and the later conquest by Roman forces, that Greek visual culture had its greatest impact on Egyptian modes of representation.

decorated the walls of the Eighteenth-Dynasty palace at Avaris35 and other evidence36 preserve interaction between Aegeans and Egyptians as early as the Bronze Age. Herodotus (II.152–154)37 records that the first Greeks (Carians and Ionians, according to Diodorus Siculus I.66.12) entered Egypt during the reign of Psammetichos I (664–610 bce), offering themselves as mercenaries to the king as he reclaimed Egypt for the Egyptians. Acknowledging their assistance, he settled them on the Pelusian branch of the Nile at Tel Defenneh in the eastern Delta, which remained a Greek guardpost. Finds of early Greek pottery from the site of Naukratis, however – pace Herodotus (II.178) – permit that Naukratis, a Greek emporium on the Canopic branch of the Nile eighty-three kilometers southeast of Alexandria, may have been established at this early date as well,38 as Diodorus (I.67.8–9) implies, when he writes that “Psammetichos . . . was the first Egyptian king to open to other nations the trading-places throughout the rest of Egypt and to offer a large measure of security to strangers from across the seas.”39 The suggestion of seventh-century interaction by Diodorus is borne out by archaeology. Though Greek pottery is found in Egypt at least as early as the eighth century bce,40 the proliferation of Greek finds occurs from the mid-seventh century on. Aside from Naukratis, seventh-century Greek pottery has also been found at Memphis and its necropolis Saqqarah.41 Saqqarah also provides the earliest nonceramic Greek object found in Egypt, a bronze griffin protome, dated about 650 bce, that once graced a bronze cauldron manufactured on the East Greek island of Samos.42 The greater amount of Greek pottery in Egypt dates to the last quarter of the century. Most comes from Naukratis;43 Tel Defenneh, the fort in the Delta, has yielded some,44 as have the Memphis area and that of Thebes in Upper Egypt.45 Greeks entered Egypt as mercenaries and settled as entrepreneurs, but they also visited as sightseers, and they used Egyptian models as instruction for their earliest large-scale sculpture, though they changed aspects of Egyptian form and iconography to fit needs of their own.46 From the Greek world, finds from sites on Samos and from the city of Miletus and elsewhere47 and the technique of faience, probably introduced from Egypt,48 document this interchange. Egyptian religion penetrated Greece as well: by the fourth century bce and perhaps as early as the late fifth49 – though initially constructed for the succor of Egyptian sailors –

THE SETTING OF THE TOM B OF PETOSIRIS

Enfolded by the desert and shielded by the relative anonymity of Middle Egypt, the tomb of Petosiris stands in the southern necropolis of the Graeco-Roman

6

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

surnamed ‘Magna’ to differentiate it from Hermopolis (Parva) in the Delta.61 Hermopolis Magna was the capital of the fifteenth nome of Upper Egypt – the Hare nome – a city with metropolitan status and a major religious center in the pharaonic period. Its religious importance continued though the Roman period, as did its political importance, and in the first century ce, Pliny (NH V.XI.61) cites “the town of Mercury” among the few Egyptian cities worth noting. Hermopolis Magna remained important in the Late Antique. With the rise of Neoplatonism in Alexandria in the third century ce, when Hermes was surnamed Trismegistus, it became a very active center.62 Tuna el-Gebel, which assumes its name from one of the nearby villages, denominates the southern necropolis of Hermopolis Magna. With the tomb of Petosiris as its focal point, it was a major pilgrimage site for both Egyptians and Greeks in antiquity.63 Continued temple building at the site indicates the importance and longevity of Hermopolis Magna and the cult of Thoth. As the eponymous deity, Thoth received glorious temples from at least the New Kingdom onward. Two extant massive red quartzite statues of cynocephalic Thoth, each about 4.5 meters high and dating to the New Kingdom reign of Amenhotep III (1390–1352),64 must have graced his temple, which was one of the largest in Egypt,65 and Rameses II (1279–1213) added a pylon that led into the precinct of the god.66 In the Late Period, Nectanebo I (380–362 bce) – who had a particular fondness for Hermopolis Magna apparently because its populace had assisted him in his coup against Nepherites II (379/378 bce), the last pharaoh of the Twenty-ninth Dynasty – architecturally embellished the sanctuary. Early in his reign, Nectanebo added the socalled sphinx gate, enlarging the gateway to the sanctuary marked by the Ramesside pylon and built a temple for Nehemet-‘awy, Thoth’s consort. Later, he even more greatly enlarged the sacred precinct by building a huge enclosure wall and a new gateway, demolishing the New Kingdom Temple, and founding a new temple to Thoth, incorporating blocks from the earlier temple and burying the colossal statues to Thoth in its foundations.67 The pronaos of Nectanebo’s temple was completed early in the reign of Ptolemy I,68 and the plan of the temple provided the model for the tomb of Petosiris. Later Greek and Roman rulers constructed further additions, and finally a Christian basilica was built on the site that incorporated blocks from the earlier buildings.69

metropolis of Hermopolis Magna. It was the focal point of the cemetery in the Ptolemaic period, when it welcomed pilgrims who worshiped Petosiris, the builder and one of the occupants of the tomb, and it served as a magnet in the Roman period for the dead who aspired to burial adjacent to the hero. The tomb of Petosiris is the benefactor of the earliest excavation at the site and of its resulting magisterial publication by Gustave Lefebvre.52 The ancient city of Hermopolis Magna rises from a flood plain reaching to the western mountains. It is about eleven kilometers west of the modern village of el-Ashmunein, which retains the original name of the city, called by the Egyptians Khemenu (or Khmun), ‘the Eight,’ which refers to the ogdoad that preceded the creation of the world.53 Unlike other Egyptian creation accounts, the Hermopolitan tradition envisions the primordial soup inhabited by four couples who make up the ogdoad. The four male deities were frog-headed, and, with their snakeheaded female consorts, they swam in the primeval ooze of chaos before the beginning of the world. Each pair, who are named and differentiated only from the Twentysixth Dynasty on, represent a concept describing the world before the creation: Nun and his consort Naunet, the primeval ocean; Heh and his consort Hauhet, infinity; Kek and Kauket, darkness; and Amun and Amaunet, the hidden.54 From the union of these eight elements (or in another account, from the Great Cackler or Honker55 ) emerged the primordial egg from which the light of the sun materialized (or, in perhaps a more metaphoric version, the egg that hatched the sun god).56 And it was near the Great Pond at Hermopolis, according to an inscription from the tomb of Petosiris, that half the egg was buried.57 Though his relationship with the ogdoad is not entirely clear, the fifth god mentioned in the hymn is presumably Djehuty, who later, under the Greek name Thoth, calls himself “the lord of the eight gods [of Hermopolis]” and who finally eclipsed ‘the Eight.’58 Thoth was a moon god,59 a god of wisdom and of knowledge, and a deity well versed in the arts of magic. The deity is represented in two analogous lunar-related aspects: as an ibis and as a baboon. At Hermopolis, he received the epithet “three time great,” trismegistus, which was adopted by its eponymous deity when the city was hellenized.60 Greeks equated Thoth with Hermes, and this connection yielded the hellenized name of the site, which was

7

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

THE TOM B OF PETOSIRIS

In his long biography, carved on the wall of the tomb (here greatly abridged),70 Petosiris, high priest of Thoth at Hermopolis Magna, describes his lineage and his role: (1) . . . beloved younger son [of Neshu],71 owner of all his property, the Great one of the Five, the master of the (holy) seats, the high priest who sees the god in his shrine . . . born of the lady Nefer-renpet.72

Petosiris continues: (10) . . . I built this tomb in this necropolis, Beside the great souls who are there, In order that my father’s name be pronounced, And that of my elder brother, A man is revived when his name is pronounced!73

The tomb of Petosiris is loosely dated to the last quarter of the fourth century bce based on Petosiris’ biographical inscription:74 (26) I spent seven years as controller for this god, Administering his endowment without fault being found, While the Ruler-of-foreign-lands was Protector in Egypt, And nothing was in its former place, Since fighting had started (30) inside Egypt, The South being in turmoil, the North in revolt; The people walked with [head turned back (?)], All temples were without their servants, The priests fled, not knowing what was happening.75

1.1. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Plan (after Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III, pl. I)

The tomb of Petosiris does indeed resemble an Egyptian temple, and Thirtieth Dynasty temples – most conspicuously the temple of Thoth at Hermopolis built by Nectanebo I – served as the model for its facade.78 A horned altar (of later date) precedes the tomb, and a paved ‘avenue’ leads toward its facade.79 Oriented north to south, the tomb is composed of two rooms, a chapel that is almost square80 and the horizontally elongated pronaos fronting it (Fig. 1.1). The chapel is dedicated to Petosiris’ father and elder brother, the pronaos is the realm of Petosiris himself, and the two spaces are visually differentiated. Lefebvre81 deduces the pronaos as a later addition to the monument because its short back walls abut the facade of the chapel about a third of a meter behind the chapel’s face and because the pronaos extends farther to the east and west than the chapel. Yet two other tombs belie Lefebvre’s interpretation. Near the tomb of Petosiris, both the tomb of Djedthothiufankh,82 Petosiris’ elder brother,83 and the tomb of Petekakem (also Padykam and Padikem), an official in charge of Hermopolis Magna’s animal sanctuary,84 assume a similar plan. Perhaps even more telling, the plan also proves typical for the pronaoi

In the tradition of fortuity acting as the greatest boon to archaeology, an astonishing request from a local resident yielded the discovery of the tomb of Petosiris. In the waning days of November 1919, a resident of the town of el-Ashmunein petitioned the Service des Antiquit´es for a six-day excavation of a “temple” he had discovered at the site now known as Tuna el-Gebel. His request was summarily dismissed, but the chance corroboration of the ‘temple’ by a farmer from the rival town of Tuna el-Gebel finally persuaded the first informant to lead the inspector billeted at Minya, Antun Youssef, to the site. Youssef made a preliminary investigation on December 27, which uncovered one corner of the monument, and Lefebvre completed the tomb’s excavation and recording.76 Lefebvre’s three volumes, published in 1923 and 1924, remain the authoritative source for the monument, although the best images are found in the more recent publication by Nadine Cherpion and her colleagues.77

8

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

father, Neshu, and his brother, Djedthothiufankh, who equally share the space. The eastern part of the room is given over to inscriptions and reliefs honoring Neshu and the western part to those celebrating Djedthothiufankh, both of whom, like Petosiris, were also priests of Thoth. The organization of both the pictorial and epigraphical programs is brilliantly conceived and is structured by the carefully considered arrangement seen in earlier Egyptian tombs.87 The walls are each divided into four friezes, with the register scheme observing the traditional format for Egyptian tomb imagery, which maintains ma’at “in this world and the next.”88 All friezes carry figures, with the two middle registers – those nearest eye level – also replete with inscriptions. The east (left) and west (right) walls are considered geographically as well as metaphorically (the more common consideration89 ), with the east wall that honors Neshu relating the more terrestrialbound ritual of the Egyptian funeral, while the west wall that honors his son Djedthothiufankh generally addresses the negotiation of the afterlife.90 In addition, each wall incorporates a spatially considered vertical arrangement in which the imagery accelerates from the terrestrial in the lowest register to the more actively celestial above. Concurrently, as is traditional in Egyptian funerary chapels,91 the figures in the reliefs on the lateral walls draw the visitor’s eye into the tomb, here toward the south wall, which is the focal point of the chapel shared by both beneficiaries and which provides the culmination of the scenes on the lateral walls.

of contemporaneous temples – most cogently that of Nectanebo relatively recently constructed on the site – in which the relationship of the two spaces, according to Dieter Arnold, is intended to “clearly express [their] independence.”85 Thus the style of the decoration in the tomb of Petosiris that also visually distinguishes the two rooms follows the intention of the temple plan. No compelling reason demands that the building itself was constructed in two phases, and it is much more likely that the construction of the two rooms was contemporaneous. Nevertheless, despite the presumed contemporaneity of its two rooms, the difference in visually identifiable stylistic models for the chapel and the pronaos is one of the most distinctive aspects of the tomb. The reliefs of the chapel are Egyptian both in content and in style (or as ‘Egyptian’ as any style can be in Egypt in the fourth century bce), whereas the pronaos carries reliefs that permit the monument to serve as the earliest evidence of Greek stylistic incursion into funerary art in the chora. Two points can be made here, which will be addressed at length later and reiterated in ensuing chapters. The first is that subject matter and the style in which it is portrayed appear carefully chosen in the tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt to empower the eschatological meaning of the imagery; the second is that the disjunction in either style or content (or both) – seen most clearly between the outer and inner rooms in the tomb of Petosiris – is a normal expectation in Graeco-Roman tombs throughout Egypt, where it also speaks to an intentionality in furthering eschatological goals. Despite its obvious allusion to a temple, the tomb of Petosiris follows the traditional formal arrangement of an Egyptian tomb, composed as it is of a chapel and a pronaos with the burial chamber below the chapel. And despite the disparity of style between the chapel and the pronaos, the tomb’s decoration also adheres to traditional Egyptian subjects and their placement, insofar as possible, given the tomb’s triple dedication.

The Walls Devoted to Neshu The east side of the north wall and the east wall (as well as the east side of the south wall) are dedicated to Neshu. On the wall to the east of the entrance only three registers are fully preserved, but the preserved friezes nevertheless provide the type of imagery normally seen at the entrance to the tomb. In the uppermost register, the family of Neshu greets the visitor. The goddess Nut, standing in front of a sycamore tree,92 pours water from an offering vessel into small cups that Neshu, his wife, and two children – each of whom is seated on one of the couple’s laps – hold out to her (Pl. II). The married couple sit on elaborate animal-footed stools and rest their feet on blocks. They each wear a wig and a long white garment, and their heads support perfumed cones in a scene treated in traditional Egyptian manner. In the register below, Petosiris pays homage to his deceased father (Pl. III). The two men pull about them

The Chapel The chapel is the heart of the tomb. It is centered on the shaft that leads to the burial chambers below the building that contained the sarcophagus of Petosiris and members of his family.86 The chamber is divided longitudinally into three nearly equal parts by two rows of pillars that correspond to pilasters on its north and south walls. Though many of the inscriptions in the chapel extol the tomb’s builder Petosiris, the chamber is titularly dedicated to his

9

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.2. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the East Side of the North Wall, Lower Register (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-23316)

long, full garments over which they have thrown a shorter garment with a serrated edge.93 The garment is current in Ptolemaic Egypt, but here it is described in a thoroughly egyptianized style – flat and stiff and lacking the folds expected in a Greek rendering – in a nevertheless rare nod to the contemporaneous world in the chapel.94 In the inscription set between the two figures, Neshu blesses Petosiris, “May water be given to you from the two hands of Nut, at the sycamore tree,” referring, in part, to Chapter 59 of the Book of the Dead,95 an appeal that often accompanies the vignette of Nut and the sycamore tree, as seen in the upper register, on the one hand, and that is specifically tied to Hermopolis Magna in the Book of the Dead, on the other: “O thou sycamore of Nut, mayest thou give me water and the breath that is in thee. It is I who occupy this seat in the midst of Hermopolis. I have guarded this egg of the Great Honker. If it grows; I grow; If it lives; I live; If it breathes air; I breathe air.”96 The lowest register of the east side of the north wall (Fig. 1.2)97 shows a scene familiar from traditional Egyptian tombs and one that is frequently inscribed on the north wall of the chapel:98 cattle provide the activity in the foreground of a marshy swamp replete with water plants – papyruses and lotuses – as ducks and geese snatch fish out of the murky water. The cattle, however, provide not only a narrative but – echoing the vision of the tomb, itself – speak to generation and continuity, as well

as the more commonly construed reproduction, fertility, and regeneration:99 at the far right a bull mounts a cow; behind them, a newborn suckles at its mother’s teat; next a cow licks its calf, which is slightly older than the suckling one; and finally, a nude youth restrains another bovid. The long east wall dedicated to Neshu describes his funeral. The uppermost register, which shows the funerary ceremony as it moves toward the south end, is divided horizontally, before it culminates with the lustration of the mummy before the tomb, which spans the height of both registers (Fig. 1.3). In this large panel at the south end of the wall, a sem-priest stands on a high podium finished off with a cavetto cornice and accessed by a flight of miniature stairs. He holds a small vessel in his raised hands and pours water over the mummy that stands before him. He is identified as Teos, the grandson of Neshu. Directly behind the mummy of Neshu is a tomb capped with a pyramidion and indicated as cut into the sandy hillside. The tomb in the relief bears no resemblance to the tomb of Petosiris, as Lefebvre notes.100 It is, however, a simulacrum of tombs depicted in the same lustration ceremony on papyri of the Book of the Dead and elsewhere,101 and the relief takes advantage of these earlier models.102 Immediately behind Teos, in the upper register of the two spanned by the lustration scene, four priests approach (see Fig. 1.3). The first holds an incense burner, the

10

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.3. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the East Wall, the Funeral of Neshu (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21080)

second a small cup filled with natron, the third a thigh of an ox, and the last an adze – both for the opening of the mouth and the eyes of the deceased according to the accompanying text.103 Following Teos’ four assistants, priests assuming the guise of the Four Sons of Horus present four of the elements necessary for the deceased to enter the afterlife: human-headed Imsety holds out the

sign for ka; baboon-headed Hapy extends a heart symbol; jackal-headed Duamutef, a ba; and falcon-headed Qebehsenuef balances a mummy on his extended left hand.104 The accompanying text recounts that these four elements are furnished for Neshu for eternity105 and thus also provides his name, another necessity for a successful afterlife. Behind these four priests, Petosiris, pouring

11

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

studded wheel and the shrine of the Petosiris relief) and another cart from a Thirteenth Dynasty tomb at El-Kab that both undoubtedly celebrate the widespread use of wheeled transport in Egypt.111 In Neshu’s relief, the use of wheeled transport for the funerary barque, in place of the more usual sledge, might be a nod to contemporaneity, though the canopic shrine and another shrine behind the cart are both set on sledges. At the left edge of the frieze, Petosiris presides over the procession that unfolds before him. The long inscription in this register does not, as do many of the others, reference the content of the scene, but forms the best known inscription from the tomb – the biography of Petosiris, part of which has been quoted at the beginning of this section. In it, Petosiris sets out the ethical code – noted by Lichtheim for its statements of personal morality and philosophy112 – that governs admittance to the land of the blessed:

from a libation vase with one hand and holding a censer in the other, stands behind an offering table and honors his deceased father by performing an offering to Osiris, Re, Thoth, and Ma’at of “bread, drink, oxen, geese, and all good things.”106 Behind Petosiris, the procession continues with a lector priest, holding a scroll; then stand the four daughters of Neshu, their arms fisted above one another at their waists and identified by inscription; then three male servants wearing short kilts, bare-chested but for the diagonal band across their chests; and lastly three more females, posed exactly like the daughters of Neshu, but who are identified as servants.107 The funeral procession of Neshu occupies almost the entire length of the lower of the two registers spanned by the lustration scene. Closest to the stepped base on which Teos stands, two males perform a sacrifice to the deceased (see Fig. 1.3). One man steadies the dead bull, whose hindlegs are trussed – his hindquarters seen in the daring straight-on view encountered earlier in pharaonic-period monuments108 – and whose head and foreleg have been removed. The second man holds up the severed foreleg necessary for the sacrifice. At the head of the procession, three priests are followed by four more males, who convey offerings. The first nudges along a calf and, with his left hand, holds up a miniature plow (?); the second carries a sumptuous bouquet in his lowered left hand; the third supports a box, with a segmental lid, on his shoulder; and the last extends a scroll in his upraised right hand. Behind them are ranged four figures, holding standards and, behind them, three males pull the funeral cart along (Fig. 1.4). Immediately in front of the cart, a male turns back toward it, offering incense to the shrine carried on the cart. The funerary conveyance consists of a cart that supports a boat with a papyrus-finialed prow and stern. The cart shows an eight-spoked wheel that terminates in a papyrus design where it meets the felloe, and the exterior part of the felloe is studded, similarly to that on the later funerary cart in the tomb of Siamun in the Siwa Oasis (see Chapter 4),109 so it can be postulated that the studded tires were considered advantageous in negotiating the desert sand and shale. On the barque, the shrine that holds the mummy of Neshu, the latter rendered only in paint,110 is protected by Isis before and Nephthys behind. Though other depictions of this sort of conveyance are rare, the funerary cart shows a general similarity to the small gold and silver model from the early–Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of Queen Ah-hotep II at Dra’ Abu el-Naga in West Thebes (though hers lacks the

(16) The west is the abode of him who is faultless, Praise god for the man who has reached it! No man will attain it, Unless his heart is exact in doing right. The poor is not distinguished there from the rich, Only he who is found free of (20) fault By scale and weight before eternity’s lord. There is none exempt from being reckoned: Thoth as Baboon in charge of the balance Will reckon each man for his deeds on earth.

Petosiris further describes his part in ministering to the god, despite the hardships of invaders and foreign rule,113 and he describes his rebuilding program at Hermopolis: (47) I stretched the cord, released the line, To found the temple of Re in the park. . . . I built the house of the goddesses Inside the house of Khmun, Having found their house was old. They dwell in the temple of Thoth, lord of Khmun . . . I built the house of Nehemet-‘awy, [the one who-made-what-is (?)], And the house of Hathor, lady of the sycamore of the south, [The like of (?)] Nehemet-‘awy, the mother of god. I built them of fine white limestone, Finished with all kinds of work, (60) I made these goddesses dwell there. I made an enclosure around the park,

12

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.4. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the East Wall, the Funeral Cart of Neshu (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21192) Lest it be trampled by the rabble, For it is the birthplace of every god, Who came into being in the beginning. This spot, wretches had damaged it, Intruders had traversed it; The fruit (65) of its trees had been eaten, Its shrubs taken to intruders’ homes; The whole land was in uproar about it, And Egypt was distressed by it, For the half of the egg is buried in it. I made a solid work of the wall of Khmun’s temple,

To gladden the heart of (my) lady (70) Nehemet-‘awy, When she sees this work every day.

And he concludes with the wealth lavished on him as priest and his expectations for his blessed afterlife: My lord Thoth distinguished [me] above all [my] peers, As reward for my enriching him, With all good things, with silver and gold, With (85) harvests and produce in granaries, With fields, with cattle, With orchards of grapes,

13

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.5. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the East Wall, the Lowest Course, Offerings to Neshu (after Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XXXV)

It is a scene expected in private tombs,115 yet within the confines of Egyptian formalism, these figures are carefully individualized by facial features, hairstyle, and dress characterizing the ethnically diverse population of Graeco-Roman Egypt. A woman with a cloak fallen open to reveal her nudity has knobby short hair and a low-bridged nose and wears a large round earring;116 other women, similarly attired, wear either wigs or hair dressed in corkscrews;117 and one man has a low-bridged nose and thickened lips.118 These are probably Ethiopians or Nubians. Another male, with straight hair, wears two upright feathers and is surely a Libyan.119 Two others are dressed solely in cloaks and are coiffed and bearded as Greeks.120 These differences are nevertheless rendered

With orchards of all fruit trees, With ships on the water, With all good things of the storehouse. [I] was favored by the ruler of Egypt, I was loved by his courtiers. May this too be given me as reward: Length of lifetime in gladness of heart, A good burial after old age, My corpse interred in this tomb, Beside my father and elder brother, I being blessed by (90) the lord of Khmun.114

On the lowest register of the east wall males and females convey their offerings to Neshu (see Fig. 1.4 and Fig. 1.5).

14

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.6. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the West Side of the North Wall (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-20999)

nearly insignificant as the figures progress in measured step among the profusion of their gifts. Both males and females carry animals on their shoulders; vessels are held aloft or hang from their arms; garlanded oryxes, ibexes, and bovids – sometimes tethered, sometimes free – march placidly alongside. But it is especially the effusion and variety of floral offerings – the undulating lines of great bouquets of thick flowers, lotuses and their buds, deep calyxes bursting with stamens and pistils and fruit, ears of grain, floral offerings of unimaginable form, and leafy branches – borne by each votary that fill all interstices and that render the stately procession one of unmitigated munificence.

offering table. Across it, Petosiris, standing and holding a staff, faces him. In the middle register Petosiris pays homage to his brother in an image that replicates the one on the east side of the north wall (see Fig. 1.2) and the inscription provides the dialogue between the two. The lowest register (Fig. 1.6),121 like that on the east side of the wall, depicts a marshy scene. Spatially, as on the east, this scene is dominated by the fat lotuses and spreading papyrus clumps that constitute the swamp, but conceptually the narrative, here sparked by human figures, outstrips the landscape. In the lowest part of the frieze, boatmen who have poled their papyrus crafts into the swamp attempt to subdue audacious bovines – a bull, cows, and their calves – and thrust them into their boats. In contrast to the generation of animals celebrated on the east side of the wall, this relief extols man’s mastery over these same animals and the recovery of ma’at, and it may be considered as a substitute for the hunting scenes that proliferate in earlier tombs that carry much the same message.122 The images on the west wall itself also complement those of the east wall, extending the narrative from the tomb to the journey toward the afterlife. Unlike the strong visual directional thrust of the east wall friezes,

The Walls Devoted to Djedthothiufankh The west wall and the west sides of the north and south wall are given over to Djedthothiufankh II (named for his grandfather), the elder brother of Petosiris. The short north entrance wall preserves only three registers and, of the upper one, only the bottom portion remains. This wall responds, in both its imagery and its inscriptions, to the corresponding side of the north wall that celebrates Neshu. In the upper register, the deceased Djedthothiufankh sits on a platform in front of an

15

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

of corkscrew curls.133 Women cuddle their infants, one male turns toward the viewer en face, carrying his child on his shoulders, and a female, too, faces out toward the viewer, displaying the elongated red-painted vessel that she carries to which two fowl are bound by their wings. One woman – dressed in a garment that ties above her exposed breast and that covers her head and acts as a sling for one arm – displays a Persian-inspired rhyton (Fig. 1.8);134 another holds up a cock. Though it lacks the flamboyant interweaving of floral offerings that activates the frieze of Neshu’s offering bearers, Djedthothiufankh’s relief exhibits an even greater attention to the detail that characterizes the ethnic differences of its participants.

however, both the uppermost preserved frieze and the middle one on the west wall are divided into panels; it is only the narrative in which the deceased Djedthothiufankh engages the deities that provides the directional impetus, as he, and the narrative, move from north to south.123 Predominant in the uppermost of the preserved friezes are images (and vignettes of text) from the Amduat, the afterlife book known from the early New Kingdom, but which had lost its royal status by Dynasty Twenty-one.124 The southernmost section of the uppermost frieze is partly destroyed. What remains shows an extract from the Judgement scene with Petosiris, at the extreme right, standing in front of an offering table, his hands raised in praise. Beyond the long inscription, Djedthothiufankh is ushered toward a seated Osiris by Horus and Ma’at. The following scene, also partly destroyed, shows Djedthothiufankh presenting an offering platter to four bulls that surmount standards, a mummy standing next to each one. The next three panels visually reference the first hour of the Amduat. In the third panel, Djedthothiufankh honors the twelve uraeus-serpents, above whom is inscribed, “The speech of the gods who lighten the darkness of the Duat,”125 the only inscription that directly credits the Amduat. Next, Djedthothiufankh stands in praise before the twelve protective goddesses of the hours of the night.126 And finally, at the left north end of the uppermost register, Djedthothiufankh stands before the nine solar baboons, who open “the hidden region with the secret images” so that the deceased in the name of Re can “approach the place where Osiris . . . is to be found.”127 The middle register is inscribed with an abridged version of Chapter 18 of the Book of the Dead,128 a hymn to Thoth that entreats the deity to vindicate the deceased against his enemies on the afterlife journey and to permit him to “[prosper] on earth in the presence of Re, [and triumph] in the presence of Osiris.”129 The text is accompanied by some of the gods and goddesses who are invoked in the full text of the hymn.130 The lowest register of the west wall shows a procession of twenty-five offering bearers that respond to those on the opposite wall (Fig. 1.7). The figures here are even more varied in hairstyle, pose, garb, and possessions than those on the east wall (see Fig. 1.5): one man with curly hair sports a well-defined beard;131 a woman, who holds a child in her left arm and a vessel in her raised right hand, wears a cap or a cloth wrapped around her head,132 whereas others dress their hair with variations

The South Wall of the Chapel The two long walls converge at the south, with the east part of the south wall devoted to Neshu and the west part to Djedthothiufankh. This wall is divided into three main registers. In the upper register of the east side, Neshu, wearing a long white garment, adores nine crouching genies – three with human heads, three with those of jackals, and three with those of crocodiles, who are inscribed as “the gods who adore Re.”135 In the middle register Djedthothiufankh pays homage to his deceased father who is seated on a low-backed throne, his feet resting on a high footstool. Father and son both wear a garment with a crenelated border136 wrapped around one shoulder, the other shoulder bared. Behind Neshu, on three superimposed groundlines, stand the other children of Neshu with the exception of Petosiris. The lowest register continues the marshy scenes from the side walls, showing cattle being driven through the swampy, heavily foliaged region. The west side of the south wall, devoted to Djedthothiufankh, repeats the configuration of the east side with only the characters changing: in the upper register Djedthothiufankh stands before nine genies, standing and anthropomorphic, who identify themselves as “the gods who adore the lords of the Ennead”;137 below, Petosiris pays homage to his brother; and in the lowest register, hippos and a crocodile root in the muddy water of the swamp.138 The central panels visually unite the two sides of the chapel. In the crowning frieze, amid a kheker frieze, Nut kneels before a ba-bird, pouring water from two libation vessels on its outstretched hands,139 and Isis and Nephthys emerge from tiets (Isis knots) to praise Osiris portrayed as a partially personified djed pillar.140 Responding to

16

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.7. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the West Wall, the Lowest Register, Offering Bearers (after Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XLVI)

shows anthropomorphic images of Nekhbet and Wadjet, a shen knot – which symbolizes both eternity and protection – between their outstretched wings and arms, protecting an image of Khepri, rising from a serekh and crowned with the atef crown of Osiris embellished with ram horns and uraeae.144 Behind each female deity, a bird perches on a stand, also indicated as a serekh; behind Wadjet is a ba-bird and behind Nekhbet a vulture, according to Lefebvre.145 At the far ends of the panel, two more female deities, entirely anthropomorphic and the left one crowned with a sail-sign, finish off the scene. The use of the serekh, which denotes the facade of a palace (and which can also mean throne) and which was, from Dynasty One on, the device within which the pharaoh’s

this decorative frieze, the lowest register reiterates the theme with priests, at either end, pouring water on the hands of ba-birds and tiets flanking djed pillars toward the center.141 The use of the kheker frieze in a private tomb – even that of a priest and though, in this case, appropriate to the architectural form of the tomb – is an early example of the blurring of the line between temple decoration and that of private tombs.142 The uppermost narrative register is divided into two panels that complement one another. In the left one, Neshu stands before the enthroned Osiris backed by Isis, and, in the right-hand one, Djedthothiufankh praises Osiris and Nephthys.143 The large central panel that dominates the wall and that forms the middle register

17

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.8. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel, the Lowest Register of the West Wall, Offering Bearers, Detail (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21124)

Horus name was written,146 is also an early example of a once-royal prerogative entering the imagery of a private tomb, a theme that finds numerous variations in the Roman-period chora.

The Pronaos In contrast to the chapel, which – visually, at least – focuses on Neshu and Djedthothiufankh, the pronaos celebrates Petosiris. The Egyptian temple-like facade of the tomb shows a screen wall, punctuated by four columns at equal intervals, that is embraced by slightly battered piers resembling narrow pylons (see Pl. I). The two outermost columns terminate in palm capitals; the two innermost, which flank the doorway, are capped with papyrus. The doorway is finished off with a broken lintel, a feature of Egyptian temples beginning in the New Kingdom.150 Symmetrically arranged images of Petosiris offering incense to seated deities decorate the four halfheight walls. On the two low walls that flank the doorway the deity approached by Petosiris is an ibis-headed figure identified by inscription as Osiris the Ibis;151 the two low walls toward the corner of the tomb show Petosiris revering a baboon-headed figure, identified by inscription in both cases as Osiris the Cynocephalus.152 The west pier is divided into three carved registers, though the lowest relief is missing. In the second, Petosiris offers a libation to Osiris-Sokar and in the third to Nephthys.153 On the

The Pilasters of the South Wall and the South Pillars Above the long inscriptions on the pilasters that divide the south wall into its three parts, figured panels show Neshu on the east pilaster and Djedthothiufankh on the west. Each greets three of the genies of Pharbaithos, who are charged to watch over the resurrection of Osiris and, by extension, the deceased in the tomb.147 The southeast pillars respond to the pilasters of the south wall,148 continuing the visualized list of the seventyseven genies of Pharbaithos, where they are greeted by Neshu; the southwest pillars complete the series of genies, here praised by Djedthothiufankh. In her discussion of the seventy-seven genies, Sylvie Cauville notes that, in the tomb of Petosiris, the two who should be depicted as ibisocephalic are given the heads of humans, and this discrepancy suggests to her that the designer of the chapel appears to have chosen to reserve the ibis head for Thoth, the patron deity of Hermopolis Magna.149

18

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

247d) attributed to Thoth. Like its subject, the style of the reliefs is egyptianizing. The reliefs in the intercolumniations are devoted to Petosiris’ workforce, and it is with these reliefs and others that decorate the walls of the pronaos that the bilingualism that has intrigued students of the Graeco-Roman period in Egypt has its greatest impact.

east pier (its upper register incomplete), Petosiris offers incense to Osiris Khentiamentiu in the second register and two fillets to Isis in the lower one.154 Thoth, the great god of Khmun, imaged as both the ibis and the baboon, is elevated by his assimilation to the deity of the dead Osiris, and Osiris, in both cases, is established as a universal deity, who is worshiped also in Khmun. Isis and Nephthys, in contrast, are localized to the site.155 The form of the tomb and its facade act as a microcosm of both the change and the continuity in funerary architecture and decoration characteristic of Graeco-Roman Egypt. In keeping with the assimilation to a temple, the figures on the outer walls of the tomb are rendered in sunk relief, and their style is Egyptian. Indeed, as Lefebvre points out,156 the facade is decorated structurally as if it were a temple, with Petosiris paying obeisance to the gods. Temple building in Egypt, however, had been the prerogative of pharaohs, and Petosiris has further appropriated the regal privilege of the pharaoh, who alone paid homage to the god on its facade. Yet the gods depicted on the tomb facade – at least those of the four panels of the low enclosure wall – are deities in their mortuary aspect, and their aspect and the inscriptions suggest the building’s funerary function.157 And concurrently, Petosiris’ image on the facade of the tomb is in accordance with the traditional Egyptian treatment of assigning images of the tomb owner to the exterior of the tomb in order to introduce the visitor to its occupant.158

The North Wall of the Pronaos The reliefs on the north wall show the construction of mortuary equipment. The arrangement of the scenes follows a sequence based on narrative temporality, though the specific organization differs between the wall’s western and eastern sections. The west part of the north wall – which preserves two lower scenes in the westernmost intercolumniation and four scenes in the next – depicts metalworkers and the destination of their products. The east part of the north wall, which retains the full four scenes in each of the intercolumniations, shows woodworking in the two lower registers and, in the two upper registers, perfume manufacture.160 As in the western section, each craft details the fabrication of the object from the beginning through its completion. The only two reliefs preserved in the intercolumniation at the west end each show metalsmiths. The scenes are to be read from the bottom to the top of the wall. Striking are the dissonances in style within each relief that, nevertheless, do not assume any visual impropriety or fragment them in any way. In the lower register, artisans work at a forge (Fig. 1.9).161 In the center of the frieze, a worker sits on a cushion and holds a piece of metal in a pair of long tongs, while, at the left, a second artisan stands raising a hammer above his head, which he is about to bring down to flatten the metal. Behind the seated artisan, another metalworker kneels and seeks to hammer out the shape of a vase.162 All the artisans are garbed in loincloths, and they and their garments are treated according to the Egyptian stylistic tradition. The upper preserved frieze shows artisans apparently chasing details into metal objects (Fig. 1.10).163 A foreman observes three smiths. He wears a Greek-styled chiton – a piece of fabric folded in half vertically, with buttons (not seen on his chiton) at the upper edge defining an opening for the neck and for the arms, that is then belted at the waist – that falls in Greek-style folds. The smith seated at the left works on a Persian-type rhyton; his legs are visible through the fine fabric of his garment – possibly intended as an exomis, a Greek worker’s garment

The Inner Walls of the Pronaos The inner walls of the pronaos are also devoted to Petosiris. The carved and painted scenes show artisans and farmers laboring for Petosiris in the workshop, the vineyards, and the fields as he notes in his biographical inscription in the chapel of the tomb. Aside from these scenes that closely reflect traditional Egyptian mortuary scenes are one of a bull sacrifice and another of offering bearers on the pronaos’ south wall that are remarkable in both style and subject. It is in the treatment of individual figures in the pronaos, but especially in the construction of these latter scenes, that the greatest visual evidence for a Greek presence in Egypt is encountered. The north interior wall of the pronaos is punctuated by four engaged columns, one set to either side of the jamb of the entranceway and another placed midway down each wall, which is terminated by a pllaster at the corner. In the upper register of these pilasters, Petosiris is shown seated playing senet,159 the game of the voyage through the underworld whose invention Plato (Phaedrus

19

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.9. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the West End of the North Wall, Metalworkers (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21072)

1.10. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the North Wall, West End, Upper Preserved Register, Metalworkers, One with a Persian-Styled Rhyton (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21075)

20

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.11. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the North Wall, the Lowest Preserved Frieze, Metalworkers Finishing Objects (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21070)

pinned only at one shoulder and therefore baring half the chest. His left leg, pushed forward to steady the vessel in his lap, pulls the fabric, which stretches between his legs in a manner taken from Greek representations. The smith seated on a cushion directly in front of the foreman is more greatly egyptianized in garment and in pose, as he works on a three-horse protome, which, like the rhyton, bears reminiscences of Persia. It will find its place as an intermediate unit in a complicated assemblage constructed by an artisan in the lowest frieze in the next intercolumniation (see Fig. 1.11). The smith’s stomach overlaps his loincloth similarly to pharaonic-period representations,164 and (like that of the central figure in the frieze below; see Fig. 1.9), his loincloth carries radiating curves that mark those of seated figures in pharaonicperiod relief representations.165 The third metalworker, who works on a low bowl, probably wears a garment styled similarly to that of the rhyton maker (damage to the relief precludes certainty), and the indication of folds on its back suggests it too is treated in a Greek manner. The two missing registers presumably each carried further steps in the process of metalware fabrication. Scenes in the second intercolumniation are also devoted to works in metal, and the four registers may

also be read sequentially from bottom to top. The lowest register shows the finishing off of the pieces, including the assembling of the complicated and unexplained columnar structure that includes the horse protomes being crafted in the westmost intercolumniation (Fig. 1.11).166 One worker beats out the cup of another Persian-type rhyton, while a young boy presents a third rhyton to the foreman, who wears the wrapped garment covered by the short, crenelation-fringed overgarment that distinguishes Petosiris and Neshu in the chapel.167 Seemingly irrelevant to either garment are the thick, scalloped folds at his right shoulder. The second register from the bottom shows three workers polishing objects including a lion-headed rhyton (Fig. 1.12).168 A wide variety of garments are indicated. The leftmost polisher wears what might be interpreted as an exomis; the central artisan, who burnishes the rhyton, is bare-chested and kilted; and the leftmost figure is enveloped, except for his bare arms, in a long garment perhaps pinned at the shoulder. They are overseen by a foreman who wears a himation – a long, Greek overgarment – covering his left shoulder and crossing under his right armpit before being wound about his left arm. The treatment of the cloth looped between neck and armpit is extraordinary: twisted and gathered,

21

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.12. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the North Wall, Metalworkers Polishing Objects (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21210)

it is reminiscent of the draping of himations on archaic Greek korai,169 but without the stylization that the korai’s garments present. The volume of the fabric covering the foreman’s left arm is shown using concentric arcs, and, in conformity with the treatment of the volumetric folds, but even more convincingly, the lower part of his garment hangs in Greek-inspired omega and zigzag folds. The register above shows the weighing of the vessels (Fig. 1.13).170 presumably to ensure that the amount of metal provided for them was indeed all consumed in their fabrication.171 This scene is more complex, involving two overseers and five workers, one of whom is seen with his body en face though his head and feet remain in profile view. Here again, the overseers are picked out by their full-length garments: the right one wears what appears to be a himation; the left-hand one, who records the weights, wears a two-piece garment, with the upper one having a crenelated border. The workers wear either short loincloths or tunics and chitons. Their tunics and chitons are treated with naturalistic folds, whereas their loincloths appear to lack folds entirely. The narrow upper register completes the narrative (see Fig. 1.13).172 Workers carry the products of the artisans’ labors, including the Persian-type rhyton, toward a large casket in which they will place them as funerary furniture for the tomb of Petosiris. They walk in single

file and in true profile more reminiscent of Greek, than traditional Egyptian, representation, and their shortened or long tunics (or chitons) fall in a semblance of Greek folds. The treatment of dress in these scenes follows an underlying principle that characterizes the imagery of the pronaos: regardless of the treatment of the figures themselves, Greek (or Greek-like) dress is treated in a Classical manner, whereas Egyptian (or Egyptian-like) garb is treated in a traditional Egyptian fashion. The exceptions to this generalization are the artisan working on the Persian-type rhyton in the westmost panel (see Fig. 1.10), whose loincloth stretches naturalistically between his two knees, and the figures wearing the long, wrapped garment covered by the short garment with crenelated border seen, as well, in the chapel of the tomb. I cannot provide a reason for the former beyond bravado, but the reason for the lack of folds in the latters’ garments may be based on the heaviness, and therefore the stiffness, of the fabric itself. If, for example, these garments are felted – and the crenelations may add to this hypothesis since they appear to be cut rather than woven – then the actual garments would not necessarily fall in folds at all, which would obviate folds being indicated, even in a Classical representation.173 The east section of the north wall, though divided horizontally between perfume manufacturing above and

22

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.13. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the North Wall, Metalworkers Weighing and Transporting Vessels (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21213)

woodworking below, also shows a narrative that proceeds sequentially.174 But here the arrangement is more complex. The narrative showing perfume manufacture begins in the upper frieze east of the doorway, but in this case, friezes from the two intercolumniations are intended to be read as continuous. In the top register, (Fig. 1.14),175 a worker overturns a wide-mouthed vessel, pouring red berries onto the ground.176 Behind him, one man picks through the berries, while another works on hulling the fruit.177 At the right end of the frieze, an overseer, garbed in a blue tunic, observes the scene. In the frieze directly below, two men at the left of the frieze crush the berries in a mortar, while two at the right either mix the fruit with other ingredients or also pound them in larger containers. The narrative then continues in the second frieze from the top in the easternmost section (Fig. 1.15).178 At the left, one man stokes the fire in the furnace while his companion grinds the scents in a flat pan placed on the

furnace’s top. At the right, two perfumers fill jars with perfume. The upper frieze completes the narrative.179 Here a seated man in the center pours the perfume into a large vase, while two others offer smaller vessels to two men – perhaps purchasers – seated at either end. The one at the left sniffs the contents of the vessel, whereas the one at the right holds his chin in his right hand in a contemplative gesture. The workers in the lower frieze wear loincloths, whereas the three standing men in the upper frieze, who seem to be foremen or the owners of the shop, wear tunics with deep overfalls and omega folds at their bottom edges, following the model for the treatment of clothing to which the reliefs generally adhere. The woodworking scenes possibly follow a similar narrative scheme, though the components here do not add up to the finished work. The narrative – if indeed it is meant as one – probably begins in the lowest register of

23

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.14. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the North Wall, East Side, Upper Registers, Perfumers (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21216)

of the two furniture manufacturing scenes to the east of the doorway – out of place in the schema I am proposing – shows three men constructing reed frames (Fig. 1.18).183 In the frieze below (Fig. 1.19), a foreman at the left watches another three men put the finishing touches on a lion-headed and -footed bed,184 which, despite its supports, is imagined more as a Greek kline than a traditional Egyptian lion-bed. The long, deep horizontal crosspiece of the kline-type bed (unexpected in a lionbed) is fittingly decorated with Greek-type sphinxes,185 and Persian-appearing ibex-horned lions (more at home as elements of a Persian column capital) serve as the head and foot cushions (or perhaps as fulcra), which – though, in this case, with their knifelike ears and fragile and pointed horns, would preclude their use as such – are only fitting on a kline. The elements form a bricolage and one that is entirely appropriate to the period of the tomb and to the life of Petosiris. The ‘lion-bed’ serves

the easternmost section and then proceeds from there to the register above, then to the second register from the bottom on the adjacent section near the doorway, and finally to that lowest register, in which the only complete object is shown. In this sequence, two men are shown at a lathe carving a colonette terminating in a papyrus capital, the earliest known depiction of wood-turning in Egypt (Fig. 1.16).180 At the right, another artisan finishes off a similar piece, probably with an adze. In the panel directly above,181 an artisan works on a pierced panel with a bow drill while his assistant steadies the piece (Fig. 1.17). In the center of the frieze, carrying a headrest that incorporates the colonettes fabricated below, another artisan observes them; his belly, like that of the rhyton-maker on the west side of the north wall, hangs over his loincloth. At the right of the scene, a fourth artisan uses an adze to smooth the top of a small chest.182 The uppermost

24

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.15. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, East Side, the Second and Third Registers from the Top, Perfumers (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21199)

as another microcosm for one of the tomb’s themes – as it does for Graeco-Roman Egypt – as it incorporates elements from the diverse cultures that peopled fourthcentury Egypt and constructs a single, though perhaps not entirely cohesive, image. It also serves for a synopsis of the career of Petosiris, as discussed at the end of this chapter.

register is merely painted; the other four registers once bore carved reliefs, though only the three lower and part of the crowning kheker frieze remain. The west wall shows cattle-husbandry in the upper two remaining registers and vintaging and wine-making in the lowest.186 The east wall continues the agricultural theme with a plowing scene in the lowest carved register, the harvesting of flax in the next, and the harvesting and threshing of grain in the uppermost register that has its relief preserved.187 The west wall is crowned with a kheker frieze.188 The preserved slab centers on two winged female deities, crowned with discs and with shen knots between their outstretched wings, protecting an osiriform djed column. To the right and left of the kheker units, other female

The East and West Walls of the Pronaos In contrast to the interiority of the workshop spaces depicted on the north wall and the manmade products produced in those spaces, the east and west walls of the pronaos are devoted to scenes of the out-of-doors and the production of Egypt’s agricultural resources. Each wall is divided into five registers. In both cases, the lowest

25

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.16. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, North Wall, Woodworkers with a Lathe (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21204)

1.17. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, Woodworkers, One with a Bowdrill (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21202)

26

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.18. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the North Wall, the Manufacture of Reed Frames (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21219)

1.19. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the North Wall, East End, Woodworkers with Lion-Bed (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21207)

27

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

deities kneel on gold signs; the one at the right, which is the better preserved, is identified as Isis, who salutes the rayed sun. The uppermost register of the west wall preserves a single short slab treating cattle management.189 At the right of the frieze, a man encourages a bull mounting a cow, and at the left of the preserved segment, three cowherds bring down another bull. One cowherd has lassoed its foreleg and tries to trip it up, while two others hold it steady, pulling on a rope that is drawn through its nostrils. The men felling the bull all wear traditional Egyptian kilts, with the straight, closely set folds indicating the garments’ fine material. In contrast, the overseer in charge of breeding wears a Greek chiton, treated in Greek style, pulled up to bare his knees and lower legs. This scene and the one below recall the scenes of the lowest register of the east side of the north wall of the chapel, which I suggested show generation and continuity, though, in the pronaos, the style is markedly different. Missing here is the swampy setting: the figures are seen against a neutral ground common to Greek relief representation preceding the Hellenistic period, as well as to pharaonic-period Egyptian reliefs. The lower bovine scene, which constitutes a procession moving right to left, continues the theme.190 The first cowherd, who wears a kilt, like the bull-fellers above, carries a calf in the crook of his left arm. He is followed by a cow and a bull urged on by a drover behind them, who is wrapped in a thigh-length garment with fine folds (Fig. 1.20). Behind him, a young boy assists in calving (Fig. 1.21), while a man, leaning somewhat awkwardly on a staff, watches. Behind this man, a calf lows in front of its mother, while a small figure milks her and a cowherd, who has fettered the back legs of the cow,191 holds up another, larger, milk vessel. Next, a calf suckles (Fig. 1.22), and behind that group, a man holds a brace of five birds in his lowered left hand and a reed trap at the end of a pole in his right. Lefebvre notes that he doesn’t know what to make of this anomalous intrusion into the scene,192 and neither do I. The birdcatcher is followed by a drover holding a cow by a rope. A calf walks alongside the cow and a smaller one follows, but the latter is probably the calf of the following and final cow, which is part of a calving scene. In this frieze, all figures wear Greek chitons, with the exception of the first two figures and possibly the last who wear a sort of exomis, but if an exomis is indeed intended, it is

detailed with the parallel folds that suggest an Egyptian heritage. The lowest register shows the production of wine from the harvesting of grapes to the final bottling of the vintage,193 and its separation from other harvesting scenes on the east wall underscores that vineyards were considered rather akin to gardens and orchards than perceived as agricultural land.194 The scenes read from right to left; at the far right, an overseer watches the harvesting of the grapes (Fig. 1.23). Next, small figures carry the baskets containing the grapes up the steps of the vat (Fig. 1.24). In the vat, four nude men press the grapes (Figs. 1.25a and b), whose juice pours from the vat and is caught and poured into clay pithoi (Fig. 1.26). At the left end of the scene, Petosiris registers the vintage (Fig. 1.27). This frieze is one of the more remarkable in the tomb and therefore countenances one of the rare scenes from the tomb reproduced in handbooks. All vintagers are either nude or – like the laborers in the fields on the east wall – wear Greek chitons; the only exception is a small basket bearer (see Figs. 1.24 and 1.25a) who seems to wear a garment similar to the ‘exomis’ of the man holding the cow in the upper scene. More remarkably, a number of the vintagers show the narrow, elongated body associated with the late-fourth-century Greek sculptor Lysippos,195 whose major works precede the tomb, at most, by decades and whose followers were influential in disseminating the new proportions. Similarly remarkable are the figures’ nudity, their twisting and turning in space, the treatment of their muscularity, their beard and hair styles, and the frontal face of one of the grape-pressers (see Fig. 1.25b). Vineyards are attested in Egypt as early as the Early Dynastic period as part of royal domains,196 (though wine residue found in tombs nevertheless confirms imports – possibly of more prestigious wine – from the Levant),197 and wine-making is attested in tomb scenes from the Old Kingdom onward.198 The tomb of Petosiris – the only tomb from the Graeco-Roman period known to portray the event199 – shows the five most frequently depicted scenes: picking the grapes (see Figs. 1.23 and 1.24); the transportation of the grapes to the vat (see Figs. 1.24 and 1.25a); the pressing vat (see Fig. 1.25a); filling the jars (see Fig. 1.26); and registration of the wine (see Fig. 1.27) – as well as the sealing of the jars, a scene somewhat less common (see Fig. 1.26).200 As in the greatest number of earlier depictions, the workers are all male,201 though, if size is any indication, a number of the pickers are young boys.

28

1.20. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the West Wall, Middle Preserved Register, Cattle, Left End (Author Photo)

1.21. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the West Wall, Middle Preserved Register, Cattle, Middle Scene (Author Photo)

29

1.22. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the West Wall, Middle Preserved Register, Cattle, Right End (Author Photo)

1.23. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the West Wall, Lower Register, Picking the Grapes (Author Photo)

30

1.24. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the West Wall, Lower Register, Picking and Transporting the Grapes (Author Photo)

1.25a. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, the Lower Register, Treading the Grapes (Author Photo)

31

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.25b. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, the Lower Register, Treading the Grapes, Detail (Author Photo)

Though the treatment of the figures in Petosiris’ vintaging scene is consistently Greek, the technique of pressing the juice from the grapes is Egyptian. Images on Athenian vases dating to the sixth through the fourth centuries bce indicate Greek wine production as on a lesser scale: as illustrated, Greek treading vats are considerably smaller than that shown in the tomb of Petosiris and in other Egyptian tombs and were for use by a single person; they normally consisted of either a basket on a spouted table or a spouted vat (either with legs or raised on a table or support).202 The representation of the vat in the tomb of Petosiris, large enough to accommodate multiple laborers, follows that of scenes in earlier Egyptian tombs.203 Thus, the method of treading the grapes in the scene in the pronaos is Egyptian; the only anomaly is that the grape-treaders hold onto a crossbar instead of

onto ropes hanging from it (see Fig. 1.25a and b), steadying themselves in a manner characteristic rather of Old Kingdom representations than more recent pharaonicperiod examples.204 To the right of the central scene describing the treading of the grapes, an overseer observes laborers picking the grapes from vines trained on a pergola and placing them in baskets to be carried by young boys to the treading vat (see Figs. 1.23 and 1.24). With the exceptions of their studied movement, their discrepancy in size, and their occasionally spiky hairstyle, the laborers who pluck the bunches of grapes could easily grace a Greek relief. Young boys – indicated by their scale – act as basket carriers while men and youths effect the picking. They turn in space, though – with the exception of a graceful, especially Lysippan youth – they keep both feet firmly

32

1.26. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, West Wall, Lower Register, Filling and Sealing the Jars (Author Photo)

1.27. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the West Wall, Lower Register, Recording the Vintage (Author Photo)

33

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

liquid pouring from the lion’s-head spout of the vat,210 while another pours it into a pithos set on a reed stand. One man stoppers one of the vessels as other men carry the filled pithoi to a recorder who answers to Petosiris211 at the far left of the frieze (see Fig. 1.27). The scribe and Petosiris wear heavy, wrapped garments, with Petosiris affecting the crenelated-fringed overgarment seen in other scenes. Set in the center of the procession, with his face encircled by the body of the pointed amphora he carries, is another strongly individualized figure (see Figs. 1.26 and 1.27). He has spiky hair (like two of the vintagers and one of the cultivators on the east wall) and a deeply lined face (as do the tall spiky-haired vintager and others in the agricultural scenes on the east wall). These figures are anomalous among representations in the tomb and recall the specificity in delineating foreigners in both earlier Egyptian and Greek representations, as well as in the offering scenes of the tomb’s chapel. In multicultural fourth-century Egypt, it is most likely that this figure and others in the scene with spiky hair are meant to indicate the range of peoples that inhabited Hermopolis Magna at the end of the Persian period and the beginning of Ptolemaic reign. The crowning frieze on the east wall, like that on the west, is in the form of kheker units interrupted by deities.212 The friezes in the registers below are independent of one another though connected by the theme of agricultural pursuit (Fig. 1.28). Evidence for the domestication of emmer wheat, barley, and flax can be found in Egypt as early as the Predynastic period,213 and agricultural scenes are among the earliest and most abundant representations on tomb walls. Nevertheless, despite the traditional nature of the subject, almost all laborers in the Petosiris agricultural reliefs are garbed in Greek dress, and many of the men are shown with curly Greek hair and beards. The lowest scene on the east wall shows the beginning of the cycle. At the far right of the register, Petosiris oversees the tilling of the soil and sowing of the seed.214 Three teams of oxen pull ard- (or scratch-) plows harnessed in the old manner to the animals’ horns.215 In front of the first two teams a laborer sows seed, which the plow will incorporate into the earth in a sequence that is normal for newly laid silt.216 Whether flax is being sown – as harvested in the register directly above, or whether cereal grain, harvested in the higher register – is undetermined. Frequently the two are seen sown together, although the overarm motion affected by the sowers to scatter the seed might suggest cereal grain alone.217

planted on the groundline. They wear Greek chitons, and a number also wear the Greek pilos,205 the countrymen’s cap, worn by fishermen, boatmen, hunters, farmers, and shepherds. Aside from the two with spiky hair, all vintagers whose hair is visible have short curly locks, and a few have neatly trimmed Greek-type beards. In contrast, the overseer at the right of the scene, though he wears a Greek chiton, is shaven-headed and – in the manner of an Egyptian tomb owner or elite personage – is far taller than the others in the scene. This discrepancy removes the scene from a Greek context and places it conceptually within an Egyptian repertoire. A second anomaly – this one antithetical to both cultures – is that two of the youngsters transporting the grapes to the vat carry their basket on their head (see Figs. 1.24 and 1.25a). Herodotus (II.35), in distinguishing between Egyptian and Greek customs, insists that in Egypt men carry burdens on their heads, but in ancient, as well as in modern, Egypt, this position is assumed almost always by women, not by men or boys.206 One might wonder here if the designer of the relief was a Greek who had read his Herodotus. The leftmost basket carrier, bending with awkward naturalism, dumps his basketful into the large vat, while four nude males effect the pressing (see Fig. 1.25b). Of all the figures in the scenes, these males move most comfortably in three-dimensional space, twisting and turning as they crush the grapes and only maintaining their balance by grasping the crossbar. The basket carrier on the lowest step is seen with a frontal face, and, more remarkably because of his baldness and wild beard, so is one of the nude grape-treaders, who hangs onto the pole above with both hands to frame both his anomalous hair treatment and the frontality of his face. Frontal-faced figures in painting and low-relief are rare in both Greek and Egyptian representations. In Egypt, a few frontal-faced human figures exist,207 but the conceit is more normally reserved for certain deities.208 In Greece, frontal faces are closely associated with satyrs,209 and the image of the bald, long-bearded, possibly snubbed-nosed man in the treading scene certainly seems based on a satyr, which is not surprising, since many – if not most – Greek vintaging scenes involve these companions of Dionysos. Thus the figure in the wine-pressing scene may well have been plucked from a pattern book with such a model. The scene to the left of the vat illustrates steps in the bottling process (see Fig. 1.26). A nude youth decants the

34

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.28. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the East Wall, Harvesting and Threshing Grain (after Lefebvre 1923–24, vol. III: pl. XIII)

The scene moves from left to right, though the temporality of the scene is probably to be read right to left akin to the other two scenes on this wall. The frieze is framed, at the far right by Petosiris, who stands under a tree, brilliantly in leaf, oblivious to a small boy behind him who teases a bird with a stick.218 The tomb owner wears the dignified wrapped garment that bares his right shoulder, similar to the one he wears in the vintaging scene and to others in the pronaos. He converses with a paunchy man garbed in a blue chiton pulled up to knee length. At the far left, a laborer steadies his oxen, while balancing his plow on his shoulder (see Fig. 1.28 and Fig. 1.29); Lefebvre interprets the tiller as having finished his section and freed his team.219 In front of the resting laborer, another fieldworker urges on the oxen with a short stick raised in his right hand, while before him, a frontal male, his face in threequarter view, raises his right hand over his shoulder, scattering seed in front of the advancing beasts (see Fig. 1.28).

A third cultivator leans heavily on the handle of his plow, while another male, coiffed with spiky hair similar to men in the vintaging scene, also scatters seed – indicated with red dots on a raised surface220 – over his shoulder from his up-stretched hand (see Figs. 1.28 and Fig. 1.30). All laborers wear Greek chitons, pulled up above their knees and falling in Greek-inspired folds, and those who are not bareheaded wear the Greek pilos. In the register above, men reap and bundle flax, while a foreman, wearing a hiked-up chiton similar to those worn by his workforce, leans on a stick and watches at the right (see Fig. 1.28). As in the sowing scene, the chronological progression is from right to left. Beyond the overseer at the right, a man harvests flax, which he will presumably hand to the small child behind him, who holds a bundle of shafts in either hand.221 In the following scene, another man pulls up the flax, flanked to either side by laborers who prepare to tie up the bales using braided flax as a rope.222 Beyond that, another worker wipes his brow as he contemplates the flax field before

35

1.29. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the East Wall, Lower Register, Left End, Releasing the Plow (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21114)

1.30. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the East Wall, Lower Register, Middle Section, Sowing and Plowing (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-21086)

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.31. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the East Wall, Middle Register, Harvesting Flax, Wiping Brow (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-23178)

him, while behind him, a balding man presses his right knee onto a bale to compact it as he wrestles to bind the flax stalks together (see Fig. 1.28 and Fig. 1.31).223 These last images encapsulate two of the most closely observed moments in the tomb and come seemingly from life, rather than from any pattern book. Neither of the figures is stock: both are original, carefully observed, and strongly realized. Finally at the far left,224 a man with a deeply lined face and furrowed brow (another moment of perceived characterization) urges on three donkeys loaded with the bales of flax. Here, as in the plowing scene discussed later, all field workers wear Greek chitons, though in contrast to that scene, all are bareheaded. In the uppermost preserved figural register, men, and a woman, and young boys – a gender inclusion found in earlier Egyptian depictions225 – harvest and thresh grain (see Fig. 1.28). The individual harvesting scenes are separated by the field in which the men labor,226 and as in the preceding friezes, the image proceeds temporally from right to left. At the far right,227 an overseer clad in a chiton and Greek pilos – as in the previous register – leans comfortably on a long staff observing the action. In

front of him, a curly haired, bearded man cuts the grain with a sickle. Between his legs is a sheaf of the harvested grain,228 probably having been tied up by the woman, who bends down to take the harvested shafts from a young boy (Fig. 1.32). An elegant touch are the cut ears among which the boy is set and in front of which the harvester works. The next harvester is so fully engaged in his work that he merely hands the cut stalks back over his shoulder to his young assistant (see Figs. 1.28, 1.32, and Fig. 1.33). In the third segment, a man relaxes, drinking deeply from a goatskin, while another man, whose face is strongly lined and who holds a bundle of grain, looks on.229 Behind him is the culmination of the harvest (see Fig. 1.28 and Fig. 1.34): three men thresh by beating the stalks of grain,230 the central one standing frontally behind the bales,231 his arms raised overhead. In contrast to the method of beating the stalks seen here, threshing is usually effected by animals trampling the grain or by the use of a threshing sledge. This image that employs wooden implements to beat the grain, though visualizing an acknowledged method, may be unique within the Egyptian representational repertoire.232 The symmetrical image that is thus formed, however, neatly frames the left

37

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.32. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the East Wall, Middle Register, Harvesting Flax, with Children (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-23467)

The South Wall of the Pronaos The south wall of the pronaos, which flanks the doorway to the chapel, is dedicated to the deceased Petosiris. It is the major wall of the pronaos, since it is the wall immediately encountered by the visitor entering the room. That it was seen as such by the designer of the tomb is evident in the treatment of the narrative friezes to either side of the door. The wall to the east side of the doorway preserves three registers. The missing frieze appears to have been devoted entirely to a text, which is continued in the uppermost preserved register.235 What remains is a hymn celebrating Re, “who rises from the waters on the height of Khmun.”236 The frieze in the register below combines a long text with images of Petosiris and his wife receiving homage from their male descendants – Teos, their sole surviving son, and his son, Padikem.237 In the lowest course, a stately procession of three males and four women moves left to right toward the doorway leading to the chapel (Fig. 1.35),238 much like the processions on the chapel walls of Neshu and Djedthothiufankh. At the right end of the frieze, however, a group of

end of the frieze and the end of the narrative as the figure of Petosiris and the tree in the lowermost register frame its beginning. In addition to the frontal poses taken by the figures in various scenes, the turning and twisting poses and the musculature of the grape pressers, the Greek garb with their rich omega folds that almost all of the laborers affect, and the connection to the archetypal Greek wine-maker seen in the satyr-like face of the figure in the treading scene, one technical detail also suggests that Greek artisans are responsible for these reliefs. The east wall preserves its paint better than others in the pronaos, and darker lines, indicating muscles and the median lines of the torso, known from Greek vase painting, might be considered bearing Greek imprint. More striking, however, and more reliable to impute Greek authorship, are the short strokes indicating shading on the neck of one of the youthful helpers engaged in the grain harvest (see Fig. 1.33).233 These strokes are a contemporaneous way of indicating the volume of a form in Greek painting,234 and though best preserved in this figure, they almost certainly were used throughout the frieze.

38

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

appears to be Egyptian dress, as is the leftmost woman in the procession, whereas each of the two central women wears what appears to be a Greek peplos. Aside from the Greek garments and the true profile of two of the women, the scene is consonant with that of offering bearers in earlier Egyptian tombs, and it is comparable to the offering-bearer scenes encountered on the east and west walls of the chapel. The offering bearers wear a variety of garments; they bring along their children; and the woman depicted with her face in three-quarter view carries a stoppered vessel onto which two fowl are tied, as in the scene dedicated to Djedthothiufankh. This lowest register also responds to the lowest registers on the walls of the chapel that depict the terrestrial world but with a single major difference, that is, the female figures clustered around the tree at the right, which permits Lefebvre to characterize the scene as “half-Greek, half-Egyptian.”240 In this small segment of the frieze, iconography, as well as style, finds its roots in Greece. The first two figures – a woman holding out a wreath and carrying a garland and a young girl clutching a box with both hands – should otherwise be part of the procession (see Fig. 1.35).241 The two figures face right, as do the others in procession, and they too carry offerings. Yet visually they are set apart. By their consistent style and the landscape element against which they are set, they remove themselves from the other offering bearers in the scene and form a three-figure group, joining the woman at the right end of the relief who greets them across the leafless tree. The three females who cluster around the tree all wear Greek-inspired garments. The woman at the left wears what appears to be a saccos covering her hair, and the woman at the right has draped her himation over her head in the Greek sign for a wedded woman.242 Thus, Lefebvre is undoubtedly correct in seeing her representing the wife of Petosiris.243 Both women (as well as the ones in the procession garbed in Greek dress) wear garments that reach well below their ankles, exercising Greek female decorum in a distinction from the women in the procession who wear Egyptian garments. The rightmost woman, the presumed wife of Petosiris, stands before the tree in a comfortable three-quarter pose – her prominent breasts with the placement of their visible nipples adding to the sense of three-dimensionality – whereas the true profile of both the left-hand woman and the little girl is dictated by their action. In fact, the young girl and her pose find parallels on Greek grave stelai from the early fourth century onward,244 and it is from them

1.33. Tuna el-Gebel, Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the East Wall, Middle Register, Harvesting Flax, Detail of Young Boy (IFAO NU 2003 4881)

three females visually separate themselves from the others both by the leafless tree that embraces them and by the interaction among them.239 The four women in the procession at the left of this group bring geese, plants, and lotuses, while animals walk alongside. One child rides on his mother’s shoulders, and another is carried by its mother in a sling. The three male figures carry animals on their shoulders, and the foremost man also shoulders a sheathed sword. The latter seems an anomaly in this scene celebrating a woman, unless it is intended to connect with the bull-slaughtering scene that takes place on the other side of the doorway. Both style and detail point to a composite of Greek and Egyptian. The males stride forward in traditional Egyptian composite view, whereas the poses of the women vary; one even turns around with her face depicted in three-quarter view. Her hairstyle, furthermore, is the only one detailed in the stone, and, with its central part and escaping long curls, it is apparently Greek. She is nevertheless garbed in what

39

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.34. Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the East Wall, Upper Register, Threshing (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-23171)

that she is probably ultimately derived. The wreath, held out to the veiled woman, is associated by its ivy with Dionysos, a deity who had an important chthonic cult in the Egyptian chora, which is discussed in Chapter Three, and which would be appropriate for a funerary scene in a Greek milieu. Its transposition onto an Egyptian tomb, however, is remarkable. The leafless tree around which the women cluster is also an element apparently borrowed from Greece. In Egypt the leafless tree, when it is depicted, is associated with manifestations of nurturing goddesses,245 but in Greece – where any landscape element is rare in visual representations – it is connected with death. Herbert Hoffmann identifies leafless trees in the oeuvre of the fifth-century bce Attic vase painter, the Sotades Painter, as hinting at death;246 leafless trees frame the central figure identified as Alexander the Great in the hunt scene on the facade of the so-called Tomb of Philip at Vergina,247 which is possibly rather that of Alexander’s younger half-brother;248 a leafless tree appears in the Alexander Mosaic249 – based on a famous Greek painting that is more or less contemporaneous with the tomb painting –

between Alexander and the Persian forces of King Darius, many of whom were slain in the battle (see Diodorus 17.34); and later, in the Roman period, Ovid’s Phyllis (Ovid, Heroides II) is transformed upon her death into a leafless almond tree that blossoms only when her lover Demophoon returns to her. The poignancy of death is encapsulated in the image of the leafless tree, as is – in the myth of Phyllis – the possibility of a blessed afterlife, and the ivy wreath of Dionysos underscores the latter theme. This disjunction in the frieze between the egyptianized offering bearers and the hellenized women at the tree is a product of the latter group’s necessity to act both visually and conceptually as a transitional element between the two narrative friezes of the south wall. Of the west side of the south wall, only two lower registers remain. In the uppermost preserved frieze, responding to the frieze of family and generation on the east wall and also set within a long inscription, Petosiris and his wife receive homage from their three daughters,250 with the inscription and the imagery paralleling those in the frieze of male lineage on the east wall.

40

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.35. Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the South Wall, Offering Bearers and Three Women (after Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III, pl. XX)

41

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

In contrast, the scene in the lower register removes itself from all other scenes in the tomb (aside from the grouping of women about the leafless tree) by its style, but more so by the treatment of its subject. It depicts two bulls brought to sacrifice amid a gathering of onlookers (Fig. 1.36). Its complete reliance upon a Hellenic model sets it in stark contrast to both the traditional Egyptian scene of the sacrificed bull in the chapel relief depicting the funeral of Neshu and to all other scenes in the tomb. It forms a pendant to the lowest frieze on the east side of the wall, framing the doorway to the tomb and expanding the Hellenic associations begun in the right-hand side of the east frieze with the group of women. The frieze is divided into relatively discrete units by the direction of its participants. At the far left, closest to the doorway into the chapel, a group composed of two women stand in three-quarter view. The second woman from the left affects a pose well known in Greece, though the figure on the Petosiris frieze is more awkwardly posed and relies on a pier to support her left elbow and her right hand: it is a pose assumed, for example, by a woman on South Metope 19 of the Parthenon,251 of Prokne, about to murder her son in a late-fifth-century Attic statue by Alcamenes,252 and by one of the daughters of Pelias watching the rejuvenation of a ram that allegedly prefigures the rejuvenation of her father.253 It probably signifies contemplation, though this contemplation often appears to foreshadow death. The leftmost woman in the frieze leans upon the shoulder of the other, intimately connecting the group, in another pose borrowed from the Greek repertoire.254 Beyond this group, farther to the right, a third woman, her head veiled, walks forward, her hands raised. Then, two small draped figures, presumably young boys, are set off by their placement in front of the single architectural element in the scene. It is composed of two Doric pilasters, which stand on a stylobate and support an architrave crowned with a straight cornice. It should be a cabinet to hold images of household gods.255 To the right of the piece of furniture, another woman, who forms the left-hand bookend for the next group, walks forward holding up two ducks in her outstretched hands. Beyond her, a nude youth stabs a bull while a woman posed in three-quarter view, who forms the right-hand frame for the group, holds a small, footless cup in her left hand and, with her right, crowns the youth (see Fig 1.36 and Fig. 1.37). The final group is composed of another woman, who stands to the right encountering a beribboned bull, urged forward by

two youths – one nude and another clad in a himation draped over his left arm and wrapped about his waist, who holds a cup in his left hand and an ivy wreath in his extended right (see Fig. 1.36). All the women wear long garments, over which they have pulled himations, a style of female dress that begins in the mid-fourth century in Greece and continues through the Late-Classical and Hellenistic periods. Their hair, when it can be easily seen, is dressed in braids or tight curls and pulled back to form a knot atop their heads, similar to coiffures on Greek statues that date about 300 bce, though, as with the garments, a hairstyle that also found acceptance in later centuries.256 Yet despite the Greek elements of garment and hairstyle and the Greek stylistic devices that give the figures – especially the women – sculptural weight, the scene also admits minor Egyptian elements. The two ducks thrust forward by the centralized woman find no place in Greek votive imagery but are perfectly at home in Egyptian offering scenes. Though the garment of the veiled woman with her hands raised is recognizably Greek, her gesture, too, is probably more comfortable in Egypt than in Greece. Yet the greatest anomaly is the scene itself. Lefebvre correctly disengages the bull sacrifice from others in the tomb that show Greek stylistic influence. He notes that its artist has “successfully treated a Greek subject in Greek style”257 and identifies its subject as a “ceremony borrowed from Greek funerary cult: a reunion around the tomb at the occasion of a sacrifice,” with which John Boardman concurs.258 Yet despite the style following that practiced in Greece, the ceremony of a funerary bull-sacrifice does not. In Greece, bovine sacrifice at festivals is common, but little evidence attests to blood sacrifice accompanying funerary or memorial rites, and blood sacrifice that offers bulls as victims at these rites is rarer yet.259 In the Iliad (XXIII. 29–34), Achilles offers bulls along with sheep, goats, and pigs at the pyre of Patroklos, and, in his antisumptuary laws at the beginning of the sixth century bce, the Athenian lawgiver Solon (Plut. Sol. 21.6) proscribes the sacrifice of bulls at the tomb, indicating that in the early Archaic period in Athens, at least, bovine sacrifice had occurred.260 Yet especially before the Hellenistic period, blood sacrifice was reserved for the specially honored dead, like those Greeks who defeated the Persians at the battle of Plataea (Thuc. 3.58.4; Plut. Arist. 24. 3–6) and for those dead designated heros.261

42

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

1.36. Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the South Wall, Bull Sacrifice (after Lefebvre 1923–24, vol. III, pl. XIX).

43

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

1.37. Tomb of Petosiris, Pronaos, the South Wall, Bull Sacrifice, the Slaughtered Bull (IFAO NU 2003 4992)

reliefs of offering tables set before the deceased unfailingly include the foreleg of a bull. In the Middle Kingdom, anticipating the funeral of the eponymous Egyptian in the “Story of Sinhue,” who self-identifies (R1) as “Prince, Count, Governor of the domains of the sovereign in the lands of the Asiatics,” the Egyptian pharaoh welcomes the aged Sinhue home and decrees that “at the door of your tomb . . . a sacrifice [will be] made beside your offering-stone” (R 195).266 Reliefs in New Kingdom Egyptian tombs show that the slaughter of cattle occupied a central role in the depiction of the Opening of the Mouth ceremony (the crucial rite to ensure a successful afterlife),267 and strikingly, in Alexandrian tombs, dating somewhat later than the tomb of Petosiris and architecturally Greek, the excavators found, on courtyard altars, ashes of the last ‘sacrifice,’ though precisely what the sacrifice comprised is not preserved.268

Blood sacrifice offered to heroes – primarily those who have shown their beneficence and can be considered helpful to the suppliant – is relatively common. More than one hundred ‘hero reliefs’ of the Late-Classical and Hellenistic period (many dedicated to the generic ‘hero’ and some of which carry solely the iconography of a horse-attended or a banqueting male) show the theme.262 Yet these reliefs, too, generally postdate the tomb of Petosiris, and in all these reliefs, sacrificial animals as large as bulls are absent. Most important, also unknown among them is the depiction of the slaughter of the sacrificial animal.263 In Egypt, in contrast, the butchery of cattle is a central element in both funerary ritual and memorial rites,264 and animal sacrifice at the tomb can be traced back to the Old Kingdom: Fifth and Sixth Dynasty tombs are found to include tethering stones within their complex,265 and

44

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

Petosiris that admit the sacrifice of a bovid show only the bludgeoning of the beast that preceded its slaughter.274 The rare extant images that depict the bludgeoned animal’s demise all postdate the tomb of Petosiris,275 and those entertain a relatively realistic interpretation of the performance. Thus, though the placid right-hand bull can be tied to Greek representations, for the slaughtering of the central animal the artist seemingly had no Greek model. The slaughtered bull itself most closely assumes the pose of those about to be felled by Nikai and occasionally by heroes. Images on mirrors, jewelry, and relief vessels, dating as early as the end of the fifth century bce,276 are decorated with the image of a Nike subduing a bull before she slits its throat. Nike wrestles down the bull by digging her left knee into the bull’s back for leverage as she grasps its muzzle with her left hand and pulls back its head to expose its throat.277 The same motif is employed by heroes.278 This method of dispatch can trace its source – though slightly modified – as far back as the end of the seventh century bce in Greece.279 The motif is then adopted by the bull-slaying Nike,280 from which it passes into Roman art and on to the designer of the images of Mithras killing the bull (its most frequent occurrence), creating an image that is at once iconic and fully plausible. In the Petosiris relief, however, aside from the distressingly descriptive protruding tongue of the victim (which may find its source in earlier Egyptian examples), the butchery is carried out with little thought to any perceivable reality. Though the right-hand bull may be imagined placid enough to stroll docilely to its death (excepting the reality that the smell of blood emanating from the slaughter of the central bull would have driven it berserk), the dying bull makes no sense at all. For whereas a bull may be brought to its knees by a hero or a divinity like Nike, mortals have their limitations.281 Thus the designer of the relief relies on Nike’s felled bull for his victim but is forced to abandon the pose of the vanquisher for his genre scene. This change, however, renders the bull’s position meaningless. The young attendant draws back the bull’s neck for no discernible reason, since he has no intention of going for its throat; in fact, he appears to jab his weapon into the animal’s shoulder. Concurrently, the position of the bull, which presumably indicates its collapse like those slain by Nike, leaves its legs sufficiently above the groundline to suggest the bull is instead in violent forward motion. This uncomfortable group is an anomaly within a composition that

Most relevant, however, to the sacrifice relief in the pronaos of the tomb of Petosiris is the relief on the west wall of the chapel of his tomb, in which the bull lies slaughtered at the funeral of Petosiris’ father, Neshu (see Fig. 1.3). Nevertheless, despite the longevity of the ceremony in Egyptian funerary cult and the prevalence of blood sacrifice in Greek sacrificial cult, the designer of the relief in the tomb of Petosiris was hard-pressed to find a visual model for the image he needed to create. Egyptian scenes depicting funerary bull sacrifices are indistinguishable from scenes that show butchering for other purposes. Bulls slaughtered as temple offerings and merely as a source of meat – the figures in the tomb model from the Middle Kingdom tomb of Meketre provide a good threedimensional example of the usual depiction – are treated similarly:269 the bull’s four legs are bound together, and the bull is thrown over onto its side before the butcher slits its throat. This is the position assumed by the slaughtered bull at the funeral of Neshu, but this method of dispatching the beast is far removed from that seen on the lowest course of the west part of the south wall in the pronaos of the tomb. In contrast to the questionably Hellenic inclusion of the slain bull, the bull at the right end of the Petosiris relief is fully in the Greek tradition (see Fig. 1.36). The most frequent moment chosen in Greek sacrificial scenes – almost all of which depict sacrifices to deities or heroes – is when the animal is led forward toward the altar. This is the moment chosen for the oxen and sheep urged forward on the north and south friezes of the Parthenon and the pigs, goats, sheep, and bulls that inhabit votive reliefs, hero reliefs, and vase-painting images of sacrificial ceremonies. The bull at the right of the Petosiris scene well fits these models. Occasionally a Greek sacrificial animal proves recalcitrant, but most often – as prescribed – the animal is compliant,270 and it is this latter model used by the designer of the Petosiris relief. A fillet entwines about the bull’s horns, and the young cup-bearer behind him is about to place an ivy wreath upon its head. Both are in flawless Greek tradition.271 Even the pose the bull assumes, looking dolefully outward toward the viewer, can be paralleled, including on a fourth century bce relief to Herakles from Athens.272 The bull at the center of the relief, however, is another story (see Figs. 1.36 and 1.37). Among the numerous Greek scenes depicting sacrifice, those that show the animal’s actual slaughter are exceedingly rare,273 and all the even fewer scenes that date prior to the tomb of

45

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

between the pronaos and the chapel, with the pronaos being the more terrestrial of the two. The ‘genre scenes’ that compose much of the decoration of the pronaos may refer to the quotidian life or to afterlife sustenance, or they may be metaphorical; they may well reference multiple meanings, and their definitive interpretation in tombs elsewhere is not entirely resolved.284 Yet even if these scenes implicate the afterlife, more specific references to the afterlife are missing from the pronaos. The pronaos explicitly avoids the type of scenes found in the chapel – the Judgement scene, those that show the deceased among the gods, and those that acknowledge the Amduat. In the tomb of Petosiris, the progression of scenes, reflecting “a progression from the secular to the sacred,”285 is maintained, with the scenes in the pronaos permitting a superficial reading as genre, while they also almost certainly speak of the hereafter. Second, from late prehistory, Egyptian artists arranged their visual material into registers of successive friezes, maintaining ma’at, – a means of depiction encountered in the ancient Near East as well, but one that nevertheless is antithetical to reality as perceived by the human eye – and this arrangement is maintained in the tomb of Petosiris. The reliefs in the tomb are further brilliantly organized in the ancient Egyptian manner in which their spacial arrangement augments and clarifies their internal meaning. First, the reliefs on the exterior of the tomb add to the simulacrum of a temple by referencing reliefs appropriate to the house of a deity: Petosiris and his male antecedents are priests of Thoth, and both the form that the building assumes and its decoration are extensions of their office. In this way, they serve as a biographical introduction to the deceased, a point that will be further elaborated upon later in this chapter. Second, the division of the physical space of the tomb into two rooms, with one devoted to the tomb’s builder Petosiris and the other to elder male members of his family, immediately illuminates the generational lineage of Petosiris by establishing the chronological relationship between the living Petosiris and his deceased father and elder brother. Within the chapel, the latter receive their burial rites and are situated among the gods; in the pronaos, their living heir, Petosiris, oversees – as it were – arrangements for his own funeral and his entry into the afterlife. No deities invade this space; it is the quotidian world. This physical arrangement of the tomb, observed in New Kingdom royal tombs, in which the outer (or upper) region of the tomb reflects the mortal realm and the inner (or lower) regions of the tomb denotes the journey to the blessed

is otherwise carefully constructed and executed. Despite the Greek formal elements in the scene, the moment depicted had to remain Egyptian, because in Egypt the sacrifice is crucial to the deceased’s achieving everlasting life. Yet an Egyptian style of representation would have been foreign to the style of this relief. The artist, surely schooled in the manner of Greek representation, was enjoined to create, as the focal point of the scene, a group for which he had no model. Clearly, both the slaughter of the bull and a Greek stylistic mode proved necessary to Petosiris’ eschatological program. Therefore, a motif had to be invented for the slaughter, and though that motif remains less than satisfactory, it was the one employed. The scene had to present itself in contrast to the one in the chapel of the tomb. BILINGUALISM IN THE TOM B OF PETOSIRIS

The tomb of Petosiris inserts itself as a bookmark between the old Egypt – the pharaonic period and the Late Period that had looked back to pharaonic times – and the new Egypt ruled by kings from Macedonia that opened Egypt’s banks to a flood of Greek ideas and imagery. As an aggregate of plan and decoration, the tomb of Petosiris is unique, but most of the elements that combine to construct it have precedents, and the visual bilingualism it incorporates that acknowledges Egypt’s multicultural landscape persists in tombs fashioned in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. The reliefs in the tomb of Petosiris show the earliest example in tomb decoration of two practices that become increasingly evident throughout the Hellenistic period in Egypt and that find their floruit in the period of Roman rule. The first is the recognition of the suitability of style to subject, an aesthetic precept of decorum laid out by Aristotle in his Poetics; the second, which is its corollary, is the application of style as a bearer of meaning. In antiquity, no two representational styles are more visually distinct and conceptually distant than that employed by Egyptians and that chosen by Greeks,282 and tomb decoration in multicultural Graeco-Roman Egypt is an exemplar of their intentionally selective use. This selectivity begins with the tomb of Petosiris. Egyptian conventions pervade the program. First, as generally seen in pharaonic-period Egyptian tombs, scenes closer to the entrance to the tomb are more greatly mundane than those deeper into the building,283 and the tomb of Petosiris differentiates ideologically

46

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

afterlife,286 is thus maintained in the tomb of Petosiris by the separation of the pronaos from the chapel. Third, in traditional manner, too, the reliefs of the chapel, which are more complicated temporally than those of the pronaos, act spatially from bottom to top: those closer to the bottom of the wall reflect the profane world; those closer to the top the metaphysical. Similarly, those on the east wall that honor Neshu retain their place in the quotidian world, while those of the west wall that honor Djedthothiufankh incorporate the journey to the afterlife, as would be expected in a traditional Egyptian tomb. In addition, and most important, almost all narrative scenes in the tomb maintain traditional Egyptian practices despite the style in which they are portrayed. Nevertheless, the reliefs of the pronaos are the earliest yet encountered in Egyptian mortuary context to recognize a Greek presence within the eschatological landscape of Egypt. The tomb’s visual program demonstrates a knowledgeable grasp of Greek stylistic vocabulary for the representation of the three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional picture plane and a concomitant desire to implement this vocabulary. Furthermore, it adds the inclusion of the contemporaneous garments worn by the figures in the reliefs, which are employed to separate the mortal (and contemporaneous) realm from the metaphysical. Strikingly – and perhaps underscoring this latter differentiation – the carpenters in the pronaos constructing the funerary furniture, the lion-bed and headrest, for example, which are seemingly the most traditionally Egyptian of the objects in the scene and those most closely connected with Egyptian funerary rites, are the ones seen in style and dress most closely replicating traditional Egyptian mode and garb. Others look decidedly Greek. Farm workers, including cowherds, laboring in the field of Petosiris, for example, wear the Greek pilos. And though some of the metalworkers (and the carpenters noted earlier) wear what might be construed as a loincloth, vintagers, cowherds, and farm workers wear a garment based on the linen chiton worn by Greeks. The workers pull up the excess length of the garment so that the upper part hangs over the belt, shortening the garment so that it falls only to their knees in a style often affected by Greeks.287 Overseers and scribes generally wear more complicated and more formal garb: a long, ankle-length garment made of heavy or stiff material that is wrapped around their bodies,288 over which they might throw a shorter mantle with serrated edges to hang about their shoulders.289 Women also seem to wear

this garment, but without the extra mantle. The treatment of the garments, especially the chitons that even show the buttons that fashioned the sleeves, provide an excellent example of both Greek dress and the incursion of Greek veristic style into the traditional conceptual style of ancient Egypt. The representation of corporeal volume is an imagist technique envisioned by Greek vase painters and sculptors in the last decades of the sixth century bce, and the carvers of the pronaos reliefs have adopted this style of execution. One suggestion of corporeal volume is indicated by the musculature of the torsos of the grape pressers; another is by the shading lines on the neck of one of the young helpers engaged in harvesting grain (see Fig. 1.33). Yet more frequent is the treatment of the folds of garments. The garment of the workshop manager, who oversees the metalworkers on the north wall of the pronaos, can be seen as an exemplar (see Fig. 1.12). Because of the manner in which it is draped, the long garment he wears seems, of all the garments depicted in the reliefs, to most resemble a Greek treatment of a himation. It falls in folds over one shoulder, is wrapped around his left arm, and finally falls from that arm in rich folds down the left side of his body. The folds both at the neck and over his forearm are drawn with a scalloped contour to show their volume; the edges of fabric falling from his arm are curved to the same end; and behind his right ankle is another edge of the fabric, indicating that the garment is intended to enclose that leg. This detail showing the far lower edge of a garment is indicated in the treatment of other garments in the friezes. It is clear, for example, in the chiton worn by the right-hand thresher on the east wall of the pronaos (see Fig. 1.28) and in the garments of two cowherds on the west wall (see Figs. 1.20 and 1.21). This approach can be contrasted with the treatment of most of the garments in the agricultural scenes on the east wall and with the treatment of the attire in the chapel of the tomb, which remain in conceptual Egyptian style. Other Greek stylistic inclusions, noted especially in the agricultural scenes, are the figures that move or turn in three-quarter view and that, by the use of this device, increase the depth of the measurable space of the relief. These figures are seen throughout the agricultural series, but they are especially active in the vintaging scene. The bearded man (the beard, of course, another Greek import) under the arbor at the left, who reaches up with his right hand to pluck a bunch of grapes, and the nude late-adolescent who faces him (his nudity almost surely

47

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

another Greek contribution for a youngster so old) serve as good examples of the device (see Fig. 1.24). The elongated figures, particularly striking in the latter figure but evidenced in others, are consonant with those inaugurated by Alexander’s court sculptor Lysippos. It can be further hypothesized that the wild hair some of the vintagers sport and the full beard and frontal face of the central figure mashing the pulp have their ultimate source in Greek images of satyrs making wine. Within this framework, the bull-sacrifice relief is anomalous because the entire relief is rendered in Greek stylist terms and, so far as possible, in Greek iconographical terms, and, whereas the other scenes in the tomb (with the exception of the three women near the leafless tree) rely on Egyptian approaches, the bull sacrifice in the pronaos does not. The Egyptian bull sacrifice, as seen in the chapel of the tomb, focuses on the rationale for the sacrifice – the removal of the foreleg of the bull to speed the deceased on his eschatological journey. The scenes of the south wall of the pronaos are the only ones that repeat narratives from the chapel, and though the procession of the gift bearers serves to connect Petosiris with the processions that honor his brother and his father, the bull relief permits Petosiris distance. As in the chapel, in which the application of traditional Egyptian iconography and style sets Petosiris’ father and brother among the gods, in the pronaos, the retention of traditional Egyptian iconography in concert with Hellenic style situates Petosiris as their living heir. The slaughtered-bull relief provides a definitive marker, however, that removes Petosiris from his dead relatives and unabashedly claims the new world he inhabited. Style becomes content to convey meaning.

only the distant gloried past of Egypt, or even his own role in restoration of the temple that he credits in his textual biography, but also the reigns of the last native kings of Egypt – Nectanebo I and II and Teos (380–343 bce). By employing egyptianizing style for the imagery in the chapel, Petosiris references this last period of indigenous Egyptian rule, as well as the long history that it encapsulates. More precisely, since Petosiris’ father, Neshu, served as high priest of Thoth under Nectanebo II,290 by referencing the Thirtieth Dynasty, Petosiris concretizes his father’s inscribed biography in both architectural form and pictorial style. Similarly, by adding the single rhytonbearing woman in the lowest register of the west wall of the chapel paying tribute to Djedthothiufankh, Petosiris recalls the ensuing Second Persian Period (343–332 bce), during which Petosiris’ brother held the office of priest of Thoth.291 With even greater iconographical efficiency and more pointed allusion, Petosiris inscribes his own biography in imagist terms. The inclusion of the greater number of Persian elements – specifically the animalheaded rhyta whose manufacturing journey is laid out, the Persian-appearing ibex-horned lions of the ‘lionbed,’ and the horse protomes in the metalworkers scene in the pronaos of the tomb – coupled with the extraordinary composite form the lion-bed kline adopts and the Greek style that many of the figures of the pronaos assume – encapsulate the lifetime of Petosiris, himself, which extends from the second period of Achaemenid reign in Egypt through the intercession of Alexander the Great (343–332 bce) and later, as his inscribed biography attests.292 These elements add a visual biographical framework that complements the epigraphical biographies that distinguish the tomb. Interweaving text and image, enlisting architecture as iconography, and employing style as content, the tomb of Petosiris consciously affirms itself a monument positioned between the lost world of native Egyptian dominance and the new age wrought by the conquest of Alexander the Great and the ensuing Macedonian rule.

VISUAL BIOGRAPHY IN THE TOM B OF PETOSIRIS

Nevertheless, a simple binary emphasis on the Greek and Egyptian elements in the tomb glosses over both the unique design the tomb embraces and the Persian interjections depicted on its walls. Given the originality of the tomb’s form and its carefully considered program, these elements also demand consideration. Both the tomb’s plan and the foreign elements it admits suggest an even more pointed chronological positioning of Petosiris and his relatives. By choosing to emulate for his tomb the form of Nectanebo’s temple of Thoth and by accessing Egyptian style and subject for the decoration of the chapel of his father and brother, Petosiris recalls not

THE AFTERLIFE OF THE TOM B OF PETOSIRIS

During the Ptolemaic period, as attested by graffiti and dipinti,293 the tomb of Petosiris became a site of pilgrimage for Greeks and Egyptians, and in the Roman period, it became a place of further burial.294 Most inscriptions incised or painted on the tomb of Petosiris preserve only the signatures of pilgrims, but even these provide

48

DEATH, BILINGUALISM , AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE ‘EVENTIDE’ OF EGYPT

and the centerpiece for tombs that clustered against it.302 Recalling earlier Third Intermediate Period royal burials within the temenoi of temples,303 the tomb of Petosiris became a place for the disposition of mummified dead. They were placed in the chapel of the tomb, and both ends of the pronaos were closed off by brick walls to form tombs to hold further bodies of the mummified deceased (see Fig. 1.1). Concurrently, an altar was fashioned between the two newly constructed chambers to accommodate a space for funerary and commemorative rites.304 The lintel of the left collective tomb preserved an epitaph with the name Onnophris,305 which is identifiably Egyptian,306 and the lintel of the right-hand chamber bore the name of the deceased as Hermaios, a name, ´ in this case, rooted in Greek and, according to Etienne Bernand, one “characteristic of a cult devoted to ThothHermes at Hermopolis Magna.”307 Around and against the tomb of Petosiris, further tombs were built, and those on the west side were sufficiently preserved to yield their domed form, mummies with plaster masks, and their epitaphs, which indicate the deceased as devotees of Thoth.308 The contiguity of tombs to that of Petosiris and the names of the deceased confirm that as late as the Roman period the tomb of Petosiris remained central to his cult in Hermopolis Magna, where he was associated with both Thoth and Hermes. Petosiris’ heroic stature – appearing relatively shortly after his death – continued well into the Roman period among the multicultural population of GraecoRoman Egypt.

welcome information about the dedicator’s identity or his family ties: Aristion the peddler,295 for example, indicates the devotion of a Greek (or at least a man bearing a traditionally Greek name) to the hero Petosiris. Phibis, son of Apollo,296 despite his father’s hellenized name, bears a name incorporating the ibis of the titular Egyptian deity at the site, and Psenthotis integrates the name of the deity himself.297 Persians also paid homage to Petosiris. An inscription painted on one of the engaged columns near the entrance to the tomb commemorates the visit of “the slaves [παῖδες] of Mithron,” who visited the sanctuary (τ`o ἱερόv). Though inscribed in the third century bce, well after Alexander had delivered Egypt from Persia, Mithron’s name suggests a worshiper of Mithra – still then specifically a Persian deity – and thus a Persian.298 The most important dedicatory inscription identified on the tomb, however, is one drawn on a column on the east side of the tomb’s facade. It dates to the middle of the third century bce,299 and it stands as the earliest Greek inscription in Egypt to address immortality.300 It reads: “I address these words to Petosiris whose body lies under the earth, but who reposes in reality among the gods. A wise man, he lives among wise men.”301

By the middle of the third century bce, Petosiris could be spoken of in Greek as a hero who dwelt among the gods. By the end of the first century bce, the tomb of Petosiris had been refashioned into both a burial ground

49

t wo

Egypt as Metaphor Visual Bilingualism in the Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria

I

n 331 bce, on a limestone ridge bounded by nile-fed lake mareotis to the south and the Mediterranean Sea to the north, Alexander the Great founded the Egyptian city that was to bear his name.309 Alexandria was conceived as a Greek city, and so it remained throughout the period of Roman rule. Poised on the edge of Egypt, it became known as “Alexandria ad Aegyptum,” Alexandria by (or near) Egypt. As the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt and the seat of the prefect after Egypt’s conquest by Rome, Alexandria remained culturally aloof from other polities of Graeco-Roman Egypt, and its tombs reflect its special status.

Newly forged, Alexandria was a fabricated polity.310 Constitutionally fashioned as a Greek polis, it claimed the political machinery integral to a democracy despite the autocratic reality of regal power.311 The city boasted a citizen body (the demos), a civic law code, an assembly (ecclesia), a council (boule), a board of magistrates (prytanies), and a body of elders (gerousia),312 and its citizens were accorded a fictive past with their division – modeled on Athens – into phyles, demes, and phratries.313 Upon his conquest of Egypt, Augustus reorganized the demes,314 and under Roman rule, the tribes (phyles) were renamed,315 but throughout the period of Roman rule, tribal and deme membership still constituted the basis for Alexandrian citizenship. Alexandrian citizenship, as a hereditary institution, thus played a defining role in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Alexandrian citizens (as those of the Greek cities of Ptolemais and Naukratis and, after its foundation by Hadrian, Antino¨opolis) enjoyed special economic and legal privileges. They were, for example, exempt from taxes that burdened other inhabitants of Roman Egypt and that also acted as a social determinative to designate the others’ lower status.316 Most significant, however, was that until the third century ce, Alexandrian citizens were the only non-Roman inhabitants of Egypt who could claim the prestige of Roman citizenship.317 These

privileges, which positioned the citizens of Alexandria as a superior social class, permitted Alexandrian tombs to develop differently from other tombs in Graeco-Roman Egypt, on the one hand, and, on the other, were keenly recognized by Greek inhabitants of the Egyptian chora, who expressed their conversance with the social hierarchy in the decoration of their own monumental tombs as discussed in Chapter Three. In addition to its Greek system of governance, Alexandria offered a Classically inspired physical presence. Laid out on a Greek Hippodamian plan,318 the city contained the Greek elements of an agora (Arr. An. 3.1.5), a theater, a council hall (bouleuterion),319 law courts, a gymnasium, and, by the Roman period, a hippodrome and an armory (Philo, Flacc. 92), as well as temples to Greek gods (Strabo 17.1.9–10). Though Rome’s conquest of Egypt changed both the political administration of the polity and the governance of Alexandria,320 and the ensuing centuries of Roman rule added monuments that provided a contemporary cast to the urban landscape of the city, the language, ethnic priority, intellectual life, and identity of the city remained culturally Greek.321 Its famed library founded under Ptolemy I Soter (305/4– 283 bce) drew intellectuals to the city, as did its daughter libraries in the Caesareum and the Serapeum, and lecture

50

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

narratives, and signs to express their own Greek eschatological necessities. Greeks early recognized the primacy Egypt held in mortuary religion, and its authority is encapsulated by Herodotus.329 In Book II of his Histories, Herodotus, who visited Egypt between 449 and 430 bce,330 frequently privileges the antiquity of Egyptians over that of Greeks, especially in the realm of religion. “[Egyptians] are beyond measure religious, more than any other nation,” Herodotus (II.37) writes. He adds (Hdt. II.4) that Egyptians were the first to use the term twelve gods,331 that many of the names of Greek gods come from Egypt (Hdt. II.50; 52; 54), including that of Herakles (Hdt. II.43),332 and that from Egypt came the oracle of Zeus at Dodona in Greece (Hdt. II.54). Herodotus (II.49) credits the origin of Dionysiac ritual to Egypt, as well as divination from the entrails of sacrificial animals (Hdt. II.58). It was the Egyptians, Herodotus (II.64) continues, who first forbade intercourse with women in temples, obviating the hieros gamos and the more generalized temple prostitution of their Eastern neighbors,333 a proscription encapsulated in the Greek myth of Tydeus and Ismene. Herodotus (II.85–89) devotes four chapters to Egyptian mourning customs and embalming and says that Egyptians were the first to teach that the human soul is immortal (II.123).334 The general privileging of Egypt in all matters religious, regardless of the veracity of these claims, and the antiquity claimed by Herodotus for Egypt in these matters instructed the educated Greek population and strongly informs the incorporation of Egyptian elements into the decoration of the monumental tombs of Alexandrian Greeks. In Alexandria, the inclusion of Egyptian elements into an otherwise classicizing tomb acts as a further means of ensuring a blessed afterlife for the inhabitants of these tombs.

halls discovered in the center of the city signal a continued intellectual presence in Alexandria through the Late Antique.322 In accordance with the classicizing intellectual and physical vista of the city, Alexandria’s monumental tombs also assume a Graeco-Roman visage. Deeply cut into the nummulitic limestone, Ptolemaic-period tombs are multiroom buildings accessed by a staircase and often built around an open courtyard, so that they were easily visible from above. Though in its aggregate the Alexandriantype tomb follows no earlier Greek model, it nevertheless incorporates conceptual inspiration from Macedonia;323 klinai, for example, – which trebled in Greece as a bed, bier,324 and banqueting couch – are cut to lay out the dead, permitting them to join in the funerary banquet. Walls of Alexandrian tombs are decorated in both the Greek zone style325 and the Greek masonry style,326 and architectural components – columns, capitals, and entablature friezes – all follow Greek architectural principles. Roman-period Alexandrian tombs conform to the Ptolemaic model. They too are multiroom tombs, rock cut, and entered through a staircase. Roman-period tombs, however, often dispense with the kline and its niche and substitute instead a triclinium-shaped chamber (or chambers) with trabeated or arctuated niches formed by cutting Roman-type sarcophagi into the fabric of the room. Only in the Roman Imperial period and in Latin is a bed differentiated from a banqueting couch – lectus cubicularis, for the one, and lectus triclinaris for the other – 327 so the introduction of the triclinium-shaped chamber in Roman-period tombs does not merely indicate a contemporary emendation of the banqueting metaphor, but reflects a semantic change, ensuring that a banqueting couch is recognized as the intended allusion. Despite this inherent classicism, an innate selfconfidence in their Hellenic identity born from their privileged social position in Ptolemaic Egypt early permitted Alexandrians to admit Egyptian elements into their burial monuments. Almost from their inception in the late-fourth or early-third century bce, Alexandrian monumental tombs incorporate Egypt. Loculi, the long, narrow burial slots for inhumation and cremation burials that perforate the walls of even the earliest Alexandrian tombs, have their genesis in Egypt,328 and at least as early as the third century bce, figurative Egyptian elements invade the otherwise Classical fabric of the monumental tomb. During the period of Roman rule, Alexandrians adopted further Egyptian architectural elements, motifs,

PTOLEM AIC-PERIOD TOM BS

The earliest Ptolemaic tomb that best exemplifies the underlying model for Alexandrian tombs, as well as their burgeoning bilingualism, is Hypogeum A in the cemetery at Chatby,335 which hugs the coast just beyond the putative line of the eastern wall of ancient Alexandria. Only slightly later than the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, Hypogeum A is probably to be dated no later than 280 bce.336 It is the earliest fully realized monumental tomb extant in Alexandria, and it is directly ancestral to all later Alexandrian monumental tombs. Like later Alexandrian

51

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.1. Alexandria, Hypogeum A, Plan (after Adriani 1966: pl. 44, fig. 168)

tombs, it held multiple burials, which stretched over a number of generations.

plinth is incised vertically to indicate individual blocks, and, above it, yellow orthostats are capped with a blue string course, carved in low relief, and a white painted frieze. The walls of the anteroom and the court are both enlivened by engaged Doric half-columns, carved with their lower sections plain and their upper sections fluted – an early example of the horizontally divided, partially fluted column.339 Strikingly, and preserved in no other Alexandrian tomb, the interstices between the columns were painted light blue to simulate an airy vista, and to add further veracity to the trompe l’oeil effect, garlands were painted as strung between the columns of the court and birds were depicted fluttering against the blue sky.340 Even more strikingly, on the south wall of the anteroom, fictive windows with shutters painted yellow against the blue enliven the wall (See Fig. 2.2). The stone around the ‘window’ itself is cut obliquely, permitting the second ‘shutter’ to be placed at a diagonal angle to the stone’s surface,341 and giving the impression that someone has just lazily pushed a shutter ajar, thus populating the uninhabited anteroom with a human agent similarly to the empty court having been brought alive by painted birds. The long walls of the burial room are each punctuated by five engaged Ionic columns visually supporting an entablature capped with dentils near the springing of the

Hypogeum A Hypogeum A assumes the form of a multichambered tomb accessible by a stairway (no longer extant) cut down through the living rock (Fig. 2.1). It is architecturally articulated and illusionistically painted to re-create a monumental building with a court open to the sky around which the burial chambers and subsidiary rooms are arranged, and its walls are embellished in both Greek masonry- and zone-style.337 Both types of wall decoration divide the surface into a low plinth, a high zone of orthostats, a narrow string course, a main zone of isodomic blocks, and a narrow upper frieze,338 and almost all the architectonically treated walls in Ptolemaic-period Alexandrian tombs conform to this general type, as – more surprisingly – do many Roman-period tombs in the chora (see Chapter Five). Though the ultimate form of Hypogeum A finds no model in Greece, itself, the individual architectural elements of which it is composed are of pure Greek descent. The walls of the anteroom preceding the open court are treated in the plastic Greek masonry-style (Fig. 2.2). The

52

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.2. Alexandria, Hypogeum A, Reconstruction of the South Wall of the Anteroom (after Adriani 1966: pl. 45, fig. 171)

more complicated visual bilingualism than that encountered in the former tomb. Moustapha Pasha 1, better preserved upon its excavation than Hypogeum A, was early reconstructed. Though other tombs in Alexandria were certainly as opulent,346 Moustapha Pasha 1’s wealth of original detail and careful restoration ensure that it serves as the poster-child for early Ptolemaic Alexandrian tombs.347 It is most likely that the tomb dates somewhat before the middle of the third century bce,348 and it exemplifies the maturation of the original model characterized by Hypogeum A. Like Hypogeum A, Moustapha Pasha 1 is a multiroom construction built around an open court (Fig. 2.3). A rock-cut stairway enters the court at the north end of the west wall, and rooms open from the court’s south and north walls. Centering the court is an altar that still preserved the ashes of the last sacrifice when it was excavated.349 The burial room is to the south of the court, with its kline niche preceded by an anteroom accessible through any of the three doorways cut into the court’s south wall. Although no remains of a kline are evident, the kline room’s architecturally articulated doorway finds a parallel in the kline chamber in Moustapha Pasha Tomb 2, and its richly painted interior and the low platform set at its entrance as a base for the trapeza (a small table) that stood before the kline – which can be reconstructed by the trapeza extant in front of the kline in Moustapha Pasha 2350 – solidify the chamber’s function.351 To further emphasize the metaphorical purpose of the rock-cut banquette, klinai in Moustapha Pasha 2

low-vaulted ceiling. On the far, short wall of the room, an Ionic doorway leads into the kline chamber. The latter holds two kline-sarcophagi set at right angles to one another,342 an arrangement known from Macedonian tombs and others,343 but so far exceptional in Alexandria. Greek dining rooms (unlike Roman triclinia) admitted a varying number of couches, which were arranged around the periphery of the room – set head to foot abutting one another and fitted into the corners of the room – a model followed by the two kline-sarcophagi in Hypogeum A.344 Despite the Greek architectural envelope of Hypogeum A, however, and the Greek kline-sarcophagi, the tomb’s primary burial room and its somewhat later subsidiary burial rooms are cut with loculi for the disposition of the greater number of the dead. In fact, unpretentious chamber tombs in early Alexandrian cemeteries also admit loculi cut into the walls. Though a pragmatic necessity for the disposition of multiple dead, loculi mark the earliest intrusion of an Egyptian element into the otherwise Classically based Alexandrian tomb. Of much greater relevance, however, to the thesis of the bilingual nature of Alexandrian tombs are the tombs that follow from Hypogeum A. The Tombs at Moustapha Pasha Also to the east of Alexandria, but more distant from the city than Hypogeum A, the tombs at Moustapha Pasha (in the quarter now renamed Moustapha Kamel345 ) provide a

53

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.3. Alexandria, Moustapha Pasha 1, Plan (after Adriani 1966: pl. 48, fig. 181)

and Moustapha Pasha 3 add footstools carved in high relief.352 These domestic appointments remove the kline (and the kline-sarcophagus) from a primary function as a bier. They further confirm the evidence yielded by the arrangement of the kline-sarcophagi in Hypogeum A that situate the couches in the realm of the banquet of (or with) the dead. As in all Alexandrian tombs, the architectural details of Moustapha Pasha 1 are Greek (Fig. 2.4 and Fig. 2.5). The doors in the court are each formed of two uprights crowned by a projecting short cornice decorated with superimposed bands of plastically rendered Lesbianleaf, Ionic egg-and-dart, and Doric-tongue ornament. Though unusual in Alexandrian tombs – and possibly an artifact of the tomb’s early date – as in Hypogeum A, the walls of the court are conceived in Greek masonrystyle; as also in Hypogeum A, they are further punctuated by engaged, horizontally divided, partially fluted Doric columns. At each corner of the court, these columns

become heart- or ivy-leaf-shaped in section, assuming a form probably of East Greek origin,353 to bridge the angle. Above the Doric columns is a Doric frieze with three metopes within each intercolumniation on the north and south sides of the court and two on the east and west. The three-metope wide intercolumniation on the walls of the court that open onto rooms conforms to the established practice in Greek stoas and theater buildings. This configuration is used to retain reasonable proportions for both the metopes and the architrave in a situation in which, on the one hand, the column diameter is relatively small because the columns are relatively short and, on the other, the intercolumniation has to be relatively wide to accommodate pedestrian traffic.354 Yet within this fully understood Greek architectural framework, Moustapha Pasha 1 incorporates the earliest example of figurative Egyptian content in an Alexandrian tomb.

54

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.4. Alexandria, Moustapha Pasha 1, the South Wall and the Altar (Author Photo)

This nascent bilingualism is telling both in its sophistication and in its form. In front of the south facade of the court of Moustapha 1, sphinxes crouch on pedestals guarding the entrances to the burial chamber (see Fig. 2.5). Yet though the sphinx is a very old Greek guardian of the tomb,355 the Moustapha Pasha sphinxes are not Greek sphinxes, which are normally winged and female and sit back on their haunches with their forelegs firmly planted, as does, for example, the sphinx that queries Oedipus in Chapter Three. Egyptian sphinxes are notably different: they perform a different function, assume a different gender, and strike a different pose. They are not tomb guardians but instead are connected with royal power, and they are normally male, unwinged, and crouch like lions. Yet though the sphinxes in the Moustapha Pasha tomb function as Greek sphinxes, in form, pose, and attribute they replicate those of Egypt. Crouched like Egyptian sphinxes and wingless like Egyptian sphinxes, their gender indeterminate, they wear the royal nemes headcloth of Egyptian pharaohs. Similar sphinxes once guarded the Hellenically styled doorway to the first suite of burial

rooms of the Alexandrian tomb Anfushy II, on Pharos Island, and they were also set in front of the egyptianized doorway between its anteroom and burial room (Rooms 1 and 2).356 With sophisticated efficiency, these sphinxes incorporate the efficacy of Egyptian antiquity into their Greek visual synonym, and by means of this Egyptian reference, they create a new, more greatly nuanced, and doubly efficacious image of supernatural protection for this monumental tomb. Concurrently, with their nemes headdresses and their reference to Egyptian royalty, these sphinxes add a regal note to tombs in which no royalty were interred. The Tombs of Pharos Island The sphinxes that inhabit Anfushy Tomb II mark only one contribution to the bilingualism that informs the Alexandrian tombs of Pharos Island. Once connected to the mainland by the manmade Heptastadion and now a peninsula north of the mainland, Pharos Island is named after the lighthouse, one of the seven wonders of the

55

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

Obviating any possibility of these tombs being those of Egyptians native to Pharos Island as argued by Achille Adriani,359 Anfushy tombs retain their Graeco-Roman underpinning well into the first century ce. Room 3 of Anfushy Tomb I,360 for example, the only tomb that is significantly reconfigured architecturally, is refashioned with three brick-built sarcophagi forming the metaphorical triclinium that Roman-period Alexandrian tombs adopt for their burial room as they architecturally transform the earlier Greek banqueting metaphor of the kline to a form paradigmatic of the Roman period. Anfushy I.3 preserves this change from the Greek to the Roman dining format in material form. This architectural change, as well as showing a continuity in classicizing style, also underscores the importance of the banqueting metaphor in the conception of the Alexandrian tomb, a theme that is further explored later. In addition to the architectural transformation in Anfushy Tomb I, the original decoration of the other tombs at Anfushy also demonstrates their Classical heritage. Their walls are decorated in Greek zone-style, as seen earlier in Hypogeum A, with a socle, a course of orthostats treated – as is normal in Alexandria – as if made of alabaster, a string course, and a main frieze painted to simulate isodomic blocks. Ceilings of the rooms are most often painted to simulate coffered blocks, also a Classical reference. Yet despite their Hellenic heritage, Egyptian decorative elements are incorporated into the tombs at Anfushy, either applied later or integrated into the original Hellenic decorative scheme. One of the anterooms (Room 1) of Anfushy Tomb 361 II, for example, preserves this change in the renovation of the main frieze region of its zone-style wall (Pl. IV). In its original state, the main frieze had been painted to simulate ashlar masonry, as in other Alexandrian tombs; in a second phase, however, the main frieze was repainted with a checker pattern in black and white with Egyptian crowns painted on white ‘plaques’ set within the checkerboard of the wall. The string course and upper frieze of the original Greek zone-style wall were also refashioned with the checker pattern, but the orthostats were repainted to appear as the original alabaster and the coffered ceiling remained unchanged. The same checkered pattern is also applied to the tomb’s burial room (Room 2), which was previously undecorated and in which the checker-pattern covers the entire wall.362 As in the antechamber, the checkers are interrupted by plaques painted with Egyptian crowns; in addition, on the entrance wall, a plaque to either side of the doorway

2.5. Alexandria, Moustapha Pasha 1, the South Wall, Detail of the Sphinxes (Author Photo)

ancient world, that stood at its eastern tip.357 The monumental tombs of Pharos Island, those at Anfushy and those on the grounds of the former palace at Ras el Tin, occupy the western part of the peninsula with Anfushy as the farther west of the two complexes. First cut in the second century bce, these tombs actively demonstrate Alexandrian bilingualism and the conceptual and visual richness that results, though – aside from the sphinxes in Anfushy II – their strategies differ from those devised for Moustapha Pasha 1. Accessed by a covered stair and built around an open court like Hypogeum A and the Moustapha Pasha tombs, the tombs at Anfushy and Ras el Tin follow similar, though reduced, plans to those encountered in earlier Alexandrian tombs. Extending from the open court are one or two suites of rooms, in each of which a long anteroom precedes a smaller burial chamber. Rock-cut klinai are rare in Pharos Island tombs,358 and it is probable that in most tombs wooden klinai served in their place.

56

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.6. Alexandria, Ras el Tin 8 Kline Niche (after Venit 2002: 72, fig. 55)

bears a painted jackal, which faces the entrance and guards the burial room as jackals do on the seals of the necropolis in pharaonic Egypt,363 though the Anfushy jackals sit alertly upright like Greek sphinxes.364 The same checker decoration is found in the kline room of Ras el Tin 8 (Fig. 2.6), which also has two large plaques incorporated in the design, and in Anfushy V365 (Pl. V), though in both tombs, the checkered pattern coexists with contemporaneously painted Greek-style elements. The checker motif, as first noted by Rudolf Pagenstecher,366 was intended to simulate faience tiles, a decorative wall treatment historically tied to Egypt. Faience tiles appear in Egypt as early as Dynasty I,367 but they are most frequently attested in the New Kingdom where they are found in palace context.368 In these palaces, faience tiles can bear figurative subjects ranging from delicately rendered vegetative and faunal elements to descriptively faithful portrayals of foreign peoples;

therefore, though, so far as I know, the specific subjects of the mimetic faience plaques on the walls of Anfushy Tomb II are unattested in extant New Kingdom material, in their ideation the figured faience plaques also find a pharaonic model, and that model is a royal one. Actual glazed faience tiles are also found in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Sixty faience squares were excavated in Alexandria’s Royal Quarter, and, although their specific architectural context is unclear, their findspot argues for their having embellished some part of the palace complex at about the same time that Anfushy Tomb II was redecorated.369 Their findspot consequently argues that the faience tile retained the Egyptian palatial connotation that it carried in the pharaonic period, and it constitutes the strongest argument against identifying this culturally Egyptian material in the Ptolemaic period solely with peoples that are ethnically Egyptian. In a tomb complex, such as the one at Anfushy, that normally shuns

57

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.7. Alexandria, Anfushy II.1, Egyptianizing Doorway (Author Photo)

figurative content and relies on illusionistic architecture to make its statement, the faience tiles must stand (as they undoubtedly do in the Ptolemaic palace) as a referent for Egypt. Like the crouched royal sphinxes that guard the doorways to the burial rooms at Moustapha Pasha Tomb 1 and Anfushy II, the faience tiles in the tombs on Pharos Island articulate the intention to entomb the dead within a complex with regal implications. At the same time as the refurbishing of the walls of Anfushy II, the doorway between the anteroom and the burial room was reconfigured from a Greek doorway to an egyptianizing one (Fig. 2.7). The redesigned door enclosure boasts Egyptian varicolored columns crowned with papyriform capitals supporting an Egyptian segmental pediment with a central disc and a broken lintel, which is applied to the door frame about halfway up. In contrast, Anfushy V, which also presents two types of simultaneously constructed ethnically specific doorways, admits this bilingual decoration contemporaneously. The entrance to one of the anterooms of Anfushy V (Room 4), for example, is effected through an architecturally

egyptianizing doorway, whereas the embrasure between the anteroom and its burial chamber (Room 5) is hellenizing with white uprights crowned by a molding of brightly painted Lesbian leaf (see Pl. V). Probably at the same time in the first century bce that Anfushy II was redecorated, three egyptianizing paintings were added to the otherwise Greek-style walls of the staircase. Two are extant; one is set into the main frieze on the first landing at the bottom of the first flight of stairs, and the second is placed in the semicircular space created by the vaulted ceiling at the end of the second flight of stairs immediately before the doglegged entrance to the court. Because the tombs on Pharos Island generally reject figurative imagery in favor of architectural iconography, the paintings of Anfushy Tomb II are notable. The painting at the bottom of the second stairway is the less well preserved of the two. At the right of the panel, a figure of Osiris is seated to the left on a throne with a jackal seated upright on a stand behind him. Any figures facing Osiris are no longer visible, but Adriani identified

58

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.8. Alexandria, Anfushy II, the Painting on the Upper Landing of the Staircase (Author Photo)

representation, in which deities lack attributes or in which attributes are awarded cavalierly without respect to tradition, is an aspect that more greatly invades Alexandrian mortuary representation during the period of Roman rule. In both the Ptolemaic and the Roman period, however, this pervasiveness of a generalized iconographic treatment indicates, at once, the efficacy of the egyptianized image itself, independent of the veracity of its precise form or the specificity of its narrative, and the disinclination of Alexandrian Greeks to depict traditional Egyptian narrative. As shall become clear, the lustration of the dead is the only certain exception to this generalization, with the image at the bottom of the staircase of Anfushy Tomb II providing a possible anomaly. The tombs on Pharos Island, which may begin as tombs based fully on Hellenic components, evolve into ones that are architecturally (and in the case of Anfushy II, pictorially) bilingual. The elements that are chosen from the Egyptian architectural vocabulary to construct this bilingualism indicate that this linguistic choice is employed to speak to the fabricated regal status of the deceased entombed within the monuments, as well as to the efficacy of Egyptian mortuary religion.

the figure immediately in front of Osiris as the dead man,370 and he saw another figure, which he identified as Horus.371 If Adriani’s identifications of the missing figures are correct, this painting is an exceptional example in recorded Alexandrian tombs, since it would have presented an actual Egyptian eschatological narrative beyond that of the singularly frequently depicted lustration of the mummy. The image on the first landing is better preserved and less exceptional within the Alexandrian corpus (Fig. 2.8). It shows the dead person welcomed by Egyptian deities. The figures are presented in a reasonably accurate, although generalized, Egyptian form and stand in the composite Egyptian pose. Their skin is painted the gold color reserved for the gods, but, aside from Horus at the left, whose falcon-headed form is immediately readable, they lack identifying attributes. Horus stands with his right hand upraised and his left poised on the back of the deceased. The deceased faces away from Horus toward the two figures at the left. He is garbed in an ankle-length garment, intricately arranged across his torso, and he wears an elaborate pectoral; his hair is styled in a conventional Egyptian manner.372 This mode of

59

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

of Pan set in a woodland enclosure (Fig. 2.9). On the wall perpendicular to that one, and on what must have been the jamb leading into a second room, a shepherd overlooks his flock (Fig. 2.10), painted below, and protects it from the lurking jackal at the bottom of the picture. He holds an animal across his shoulders and stands in an easy chiastic pose. The scene finds a close visual parallel in an image of Herakles from Tomb 3 at Ras el Tin (Fig. 2.11), which also decorated a door jamb and which also is divided horizontally into two halves. Below the Ras el Tin Herakles (though not extant on the slab transported to the museum), a hoopoe perches on a plant,375 while above, the hero dominates the jamb – as does the shepherd – although Herakles stands in a much less convincing pose. The images in the S¯aqiya Tomb are constructed using varying thicknesses of wash, and the details are quickly sketched with pen-like calligraphic lines. Their disposition follows that of contemporaneous (and earlier) Greek works: the oxen in the s¯aqiya scene are rendered in three-quarter view, and the shepherd stands in an easy weight-leg, free-leg stance. The style of all the scenes in the S¯aqiya Tomb is undeniably Greek, and its content – with the exception of the waterwheel itself, which is a Hellenistic invention – is found in the Greek visual repertoire as early as the sixth century bce. In concert with the Classical style of the figures on the walls of the court, the burial chamber incorporates facing klinai each set into an arcosolium.376 Arcosolia (arcuated niches) characterize Roman-period and, later, Christian tombs throughout the Mediterranean world, and the S¯aqiya Tomb’s arcosolia are among the earliest. Painted on the back wall of the niche formed by the klinai are birds (reminiscent of the avian treatment in the court of Hypogeum A), and fictive columns create the impression of a third dimension, as in Ras el Tin 8 (see Fig. 2.6). On the back wall of the kline chamber itself, a male reclines under a fruited arbor (Fig. 2.12). Nevertheless, within this exceptionally Classical tomb, two elements conjoin to add the S¯aqiya Tomb to the inventory of Alexandrian bilingual monuments. First is the painting on the facade of a kline-sarcophagus cut into the court directly across from the s¯aqiya scene (Pl. VII). Conceptually similar to the cross-bred sphinxes in Moustapha Pasha 1, it presents another ancient creature, at once recognizable as an Egyptian ba-bird by the papyrus on which it perches and the nemes headcloth and the uraeus that it wears (neither of which, however, truly follows an Egyptian model) and as a Greek siren, which

2.9. Alexandria, the S¯aqiya Tomb, the Herm in the Court (Author Photo)

The S¯aqiya Tomb Even the most classicizing of the later Ptolemaic-period tombs, the S¯aqiya Tomb373 from the modern quarter of Wardian – part of ancient Alexandria’s western necropolis – also admits Egyptian elements. When discovered, only the court, a kline room, and the remains of another room that abutted the court were at all preserved.374 The surviving painted slabs, which form a unique ensemble, were subsequently hewn from the bedrock and installed in the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria. The tomb takes its name from the water-lifting device in the largest remaining painting in the court that shows a piping boy walking around a s¯aqiya, accompanying the oxen that turn the wheel (Pl. VI). Painted on the short wall perpendicular to the s¯aqiya scene is a bearded herm

60

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.10. Alexandria, the S¯aqiya Tomb, the Shepherd on the Jamb from the Court into an Adjoining Room (Author Photo)

since at least the early fifth century bce has also had funerary connotations.377 The Egyptian ba and the Greek siren are visually similar, but eschatologically distant. The siren, figured on vases – where it stands on the grave mound – and on grave stelai,378 is a protector of the tomb. The ba-bird is not. One of the constituent parts of a human being, the ba is an active element and therefore articulated in hieroglyphs as a heron and figured in imagery as a humanheaded bird.379 The ba, usually translated as the soul, becomes especially important upon the death of the body. It is similar to the Greek ‘free soul’ (psyche) that leaves the body at death,380 but the ba, which also leaves the body of the deceased to roam about the celestial and underworld regions, must – unlike the Greek psyche – nightly reunite

2.11. Alexandria, Ras el Tin 3, Herakles Soter (Author Photo)

with the body to preserve the unity of the deceased. The ba is not a guardian of the deceased body, as the siren is, but provides the body with “life-giving connectivity.”381 The form and the funerary connotations of the Greek siren may well originally have been imported from Egypt,382 but the S¯aqiya Tomb’s soul-bird has acquired an occupational aspect from its Greek residence, since on the sarcophagus – where another ba-bird must have decorated the lost right side383 – it serves as a guardian for the deceased interred within. The oversized ba-bird with its fierce frown on the facade of S¯aqiya Tomb sarcophagus assumes the form of an Egyptian soul-bird, but it functions protectively as a Greek siren.

61

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.12. Alexandria, the S¯aqiya Tomb, Reclining Male on the Back Wall of the Kline Room (Author Drawing)

Despite the Egyptian form and the egyptianized style the image adopts, however, details such as the thin washes of color and the fine, black, pen-like calligraphic lines that characterize the other paintings from the court reveal that the ba-bird (or siren) is by the same hand that painted the other images in the tomb and thus coeval with the remainder of the painted program. The integration of the Greek siren with the Egyptian soul-bird in the S¯aqiya Tomb accords with the treatment of the sphinxes in Moustapha Pasha Tomb 1 and Anfushy II and argues for a dual reference inhabiting the heretofore culturally specific eschatological signs. In addition, the presence of this creature in this otherwise overwhelmingly classicizing tomb underscores the importance of the inclusion of the egyptianizing content throughout the tombs of Alexandria. The second egyptianizing element in the S¯aqiya Tomb is found in the remains of a room adjacent to the court384 : its wall is designed in Greek zone-style with a plinth, orthostat blocks painted to appear as alabaster, and a main frieze, but the latter is decorated with a black-and-white checker pattern similar to that of the repainted walls in Anfushy Tomb II, and the original walls in Anfushy V and

Ras el Tin 8. This simulation of faience tiles associates the S¯aqiya Tomb from Wardian in Alexandria’s western cemetery with tombs on Pharos Island,385 reemphasizing the Greek patronage of the former tombs. More important for the theme of this chapter, however, the checker decoration of the zone-style wall, as in the tombs on Pharos Island, incorporates Egypt, indicating an intentional bilingualism in a tomb in which the great majority of the imagery is in a style that evokes the Hellenic world. The S¯aqiya Tomb is bilingual in yet another way, since the landscapes also can be read to embrace both Greek and Egyptian eschatological viewpoints. They act, as do the poems in the tomb of Isidora (discussed in Chapter Three), to embrace both cultures by employing references culturally specific to each. I have previously argued386 that the S¯aqiya Tomb’s landscapes perfectly parallel those evoked in the shepherd’s song in the First Idyll of Theocritus – the poet-in-residence in the Ptolemaic court in the 270s – as articulated by Charles Segal,387 and I have also argued that these landscapes in the S¯aqiya Tomb (as those in Theocritus’ poem) can be interpreted metaphorically to address the range of human experience.

62

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

The first two landscapes – those of the s¯aqiya and the herm – express the polarities of the human psyche. Civilization, and the triumph of culture, is epitomized in the land that is brought under human control by the invention of the s¯aqiya, while the untamed aspect of the human condition is delineated in the woodland sanctuary of the rustic, semi-goatlike Pan. Between these two extremes stands the third image: the shepherd guarding his flock. The pastoral land he exemplifies mediates between the cultivated and the undomesticated, for it is at once beneficial to humankind, since it supports his flocks, and yet it lies unaltered by human intervention. Thus, the three paintings of the court embrace the complexity of nature in its relationship to humankind. And, in doing so, they also speak to Egypt. S. C. Humphreys388 has proposed that the thrice-yearly harvest in the Egyptian Isles of the Blest indicates not only perpetual abundance but also an unchanging state that echoes the timelessness of the existence of the dead. The paintings in the S¯aqiya Tomb may be intended to evoke a similar metaphor, as they too denote a fully rounded vision of the completeness and the permanence of nature and, by extension, the immutable eternal life of the deceased buried within the monument. Thus, though in ways distinct from one another, the S¯aqiya Tomb and the tombs from Pharos Island, continue, amplify, and further nuance the bilingual quality of Ptolemaic-period Alexandrian tombs.

the latter that are of immediate interest here – the socalled Nebengrab and the Great Catacomb. The ‘Nebengrab’ (so-called for its proximity to the better known ‘Great Catacomb’ at Kom el-Shoqafa) or, alternatively, the ‘Hall of Caracalla’ (called so, based on dubious historical interpretation),391 is now accessible from the Great Catacomb through a tomb-robbers’ hole in the bedrock. Originally a small independent catacomb accessible by a staircase, it consists of a corridor with a large room of neatly cut loculi at its end and two short corridors parallel to one another containing rock-cut sarcophagi that create niches – an early form of arcosolia, but with flat ceilings – that extend the conceit of the kline niche into the Roman period. The niches, with their triangularly shaped pediments supported by engaged piers, are conceived in Graeco-Roman architectural style. The paintings that once decorated the niches, pediments, and piers of the tombs are scarcely visible (or entirely lost) today, but upon the catacomb’s discovery in 1901, Giuseppe Botti was able to identify the faint image of the lustration of the mummy on Tomb ‘i,’392 and a watercolor in Theodor Schreiber’s monumental work preserves the decoration of Tomb ‘h,’ which shows confronted Graeco-Roman Nemesis sphinxes overseeing the tomb from their perch in the pediment and iconic Egyptian figures (including a ba-bird) on the piers and walls of the niche.393 Almost 100 years later, ultraviolet photo´ graphs taken under the auspices of the Centre d’Etudes Alexandrines clarified paintings on two other tombs in the adjacent corridor that humidity had dimly raised since the middle of the last century,394 which were published by Anne-Marie Guimer-Sorbets and Mervat Seif el-Din.395 The walls of the niches of these two tombs are each divided into two registers: the upper register is devoted to the myth of Osiris, the lower to that of Persephone (Fig. 2.13).396 The upper frieze of the tombs’ back walls shows the lustration of the mummy (read by the authors as the death of Osiris, though it may as likely refer to the death of the inhabitant of the sarcophagus assimilated to the deity). Below is a scene of the abduction of Persephone, a scene frequent in Roman-period tombs throughout the Empire, regardless of the gender of the deceased.397 The left wall of Tomb 2, and almost certainly the right wall of Tomb 1 (the lower part is destroyed by the robbers’ cut), present two more scenes – the upper interpreted by the authors as the resurrection of Osiris and, below, the anodos of Persephone partly risen from the earth, having finally been discharged from Hades for six months of the year. The latter is a scene rarely visualized in Greek or

ROM AN-PERIOD TOM BS

Whereas rumblings of bilingualism can be heard as early as the first extant monumental Alexandrian tombs, the practice fully erupts during the period of Roman rule. In the first two centuries of the Common Era, almost all Alexandrian tombs that are architecturally particularized or figurally enhanced show an intersection of carefully chosen Greek and Egyptian elements. I have devoted a chapter to this phenomenon in Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria,389 as well as an article,390 but I should like to revisit this curiosity to summarize previous thoughts and to offer new ideas on a subject that acts as a foundation for the appreciation of Roman-period Alexandrian tombs. The Bilingual Tombs in the ‘Nebengrab’ The hill called Kom el-Shoqafa (the ‘Hill of Sherds’) shelters both Christian and Roman-period tombs beneath its current domestic and commercial crust, and it is two of

63

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.13. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa ‘Nebengrab’ Persephone Tomb 2, the Back Wall of the Niche ´ (Centre d’Etudes Alexandrines [watercolor by Mary-Jane Schumacher, Photo by Andr´e Pelle, CNRS])

Roman art and almost unknown in sepulchral context elsewhere.398 The authors of the publications of the two Nebengrab tombs coined the term ‘bilingualism’ to describe the visual polarity of the tombs’ imagery, concomitant with the inherent code-switching of the ensemble:399 the death and resurrection of Osiris coupled with the abduction to the Underworld and subsequent return of Persephone present congruent narratives. Neither is a literal translation of the other; each makes its point within its native visual language and its native mortuary ideal. But the inherent meaning of each – so far as the deceased is concerned – is the essentially same: each denotes the continuation of life after death. Aside from the sophistication of the interlingual visual text that inhabits each of the two tombs, and even aside from the rarity of the anodos image of the ‘resurrected’ Persephone in mortuary context (occasioned here doubtless by the ‘resurrection’ image of Osiris and the necessity of parallelism), the scene of the abduction of Persephone carries another indication of the sophistication, as well as

the iconoclasm, of these Alexandrian monuments. And this is an aspect that the authors do not address. This facet is of major consequence, however, since it demonstrates the erudition, originality, and resourcefulness of the Alexandrian constituency in their approach to visual imagery, and it thus provides a firm basis from which to argue the intentionality of the examples of interaction proposed throughout this chapter. In both Nebengrab tombs, five characters populate the scene of the abduction of Persephone: Artemis (Diana), Athena (Minerva), Aphrodite (Venus), Hades (Pluto), and Persephone (Proserpina) herself. The iconographic trope of Hades seizing an unwilling Persephone and carrying her off in his chariot, her arms flailing, is a late addition to the visual description of the scene.400 Early fifth-century Attic vases normally show a pursuit on foot in the gods-pursuing-women motif, and, later, fourth-century Italic vases most often show Persephone as a compliant accessory to her abduction.401 The work closest to the model that is seen here, and throughout the Roman period, is embodied in the

64

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

painting in the Persephone tomb at Vergina that Manolis Andronikos argues was painted by Nikomachos preceding his portable painting of the same subject.402 The central image preserved in the Vergina tomb is duplicated on funerary monuments throughout the Roman world and also appears on Alexandrian coins of Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius.403 Well before the 1977 discovery of the Vergina tomb, scholars had long considered that a painting by Nikomachos, known from Pliny (NH 35.36.108), was the source for Roman representations of the subject. Carried off to Rome where it was displayed in the Temple of Minerva on the Capitoline, the painting probably perished in the fire of 64 ce during the reign of Nero.404 Since representations in Rome – especially a polychrome mosaic from a columbarium on the Via Portuensis,405 which preserves the nymph Kyane and her basket of flowers – so closely adhere to the Vergina painting,406 it is likely that the painting in Rome was a reliable analogue of the extant painting from Vergina, whose discovery, in turn, now provides concrete evidence for the model. Though the extant replicas of the painting seen by Pliny excavated in Rome usually read – as does the Vergina painting – from right to left,407 those from the eastern Roman Empire tend even more often to read – as do the two in Alexandria – from left to right. The change in direction may not be noteworthy, since – boustrophedon aside – writing was directed left to right, and this orientation may have seemed much more natural.408 Nevertheless, the directional change encountered outside Rome may hint at the motif’s means of transmission – that is, transference through the dissemination of cast objects. If the mold-maker failed to reverse the image, the ensuing object would carry the scene in reverse, as do the Alexandrian coins; the roughness of the Alexandrian paintings (and others in the Roman East; see Chapter Three) may in part stem from their reliance on a small-sized model. Nevertheless, the change in direction of the scene aside, the Alexandrian paintings do not faithfully follow the more usual model in another, more telling, detail. The image in the Vergina tomb incorporates Hermes leading the chariot and one of Persephone’s playmates, Kyane, still crouching near the flowers she had been picking. Other images of the story substitute Athena, or Athena and Artemis, for Persephone’s mortal companion or companions, based on the “Homeric Hymn to Demeter” (line 424), probably composed in the early sixth century bce, that numbers the two virgin deities among the maidens playing and gathering flowers in the

meadow. The two deities are specifically picked out by Euripides (Helen 1314–1318) and, later, Diodorus Siculus (V.4), which undoubtedly augments their visual frequency thereafter.409 The images in the two Alexandrian tombs, however, add the libertine Aphrodite to the two virgin deities elsewhere depicted. In this way, these tombs are almost unique in seemingly deriving their visual and textual source from one untapped by the other depictions of the subject. This combination of the three deities appears in only one other object known to me, a stone relief on Corfu that Ruth Lindner thinks may have once formed part of a statue base and that she is comfortable dating only to the “Imperial period” followed by a question mark.410 The difference in the group is slight: the figure of Aphrodite is reversed, but it achieves the same pose as the one in the Nebengrab with the goddess lifting her veil signifying the impending union. It is Aphrodite, Ovid (Met. 5.362–384) relates, who – galled by the virginity of Artemis and Athena and that of the virgin Kore, too – spurs on Eros to enrapture Hades. Aphrodite is occasionally pictured among the deities that witness the abduction of Persephone, but Lindner, who could not have known the Alexandria images, correctly notes in regard to the Corfu base that “the three-figure group of the playmates of Persephone, in this form, is unique.”411 She also observes that “the figure of Aphrodite, who steps majestically between the abduction and the pursuing sisters, is especially emphasized,”412 as she is in the Nebengrab’s Persephone tombs, where she is set slightly apart from Artemis and Athena and centered in the frieze. The image on the Corfu stone also differs from the Alexandrian paintings in adding the figure of Hermes leading Hades’ chariot, as in the Vergina tomb painting and others, and it also includes a stylized image of an oversized lotus below the chariot. The flower – which is alien to the physical setting of the narrative – and its formal treatment – which is incompatible with the naturalistic treatment of the scene – might suggest Alexandria as the source for the iconoclastic threesome. Nevertheless, despite these slight differences, the Corfu relief seemingly employs the same visual source as the two Alexandrian images that, though painted by different hands, stem from a single model, as GuimierSorbets has seen.413 Despite the incongruous lotus blossom, the original visual source for the image cannot be definitively traced. The literary source seems clearer, though its authorship and date are complicated. “While Proserpina was

65

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.14. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, Plan (after Adriani 1966: pl. 98, fig. 330)

probably known in some form before the mid-second century (obviating the early-third-century date some propose for the origin of the variation of the myth), and it would not be entirely irresponsible to speculate that the author of the Fables was an Alexandrian who compiled his work under Augustus. The central position that Aphrodite assumes in the images – despite Ovid’s version in which she embodies the fulcrum on which the narrative turns – may be tied to the originality of her role in the Fables, as understood and exploited by the creator of the model of the extant images. The use of this arcane version of the myth accords well with the rarified intellectual air that Alexandrians breathed daily and encapsulates the acuity that transfuses tomb programs in the Graeco-Roman capital of Egypt.

picking flowers [on Mount Aetna] with Venus, Diana, and Minerva,” Hyginus records (Fabulae 146.2), “Pluto came on a chariot and abducted her.”414 The Hyginus often attributed as the author (or compiler) of the Fables is Gaius Julius Hyginus, a freedman of Augustus – according to Suetonius (On Grammarians 20) – who was either a Spaniard or an Alexandrian and who became the librarian at the Palatine Library. But as noted by Jean-Yves Boriaud,415 “the problems of authorship had already been raised in the first modern edition of the text by Jacobus Mycillus in 1535, where he set them forth in terms that have scarcely been outdated.” Boriaud, who recently edited and translated the Latin text,416 opts for Suetonius’ Hyginus as the Fables’ author or, more correctly, its compiler,417 though others have argued on etymological and stylistic grounds for an early-third-century ce date for the work.418 Since the Fabulae appear to be a compilation of earlier sources, however, the specific time of its compilation is incidental to any argument about the primacy of any specific myth. The two Persephone tombs from Alexandria are loosely dated by the authors of their publication to the end-of-the-first through the middle-of-the-second century ce.419 They, and the undated relief from Corfu they bring with them, indicate that the myth that included Aphrodite among Persephone’s immortal playmates was

The Main Tomb in the Great Catacomb at Kom el-Shoqafa Abutting the Nebengrab, the Great Catacomb at Kom el-Shoqafa420 is by far the best known tomb complex in Alexandria; it is visited almost daily by groups of Alexandrian school children, and it is most often the only tomb encountered by casual visitors and tourists to the city. It is a vast multiroom complex comprising at least three levels, the lowest of which has been underwater – with few

66

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.15. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Facade of the Pronaos and the Burial Chamber (Author Photo)

fleeting exceptions – since the tomb’s discovery.421 Like the Nebengrab, it adheres to a Graeco-Roman architectural model (Fig. 2.14) drawn from Graeco-Roman elements. It is accessed by a deep staircase, in its case circular, and centers on a ‘rotunda,’ which serves the physical and visual function of the central court of Ptolemaic-period tombs. It incorporates two exedrae, each covered by a Tridacna-shell-shaped half-dome – a Graeco-Roman motif unknown in pharaonic Egypt422 – and a banqueting room in the form of a triclinium for the funeral feast, the silicernium,423 and memorial repasts.424 The Main Tomb, the focus of the complex remaining above the waterline, is also in triclinium form (as are a wealth of the subsidiary tombs), and its niches shelter rock-cut, Romanstyle sarcophagi serving as the metaphorical banqueting couches. Yet despite the generally Classical and specifically Alexandrian aspects of the tomb, the ensemble provides an impression of Egyptian opulence that verges on

nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Egyptomania. In its case, however, the applications of Egyptian forms and the inclusion of Egyptian deities figured in Egyptian narratives are not decorative elements but are instead components essential to the meaning of the tomb’s visual program. Concordant with the Classical architectural disposition of the Great Catacomb, the Main Tomb assumes the plan of a Greek temple (or temple-tomb) with a naos (the burial chamber) preceded by a pronaos (the anteroom). Yet despite its underlying Classical plan, the architectural units that raise the plan assume their inspiration from Egypt. The Pronaos of the Main Tomb The pronaos is introduced by two columns set between antae, but these antae are egyptianized (Fig. 2.15). They take the form of engaged pilasters carved with papyrus at

67

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.16. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Female Statue (Author Photo)

2.17. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Male Statue (Author Photo)

their foot and crowned with anta capitals in Egyptian composite form. Similarly egyptianizing, the columns rise from disc bases and, following the scheme of the antae, terminate in Egyptian composite capitals, which carry the heavy impost blocks that characterize Egyptian architecture. The reliefs carved on the architrave are egyptianizing, too, showing a central winged sun-disc flanked by a Horus falcon to either side. And, though discordantly, the architrave is capped by a row of Greek dentils, the facade is finished off with an Egyptian segmental pediment with a disc centered in its tympanum. In addition to the dissonant dentils above the architrave, another Graeco-Roman architectural element precedes the pronaos. It is a large, plastic, semicircular Tridacnashell-shaped conch carved in the stone above the short staircases leading to that level,425 echoing the half-domes of the exedrae and visually tying the facade of the Main Tomb to the catacomb’s entrance.

Set in niches capped with plain cavetto moldings and facing one another across the pronaos of the Main Tomb, two almost life-sized statues – one of a female, the other of a male – must be images of the tomb’s patrons (Fig. 2.16 and Fig. 2.17).426 These statues are in the tradition of Roman tomb-statues, and their heads are carved in Roman style. The male has snail-like curly hair arranged above a countenance that shows a plastic treatment of his furrowed brow, the hollows under his eyes, his bony cheeks, and the deep groove and ridges that form the nasolabial fold.427 The pupil of his eye is drilled out, affording him a piercing gaze. The female’s head also assumes a Roman-portrait form, and her hairstyle – the locks pulled to either side forming neat waves – is found in many classicizing works from the Greek Classical period to the Late Antique. The two portrait heads, nevertheless, suggest a date in the latter part of the first century ce for the tomb.428

68

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

Within mortuary context, the kerykeion recalls Hermes as psychopompos, who leads the dead to the skiff that traverses the river Styx, and to Charon its navigator; it also connects to Hermes as chthonios, who harrows the Underworld at will. The thyrsos, for its part, activates the chthonic aspect of Dionysos,437 recalling his mysteries and his importance in afterlife religion celebrated, for example, on ‘Orphic’ gold leaves. Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. 3.65.6), writing in the first century bce, considered Orphic mystery rites the same as Dionysiac,438 and ‘Orphic’ gold leaves – which preserve poems found in mortuary context once attributed to Orpheus – confirm the connection. One ‘Orphic’ gold tablet, for example, which sets out directions for the journey, ends:

Yet though the male and female’s portrait heads conform with those in Rome, their stance and garments immediately distinguish these statues from tomb portraits from the capital. Both figures stand with their weight evenly divided between both legs in stiff poses that have their genesis millennia past in Egypt, and instead of the expected Greek (or Roman) attire, they wear garments that also speak to Egypt’s antiquity. The man wears only a shendyt-kilt,429 belted about the waist, known from Old Kingdom royal portraits430 and a type that is characteristic of the archaizing sculptures of Dynasty Twenty-six and Twenty-seven for nonroyal persons.431 It is one employed variously in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods and corresponds, too, to the type of kilt awarded the Emperor Hadrian’s favorite, Antinous, in posthumous portraits that fashion him as pharaoh.432 The woman is clothed in a diaphanous garment that hugs her body and bares her ankles in a length that would be otherwise unseemly for a Greek (or Roman) matron. With their pose and garments, then, these patrons assume an intentionally Egyptian aspect. Simultaneously, however, with their portrait heads, they retain not only their Roman identity but also the specificity of their individual identity, for – despite their Egyptian pose and garb – these statues indeed appear as true portraits. The seeming verisimilitude of their faces distances these figures from all other images in the sculptural program of the tomb. It underlines the impulse toward individuality rooted in the Hellenistic world that flourished in Rome and the regions it influenced, and this verisimilitude separates these statues from Egyptian ‘portrait’ types. The doorway to the burial room – the naos or chapel of the temple-tomb – is flanked by Agathodaimons (‘good daemons’ in the form of snakes) (see Fig. 2.15),433 which mirror one another.434 They face inward toward the opening to the burial room as they coil themselves atop stands that assume the form of a truncated Egyptian naos. Each snake is capped with an Egyptian pschent crown, signifying its connection to royalty, for in Alexandria the Agathodaimon received both public and private cults.435 But these Agathodaimons also each support a Greek thyrsus and a Greek kerykeion in its coils. The kerykeion (caduceus), a signifier of Hermes, is a common attribute of Agathodaimons on coins of Roman emperors,436 but the thyrsus is rarely, if ever, pictured with Agathodaimons elsewhere, and the coupling of the two staffs is unexpected. As the kerykeion connects the Agathodaimons with Hermes, the thyrsos connects them with Dionysos – two deities that engage multiple eschatological functions.

. . . and they will grant you to drink from the Lake of Memory. And you, too, having drunk, will go along the sacred road on which other glorious initiates and bacchoi travel.439

Notably, a relatively large share of Alexandria’s early population derived from regions in which ‘Orphic’ gold leaves or ‘Orphic’ texts can be attested, and furthermore it has been persuasively argued that the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II, which was recorded by Kallixeinos and which must have taken place in Alexandria some time in the early 270s bce, carried ‘Orphic’ elements on its floats.440 It is possible, too, that the library at Alexandria, given the breadth of its holdings, contained scrolls with ‘Orphic’ texts. In addition to their connection to Hermes and Dionysos, the Agathodaimons provide a formidable presence at the entrance to the tomb. Their role as guardians441 is emphasized by the Greek hoplite shields carved in low relief on the wall above them that bear apotropaic gorgoneions set within winged quatrefoils. The Agathodaimons on the exterior wall of the burial chamber provide an introduction to their protective counterparts on the corresponding interior wall of the room and render double protection for those deceased entombed within the sarcophagi of the burial room. The Burial Room Responding to the protective images on the exterior of the burial room, Anubis, the Egyptian guardian of the necropolis, is seen in two different aspects on the interior entrance wall of the room. Poised to either side of the doorway, the images of Anubis face toward the opening posed on the same sort of egyptianizing naos-like stands that support the Agathodaimons on the other side of the

69

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

Anubis in military garb is a relatively common Roman reinterpretation of the Egyptian guardian of the necropolis, although the meaning of the image is problematic. Henri Seyrig takes the military garb as apotropaic, whereas Jean-Claude Grenier and Jean Leclant give it the double meaning of protection and victory over death, and Ernst H. Kantorowicz and Roberto Paribeni see it taking its model from emperors and therefore incorporating regality.442 In the context of the image in the burial room of the Main Tomb, any, or all, of these interpretations may be correct. The anthropoid Anubis at Kom el-Shoqafa and a similarly garbed and posed Anubis that appears on the piers of the painted Roman-period Stagni tomb from Alexandria’s western necropolis443 demonstrate one aspect of the sophisticated bilingual style that contiguity with Egypt encouraged. In these images, the deity assumes his normal Egyptian cynocephalic human form, but he dresses the part of a Roman legionary as he assumes the chiastic pose that is the hallmark of classicizing sculpture. In pose, garb, and execution, the Egyptian guardian of the necropolis is refashioned in Roman terms, but he also takes on an extended meaning as his assimilation to a Roman centurion – a Roman guard, as it were, – at once reiterates and broadens his Egyptian function. This bilingualism recalls the similar iconographical efficiency of the Egyptian sphinxes crouching before the main facade in the tomb Moustapha Pasha 1 and the doorways of Anfushy Tomb II and the ba-bird of the S¯aqiya Tomb. Despite the Classical heritage each acknowledges, each references Egyptian signs and symbols to create a new and more potent image of supernatural protection for its tomb. The other entrance wall of the Main Tomb shows a more exceptional version of Anubis: he is in similar martial form but with a snaky tail instead of human legs (Fig. 2.19). Garbed similarly to the anthropoid Anubis, he adds only a short chlamys pinned on his right shoulder and replaces the solar disc with an atef crown. He holds a spear in his upraised right hand and grasps the end of his chlamys with his left.444 Despite (or perhaps because of) his uncanonical form, this figure must be the primary one of the two because he supports his weapon in his correct right hand.445 The image of an anguiped Anubis is very rare, but not unknown beyond his depiction in the Main Tomb, though none finds Anubis garbed as a Roman legionary.446 Nevertheless, Anubis in anguiped form is exceptional, and the snaky-legged Anubis as a Roman soldier is currently unique to the Main Tomb,

2.18. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Anthropomorphic Anubis (Author Photo)

wall. One version of Anubis sees him as anthropomorphic, the other as anguiped, but although the form of the deity differs, the poses mirror one another, and each aspect is garbed in military dress. The version of Anubis with the head of a jackal and a human body stands frontally in a differentiated pose with his weight borne by his left leg and with his head, crowned by a solar disc, turned to his right (Fig. 2.18). Assuming the pose developed for Hellenistic rulers and appropriated for Roman emperors, he holds in his upraised left hand a spear or scepter, on which he leans his weight, and with his lowered right, he holds a shield that rests on the ground. He wears a muscle cuirass with pteryges (flaps) over a short chiton and has a short sword suspended at his left hip from a baldric over his right shoulder.

70

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

The plan of the burial chamber of the Main Tomb, in consonance with the generally Classical plan of the entire tomb, assumes a Roman form. Trabeated niches (but with arced ceilings) cut into its walls create its cruciform plan, and a rock-cut sarcophagus set into each of the niches gives the room its triclinium aspect.447 Apart from being a Roman modification of the kline chamber, and in addition to the triclinium form specifically identifying the sarcophagi as metaphorical banqueting couches as suggested earlier in this chapter, other considerations may also have prompted the cutting of triclinium-shaped burial rooms in Roman-period tombs. Certainly, the Great Catacomb’s real, usable triclinium fitted out with rock-cut klinai near the tomb’s entrance demonstrates the importance of the funerary feast that took place at the tomb and the memorial meals that would have occurred during the year in commemoration of the dead, and the Totenmahl reliefs – one of the standard motifs for Roman gravestones in the Egyptian chora448 – which, by placing the deceased at a hero’s banquet, heroized him or her, may have propelled the eschatological impulse to memorialize the banquet of the dead in architectural form.449 In contrast to the triclinium plan, but in concert with the Egyptian architectural elements in the pronaos of the tomb, each of the three niches of the triclinium-shaped burial chamber is defined by engaged piers carved to repeat those of the antechamber. Yet antithetical to the architectural framework of the niche, each niche in the Main Tomb encloses a fully realized Roman garland sarcophagus,450 and each narrative that enlivens the walls of the niches is framed above with a Classical egg-and-dart motif. Nevertheless, complementing the piers, the figural decoration of the Main Tomb is also egyptianizing. Consonant with the two versions of Anubis on the entrance wall that fuse Egyptian and Graeco-Roman traditions, egyptianized narratives decorate the back and side walls of the niches above the Roman sarcophagi, according the niches their bilinguality. The symmetry of the cruciform-shaped room is emphasized both by its figural decoration and by the treatment of the sarcophagus facades, for though all the sarcophagi are carved as garland sarcophagi, details of the garland of the central sarcophagus differ from those of the other two. Their major motifs remain the same, however, and the duplication of these motifs underscores the intention of the ornament: all sarcophagi show frontal heads (or masks) of apotropaic figures. The central sarcophagus fastens a gorgoneion and a frontal satyr head to

2.19. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Anguiped Anubis (Author Photo)

where he responds to and reiterates the function of the Agathodaimons on the exterior wall. The image exemplifies – as does the abduction of Persephone in the ‘Hall of Caracalla’ niche – the iconoclastic creativity of the Alexandrian artists. It stands as yet another example of the intentional integration of Roman and Egyptian conceptual and formal elements employed by Alexandrians to produce a new means of expression in a city whose population had accumulated the knowledge to address this complex past. These images of Anubis (and the ones on the piers of the Stagni tomb) also perpetuate the ancient Greek tradition of ‘monsters’ guarding the tomb, seen in Alexandria in the sphinxes in Moustapha Pasha Tomb 1 and Anfushy Tomb II, the ba-bird of the S¯aqiya Tomb sarcophagus, and the Agathodaimons and gorgoneion shield emblems on the exterior of the burial chamber of the Main Tomb.

71

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.20. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Central Niche (Author Photo)

the circlet that pins the garland to the wall (Fig. 2.20) and the lateral ones fix two gorgoneions to the background wall in the semicircles created above the swags. Protective devices thus reach their apogee in the Main Tomb, which is multiply protected by the gorgoneions emblazoned on the hoplite shields and the Agathodaimons on the exterior of the chamber, the two versions of the militaristic Anubis facing the doorway on the chamber’s interior wall, and the gorgoneions and satyr masks on the room’s sarcophagi. In accord with the details of the sarcophagus decoration, the Main Tomb’s symmetry is further enhanced by the figurative treatment of the walls of the niches. Recalling the upper scenes on the back walls of the Persephone tombs in the Nebengrab, as well as those depicted in other tombs in Alexandria, the back wall of the Main Tomb’s central niche shows the lustration of the mummy (see Fig. 2.20). Nevertheless, despite the frequency of the lustration scene in the tombs at Kom el-Shoqafa and elsewhere in Alexandria, few mummies are found in the catacombs at Kom el-Shoqafa, and few mummies – or traces of mummies – have been found in Alexandria at all.

Unlike elsewhere in Roman-period Egypt, in Alexandria the appropriation of mummification is not based on the physicality of mummification but on the use of the imagery of mummification – and often its extended narrative – to visualize Greeks’ own concepts of the afterlife. In contrast to the frequency of the theme of the back wall of the central niche in Alexandria, the back walls of the left and right niche – which are almost perfect mirror images of one another – show scenes that are unique in Alexandria. Each lateral niche embraces an image of the Apis bull standing on a truncated naos-like pedestal. He is sheltered by the wings of Isis-Ma’at who stands behind him, holding out the ostrich feather of truth in her farther hand. In front of him, across a small altar, a male in a kilt and corset, a short mantle slung across his neck, and wearing a pschent crown holds out a decorated collar (Figs. 2.21 and 2.22). Unless the royal crown is used cavalierly, the male figure should be an Egyptian pharaoh or a Roman emperor in his Egyptian manifestation. Though the central niche is privileged by its unduplicated subject, compositionally uniting the three scenes on the back walls of the niches is their general bilateral

72

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.21. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Back Wall of Right Niche (Author Photo)

2.22. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Back Wall of Left Niche (Author Photo)

73

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

priest, barefoot and wearing a long, wrapped garment with a panther skin draped over it, holds up a scroll from which he reads out the appropriate spells. The priest on the right wall of the central niche faces a woman across the altar (Fig. 2.24). The two feathers the priest wears in his headband identify him as a pterophoros (wearer of feathers), a hierogrammatos or sacred scribe in the cult of Isis.455 Like the priest on the left-hand wall, he wears a long garment, but his is slightly shorter, of thicker cloth, and differently arranged and decorated, and the animal skin that denotes his office is also differently draped. He holds out a lotus (?) in his right hand and extends a plate that supports a spouted lustration vessel in his upraised left. The woman who faces him across the altar wears a layered wig and a long, clinging, fringed garment that permits a view of her body underneath. Like her male counterpart, she is crowned with a solar disc.456 The scenes on the side walls of the lateral niches present other characters, and, like the scenes on their back walls, they correspond to one another, though they lack the almost perfect mirror-imaging of the scenes at the rear of the niches. On the left wall of left niche, a female wrapped in a tight garment faces the falcon-headed son of Horus, Qebehsenuef, who wears a pschent crown (Fig. 2.25). Unlike most of the figures in the confrontations on the short walls, these figures are in true profile. Each figure holds a scepter in hands that emerge from its tightly

2.23. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Left Wall of the Central Niche (after Gilli´eron in Bissing 1901: pl. VIII)

symmetry, although the Apis bulls, which face toward the rear of the tomb, permit the scenes on the left and right walls to appear directional. All scenes admit anomalies, but none of these deviations are especially out of place in a Roman-period context.451 In contrast to the back wall of the central niche, which is singled out by its subject, the lateral walls of all the niches are treated similarly. All admit symmetrically disposed two-figure compositions, though the characters depicted and their gestures differ, and all the figures face one another across an altar that is raised on variously shaped stands. The left wall of the central niche depicts a male figure facing a priest across the altar, on which a fire burns within a cylindrical vessel, probably filled with incense (Fig. 2.23).452 The male figure,453 crowned with a solar disc, wears only a long garment bound about his waist. In his right hand he holds out an object difficult to interpret; it appears to be flexible and soft, and although it does not precisely replicate the traditional Egyptian form, it might be the ubiquitous srips of linen – “fabric bands that signify rebirth”454 – that mortuary figures often hold. He bends slightly and awkwardly from the waist and raises his left hand to his face in the Greek male gesture of mourning. Behind him is a partial cartouche with pseudo-hieroglyphs that reoccurs in all the two-figure scenes. Opposite the mourning male, a lector

2.24. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Right Wall of the Central Niche (after Gilli´eron in Bissing 1901: pl. VII)

74

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

2.25. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Left Wall of the Left Niche (after Gilli´eron in Bissing 1901: pl. IX)

2.26. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Right Wall of the Left Niche (after Gilli´eron in Bissing 1901: pl. X)

wrapped garment, and each has a decorated swath of fabric pulled tightly across its shoulders that falls vertically in front of its body so that its decoration is visible. Sons of Horus normally do not wear crowns or hold staffs,457 but Qebehsenuef’s crown and scepter accord with the generally regal tone encountered throughout the imagery of the Main Tomb. The female figure wears a layered wig and a band fronted by a uraeus across her forehead, and she is crowned with a solar disc like the male and female in the lateral walls of the central niche. Rowe interprets her as Isis,458 but given the symmetry of the decoration, this figure – which corresponds to a male figure directly across the tomb on the right wall of the right niche – is unlikely to be an Egyptian deity, and the solar crown demands another explanation. On the right wall of the left-hand niche, a figure that is completely mummiform faces a pharaoh, who is nude but for a shendyt-kilt, a pectoral, and a nemes capped with a hem-hem crown (Fig. 2.26). The pharaoh holds the rolled cloth of authority in his lowered left hand, which is no longer extant,459 and extends the feather of Ma’at toward the mummy with his right. The male mummylike figure, who wears a false beard and is crowned with a solar disc, stands properly in the Egyptian composite stance with his face and feet in profile and upper body frontal, but remarkably his arms and joined hands appear plastically indicated beneath his garment. The garment itself is crossed with a diamond pattern, a simplification

of the reticulated bandaging characteristic of Romanperiod mummies, and in each diamond-shaped coffer, varied signs seem to denote bodies associated with the celestial realm.460 The composition of the left wall of the right niche (Fig. 2.27) mirrors that of the right wall of the left niche (see Fig. 2.26) although the details differ. The pharaoh, or Roman emperor in the guise of pharaoh, is crowned with a solar disc fronted by a uraeus instead of a hemhem crown, and he extends the feather of truth to a mummiform figure who holds a staff in his hands.461 This figure stands in the same composite pose as the one of the right wall of the left niche, but his hands emerge from his mummiform cloak to grasp a staff. In contrast to the garment of the first mummy-like figure, his garment is patterned with a horizontal-vertical grid – one that is also employed to distinguish mummy bandages – which contains less-readable signs in the boxes created. The right wall of the right niche (Fig. 2.28) follows the structure of the left wall of the left niche (see Fig. 2.25). A mummiform male figure faces Hapy, the baboon-headed son of Horus, both figures confronting one another in true profile stances. Both are crowned with solar discs, and both have decorated swaths of fabric falling vertically in front of their bodies, as do the figures on the left wall of the left niche,462 but the male adds two strings of amulets looped across its lower body. Alan Rowe identifies the male figure as Imsety,463 another of the sons of Horus,

75

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.27. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Left Wall of the Right Niche (after Gilli´eron in Bissing 1901: pl. IV)

2.28. Alexandria, Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb, the Burial Chamber, the Right Wall of the Right Niche (after Gilli´eron in Bissing 1901: pl. III)

but this identification is improbable. The lateral scenes in the side niches correspond so closely to one another that it would be remarkable if the male were meant as Imsety (or any deity), given the complementary female figure that he parallels.464 Clearly a strongly symmetrical structure underlies not only the architecture of the burial room, but also constitutes the impetus behind its pictorial program. The lustration scene of the central niche is flanked to left and right by priests facing human figures, a male on one side and a female of the other. Both male and female face inward, toward the back of the niche and, consequently, toward the back of the tomb. The side niches complete the symmetrical arrangement, for not only do the central scenes of the lateral niches mirror one another, but a direct correspondence between their left and right walls augments the symmetry. Hapy and Qebehsenuef are paired across from one another on the lateral walls closest to the entrance to the tomb. The two mummy-like figures face one another across the royal figures that engage them and who stand back to back across the room. This precise conceptual parallelism demands that a unified program must govern all the figured scenes in the niches. In Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria, I argued for the identification of the ‘emperor’ in the large panels in the lateral niches as Vespasian.465 It is indeed possible that Vespasian is honored here, but Rowe, more perceptively, sees the emperor on the left wall of the right niche who wears the solar-disc crown as deceased and the one who

wears the hem-hem crown as his live successor.466 I now think, however, as is evident from my description of the scenes, that the precise identity of the royal figure may be of less consequence than his station, and I address this concern later. In Monumental Tombs, I followed, to a great extent, Rowe’s identification of the nonroyal figures on the walls of the Main Tomb, but I now think that neither he nor I was correct. Jean-Yves Empereur initially queried the identity of the mummy-like figure with the staff as other than a mummy,467 and I discounted his interpretation, noting that he had ignored the figure’s staff. With respect to his perspicacity, I should like to revisit the identification of the all the figures in the room in an attempt to unravel the meaning of the sculpted program of the burial chamber. The iconographic treatment of the deities Horus and Thoth in the central niche indicate that the designer of the tomb’s imagery was fully cognizant of the principles of traditional Egyptian representation. It may be surprising to see the two deities flanking the bier – Isis and Nephthys would be a more likely pair – but by the Roman period, Horus’ and Thoth’s appearance in lustration scenes is well documented,468 and though both deities wear crowns that may appear exceptional, these headdresses can also be paralleled elsewhere.469 The knowledgeable iconographical treatment of figures in this scene speaks against Rowe’s identification (that I had previously followed) of the mummiform figures on the side walls of the lateral niches as Osiris and Ptah, since these figures lack their

76

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

they achieve this state because of the beneficence of Isis and their initiation into her cult. The repetition of male and female in the lateral niches and the equal weight afforded them within the imagery of the chamber correspond to the equal weight given to the representations of the figures in the niches in the pronaos of the tomb. One detail, however, yet to be mentioned, suggests that the woman is the primary recipient of the chamber, for in addition to its garlands and masks, the central sarcophagus shows a female figure reclining upon a mattress set on a pallet above the pendant garland (see Fig. 2.20).474 The woman’s garment falls off her left shoulder in a mark of motherhood.475 The figure replicates the reality of Roman matrons reclining at a banquet and the mimetic motif of Roman women reclining on the lids of their sarcophagi, and presumably for this latter reason, Rowe correctly identified her as the deceased.476 The syntax of the chamber that places her directly below the mummy in the scene above strengthens Rowe’s supposition, and though the mummy may be depicted as a male, this kind of gender-bending does not seem foreign to treatment elsewhere (see Chapter Three and the image of the mummy in Room 2 of House-tomb 21 in Chapter Four). If indeed this woman is the primary recipient of the tomb, she would be one of the few women whose luxury burial in Roman-period Alexandria can be identified.

normal identifiers, and the symmetrical presentation in the central niche and elsewhere in this tomb argues for a coherent program. I now take these mummiform figures as the deceased patrons of the tomb. This identification is buttressed by the mummiform figures that represent the deceased in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, the tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla (both discussed in further chapters), that of Qtjjnws in Ezbet Baschandi, and elsewhere.470 At Kom el-Shoqafa, the female mummiform figure facing Qebehsenuef on the left lateral wall of the left niche (Rowe’s Isis; see Fig. 2.25) wears the same wig as the female facing the pterophoros in the right lateral wall of the central niche (see Fig. 2.24); the male on the right wall of the right niche (Rowe’s Imsety), who faces Hapy (see Fig. 2.28), wears a hairstyle similar to – though not precisely the same as – that of the male on the left lateral wall of the central niche (see Fig. 2.23). Each of the four male and female figures, whom I now take as human, is crowned with a solar disc, and I suggest that the male and female mummiform figures on the side walls of the lateral niches are intended as the same individuals as those on the side walls of the central niche. I further propose that the solar-disc crown designates not only deities and the dead but also the dead as assimilated to Re and therefore as accorded a celestial afterlife. The two humans on the walls that flank the central niche are the only nonroyal, secular, human figures that do not assume the stance of a mummy: they stand in a quasi-three-quarter view as they raise their hands to the priests who face them. Aside from the solar discs that crown their heads, their wigs and their garb appear unremarkable, though the garments of both the male and female can be paralleled in figures associated with the cult of Isis. The woman’s garb is similar to the mantle worn by Isis and female initiates into her cult,471 though she lacks the Isiac undergarment; the male’s long kilt wrapped around his waist, though more generic, also marks out adherents to the cult.472 The lector priest that faces the male initiate is (with the sem-priest) the priest that traditionally officiates at Egyptian funerals. The pterophoros that faces the female initiate, however, as previously noted, is connected specifically with Isiac rites that offer a blessed afterlife.473 And a blessed afterlife appears to be the unifying theme throughout the tomb. The mortal figures bearing solar crowns inhabit the celestial realm. Based on the appearance of the pterophoros and the garments worn by the male and female who address the priests on the side panels of the central niche,

The Imagery of the Main Tomb Situated within Alexandrian Tomb Design In addition to the narrative of lustration encountered on the back wall of the central niche and the protective guardian figures seen throughout the tomb, further aspects connect the Main Tomb to other tombs in Alexandria. The royal imagery, for example, first encountered with the nemes-crowned Egyptian sphinxes in Moustapha Pasha 1 and later in Anfushy II, abetted by the palatial wall decoration in the tombs of Pharos Island and the S¯aqiya Tomb, is seen too in the Main Tomb. In addition to the four pharaoh (or emperor) images, Apis bulls – aside from their Graeco-Roman identification with Serapis, the consort of Isis and the main deity of Alexandria – also have a royal connection, since the pharaoh is often assimilated to the Apis.477 Their images on the panels of the niches of the tomb, moreover, permit a connection to Isis and her mysteries. This latter connection is especially clear in the central niche, in the fringe-like decoration of the female’s garment and the appearance of a hierogrammatos, but the generalized celestial imagery,

77

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

2.29. Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, the Dome with Its Gorgoneion (Author Photo)

marked by the solar crowns, also conjures up Apuleius’ “Regina caeli,”478 and the imagery of Alexandria’s Tigrane Tomb further crystallizes this interpretation.

clinium shape of the burial chamber is formed, as it is in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa and other Romanperiod tombs in Alexandria, by the arrangement of three niches – in its case arcosolia – created by the sarcophagi carved from the living rock. The bilingualism in the Tigrane Tomb is unique among that seen in all other Alexandrian tombs. With the exception of the lustration of the mummy in the central niche, the Tigrane Tomb abandons Egyptian subject matter to create a sense of the efficacy of Egypt: instead, it depends on a simulacrum of Egyptian style. The narratives in the lateral niches in the tomb find no model in the ancient Egyptian visual repertoire. The stiff figures with their attempt at composite poses, however, indicate that the designer, though lacking Egyptian content for the scenes he was commissioned to create, intended to replicate Egyptian style in order to ensure an Egyptian guise for the narratives. The Tigrane burial room is covered by a shallow dome (Fig. 2.29), and it is the painted dome that provides the approximate date of the tomb. It is well known that the

The Tomb from Tigrane Pasha Street The Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa hints at the patrons as adherents of the cult of Isis, and the Tigrane Tomb, as I have previously argued, presents the most convincing case for active worship of Isis and her mysteries in Alexandria. The Tigrane Tomb also substantiates the protective nature of the Alexandrian tomb in a way that is comforting to its Greek clientele, as well as offering a different concept of bilingualism from that previously defined.479 In comparison to the scale of the Great Catacomb at Kom el-Shoqafa, the Tigrane Tomb, which was discovered in 1952 in the eastern necropolis near the tombs at Moustapha Pasha,480 appears exceedingly modest. Extant were one room fitted with loculi and another in the form of a triclinium-shaped burial chamber, but only the burial chamber was removed from the earth. The tri-

78

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

emperor Hadrian, who ruled from 117 to 138 ce, was enamored with domes, employing in his monuments myriad variations on the theme. Thereafter, Hadrianic domes inspired painted ceilings in Rome and throughout the empire,481 and the one in the Tigrane Tomb marks one of the most successful examples of the conceit. It is most likely, then, that the Tigrane Tomb dates either within, or slightly after, the Hadrianic period, probably somewhat later than the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa. In another Classical reference, an image of a gorgoneion peers through the painted oculus of the Tigrane dome, protecting the tomb from above. Concurrently, egyptianizing images on the lateral walls and the inner pilasters of the niches – seated figures of cynocephalus Anubis, Horus falcons wearing crowns of Upper or Lower Egypt, recumbent sphinxes with nemes headdresses, and snakes including cobras – secure the bodies interred in the sarcophagi they guard. Snakes, too, rear up on the short walls of the burial chamber that flank the doorway, protecting the tomb as they do on the exterior wall of the burial chamber in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa. Thus the inviolability of each burial niche in the Tigrane Tomb is preserved, as is the entire interior space of the room. The snakes on the entrance wall are also identified with the cult of Isis. A poorly realized crown formed of sun-disc and horns identifies the left snake as IsisThermouthis (the Egyptian grain goddess, who frequently assumed the form of an asp or a cobra), though in the Tigrane Tomb other attributes often associated with the Graeco-Roman iconography for this deity are lacking.482 The right snake is characterized by its pschent crown and beard as Serapis (or the Agathos Daimon, the consort of Isis-Thermouthis or of Isis in her role as Agatha Tyche) although it too lacks further attributes.483 On the short walls that lead to the burial chamber, two male figures, each placed in a panel under an image of an Apis bull, escort the visitor into the room. Garbed in kilts and corsets, they add the pharaoh’s nemes headdress and, beneath their chins, very narrow lines indicate they also wear the false beard of a pharaoh (Fig. 2.30). Whether the ‘pharaoh’ figures in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa are indeed emperors or just meant to recall regality, the figures in the much smaller Tigrane Tomb shed any connection with an emperor. Rather they represent an ‘Egyptian figure’ coupled with intimations of royalty, which is reemphasized by the images of the Apis bulls above them. Each male figure carries a situla in his

2.30. Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, the Male Figure in the Entrance Corridor to the Burial Room (Author Photo)

lowered hand, and it is probable that these vessels are meant to mark the deceased patrons as adherents to the initiatory cult of Isis. This interpretation is borne out in the decoration of the three arcosolia. The central niche shows a mummy flanked by female figures – intended surely as Isis and Nephthys – who hold palm branches in their hands and by Horus falcons supported by alabaster stands (Pl. VIII). Whether the female figures are intended as epiphanies of the goddesses or as priestess avatars for the goddesses is difficult to determine (and perhaps any distinction is inconsequential), but I now prefer the latter interpretation. Frederick Brenk has pointed out to me that the wings the right-hand female figure wears seem rather to be part of a costume than the wings of deities,484 and both females act within a space set back from the podiums that support the Horus falcons as if on a stage. The scene appears as a performance.

79

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

greatly oversized eggs.488 Like the mummy in the central niche and like the figure in the right niche that is discussed later, the frontal figure wears a garment with a reticulated pattern, and I have previously interpreted this figure (and continue to do so) as an initiate having gone through the simulated death – explained by Apuleius (Metamorphoses XI.21; 283.5; XI.23; 285.11–15) – his mummy wrappings falling away as he emerges nude to assume apparel fitting his new status.489 He, like the two ‘goddesses’ in the central niche, holds palm branches, which are connected directly with the cult of Isis.490 It is most probable that in cultic monuments, as with, for example, a triumphant athlete in a mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla now in the Vatican,491 these branches speak to victory, but in the case of the initiate, it is the victory over death (see Apuleius, Metamorphoses, XI.21; 283.8–9). The right niche completes the narrative. A young man wearing garb similar to the frontal male in the left niche – but more complete – extends palm branches to the standing goddess (or priestess stand-in) who, in turn, offers him sheaves of golden grain,492 while a figure with a censor follows him (Pl. X). With his leggings, his imbricated tunic, and his nemes headcloth, the kneeling male figure resembles the flanking males from the left niche, although he lacks their wings. The niches convey a narrative contending that the frontal male in the left niche, having passed through the rigor of the ordeal, has – in the right niche – become an initiate and has assumed his new garments, replicating those of the males in the left niche.493

A winged disc hovers overhead extending a Romanstyled garland in its claws. The configuration recalls both the winged discs that have traditionally terminated Egyptian stelae and Greek and Roman funerary garlands. Yet whether the garland is meant to evoke the offering of funerary garlands – as is seen in Greek imagery and in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel – or just the display of garlands – as in the real garlands and the painted simulacra in Alexandrian tombs – is difficult to discern, though I think the latter interpretation is probably the more likely. The Tigrane scene certainly references the canonical image of the death of Osiris, but I do not think that the mummy is meant to be Osiris.485 The Tigrane mummy is wrapped in contemporaneous Roman-period reticulated bandaging, and it lies not on the traditional lion-bed but on a contemporaneous kline with a duck-headed fulcrum and turned legs that cast shadows on the intentionally ill-defined ground. The cloth on the bier is treated with fine lines to indicate the folds into which it falls, and the plinths of the stands that support the falcons are treated in one-point perspective. The cast shadows, the treatment of the looping folds of the bier-cloth, the disposition of the figures in space by the rejection of a single groundline, and the perspectival treatment of the bases of the stands that support the Horus falcons are intentional, as their absence from the scenes in the other two arcosolia demonstrates, and these details place this image of the deceased in the quotidian world. These elements both remove the mummy from representing Osiris and permit this image to act similarly to those of the Hellenically drawn images of the deceased in tombs of the chora, discussed in Chapter Five, that also differentiate the mundane realm from the metaphysical.486 The lateral niches support the interpretation of the mummy in the central niche as representing a deceased human male and also support the interpretation of the males in the entranceway as devotees in the cult of Isis. Unlike the central niche, however, which is easily read because of its reliance on Egyptian iconographical prototypes, the lateral niches find no parallel in either Egyptian or Classical representation. The left niche shows a frontal male holding palm branches and flanked by winged, nemes-headdressed, trousered males to either side, as another disc spreads its wings above the group (Pl. IX). Two jackals sit attentively at the frontal male’s feet, and the entire scene is closed off by colonnettes that carry large, oval, beribboned objects that Adriani thought were tympana,487 but that I take as

GREEK ESCHATOLOGY AND THE M YSTERY CULTS

Beginning in the Hellenistic period and continuing through the period of Roman conquest, mystery cults promising a blessed afterlife proliferated in Greece and throughout the Roman world. Initiation into the mysteries promised a better life in this world and a continued one in the world to come. Greek mysteries set themselves apart from other avenues as a means to achieve salvation. As Walter Burkert notes, “most revealing” is the translation from Greek to Latin where mysteria transforms into initia, myein into initiare, and myesis into initiatio.494 Greek mysteries have initiation at their heart. They are, in Burkert’s words, “initiation rituals of a voluntary, personal, and secret character that aimed at a change of mind through experience of the sacred.”495 Pharaonic

80

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

Egyptian cult also involved secret things, but in Egypt, as expressed recently by Martin Bommas, mysteries lacked the element of initiation. In traditional Egyptian cult, the divine could be encountered only at a festival, in prayer, and upon death.496 Though intuitively it might be expected that the Isiac mysteries known throughout the Greek and Roman world had their genesis in Ptolemaic Egypt, secure evidence for their performance in Egypt itself is slight. In his magisterial study that collects both visual and textual sources relating to Isis and Serapis, Reinhold Merkelbach cites only two sources from Egypt that appear to reference mysteries of Isis,497 though a third – found in a number of iterations – that is possibly a reflection of a Memphite aretalogy may conceivably be brought to bear.498 For Greek mysteries involved secrecy and they invoked secrecy: the proceedings of the mysteries had to remain unvoiced. Architecturally, the lateral staircase of the private temple of Isis, Hermanubis, and Harpocrates from Alexandrian Ras al-Soda499 and a similar one from a temple to Isis in the complex at Luxor500 might permit a means for the epiphany of the goddess and herald mysteries performed within the naos,501 but still most convincing are the closely scripted visualizations in tombs, especially in the tomb from Tigrane Pasha Street.

visual vocabulary. Egypt acts as metaphor to express contemporaneous Greek conceptions of the afterlife and its cult. Given the precociousness and diversity of its appearance in literary sources, visualization of the afterlife in the Greek repertoire is surprisingly scarce. Hades, as a realm of the dead, is early recorded throughout the Iliad as the destination of the soul of the deceased, yet later in the Odyssey (IV. 561–565), its author has the sea-deity Proteus affirm that Menelaus will not die “but to the Elysian plain and the bounds of the earth will the immortals convey [him], where dwells fair-haired Rhadamanthus, and where life is easiest for men.”504 Slightly later, Hesiod (Works and Days, 169–173) speaks of the “Islands of the Blessed” where some of the heroes of the Trojan war “will live at the ends of the earth . . . untouched by sorrow . . . along the shore of deep swirling Ocean, happy heroes for whom the grain-giving earth bears honeysweet fruit flourishing thrice a year, far from the deathless gods.”505 Yet despite these literary assurances (at least for the mythic dead), visual depictions of the afterlife realm are exceedingly rare in either Greek or Roman tomb programs, though the slab from the back wall of the kline room of the S¯aqiya Tomb (see Fig. 2.12) and two loculus cover-slabs from Alexandrian tombs (see later) may provide a few of the rare exceptions. In the Ptolemaic period, the most common decoration on the slabs that closed the loculi is a door composed of two leaves, the upper one regularly shorter than the lower one,506 which find conceptual, if not proportionally precise, parallels on the walls of many Etruscan tombs from the Archaic through the Hellenistic period. The entrance to the Underworld is a common motif in Etruscan tombs. In Etruscan tombs, however, these doors – which form the sole decoration on the Alexandrian loculus slab – are almost invariably designated by further signs – or by their narrative – as the doors to the Underworld. The twin figures of the Etruscan deathdaemon Charun, for example, that flank the door in the Hellenistic Tomba dei Caronti507 specify that the door is the one to the Underworld, and a small painting from another Etruscan tomb508 clarifies their identity even further: Charun, the daemon of the dead, sits on a rock before an elaborate entrance – imagined as a hut with one door slightly ajar – as he awaits to usher the deceased into the Land of the Dead. It is likely, too, that the doors on Alexandrian loculus slabs provide a similar physical barrier between the world of the living and that of the dead.

GREEK ESCHATOLOGY AND ALEXANDRIA’S BILINGUAL RESPONSE

Bilingualism502 in Alexandrian tombs is a phenomenon apart from that seen elsewhere in Egypt, and it enters into both the tombs’ figural decoration and their architectural detail.503 Hypogeum A confirms that elements from Greece and Egypt early intersect in Alexandrian tombs – Egyptian loculi couple with Greek architectural units and Greek domestic furniture to form the substance of the tomb – but the bilingualism inherent in Hypogeum A’s descendants exceeds this convergence both visually and ideationally. This somewhat later bilingualism speaks both to the incorporation of Egyptian cultural material into the fabric of a visibly Greek tomb and, more cogently, to the incorporation of Egyptian eschatological visual signs into a Greek eschatological system. The intended result of this bilingual approach is to permit Egyptian signs and symbols to stand as metaphors for Greek eschatological content. Their appropriation simultaneously salutes the efficacy that Egypt brings to the deceased’s navigation of the afterlife and enriches the paucity of a native Greek

81

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

tomb of a six-year-old girl Octavia Pollina that shows the young girl’s arrival at the Elysian Fields or the Isles of the Blest. Octavia Pollina assumes the iconography of Persephone being abducted by Hades, but rides instead in a chariot driven by a Cupid and pulled by doves, and Hermes bids her enter a world where small figures – two with the butterfly wings of Psyche – wander amid the roses, watched over by Minerva and a statue of the underworld deity Hekate. Images of the Underworld are more common than those of the Elysian Fields, although they, too, are rarely found in tombs themselves. From their appearance, especially on vases, from the sixth century bce onward, they are defined by the figures that populate Hades: Cerberus, Persephone, and the unfortunate souls, such as those depicted in the most famous representation of the theme from the second-quarter of the fifth century bce in the Knidian Lesche at Delphi (Paus. 10.28.1); or the rare image in a second-century-ce tomb from a necropolis near Tyre, which depicts a thirsty Tantalus, his name inscribed, bending to drink the waters that will always recede from him, as well as other underworld imagery513 ; or a unique example on the facade of the Great Tomb at Lefkadia in Macedonia where the judges of the Underworld, here Aiakos and Rhadamanthus, greet the deceased, ushered into their realm by Hermes.514 Given this general lack of the theme’s appearance in a mortuary context, a remarkable loculus slab (Fig. 2.32), excavated by Mieczyslaw Rodziewicz and published by Wiktor Daszewski and Ahmed Abd el-Fattah515 and then Rodziewicz,516 has a special place in funerary art. Although the scholars’ drawings differ slightly, it is clear that the loculus slab describes the Underworld more fully than any other extant Greek or Roman representation. Across the water on which the Greek Charon, who conveys souls to the Underworld, maneuvers his skiff is the entrance to Hades guarded by two Agathodaimons (or two mighty snakes). Populating the Underworld itself – seen at the upper right of the image – Ixion on his wheel and Sisyphus pushing the stone up the hill can be made out, and other figures – presumably those inhabitants known since their admission in the Odyssey – probably also inhabited the region. In the foreground at the lower right, Rodziewicz sees a temple in front of (or within) which two figures appear. The most surprising aspect of the image is the thyrsus of the figure in the lower center to our left of the apparently deceased figure that identifies him not as the expected

2.31. Alexandria 24040, a Loculos Slab with a Gate (after Venit 2002: 35, fig. 19)

Angeliki Kosmopoulou has identified a scene of two figures picking apples on a funerary base from Kallithea, near Athens, as representing the Elysian Fields,509 and Greek vases are painted with narratives – the Garden of the Hesperides, for example – that may metaphorically reference the land of the blessed. Similarly, the slab from the back wall of the kline chamber in the S¯aqiya Tomb, referenced earlier (see Fig. 2.12), that shows a nude male reclining under an arbor may be intended to recall the Elysian Fields or the Isles of the Blessed, and a loculus slab from Alexandria may provide a further example. Excavated from the early Alexandrian cemetery at Hadra, it shows – instead of the more common solid door – a gate finished off with naturalistic spikes (Fig. 2.31).510 Beyond the gate, two painted piers support an architrave hung with garlands, and beyond that is the empty landscape space of the blue sky. As noted by Adriani,511 this loculus slab is one of the few that seems to imply what is beyond the tomb, and what is beyond the tomb appears to be the Elysian Fields. Nevertheless, the only definite visual reference to the halcyon realm of the dead painted on the wall of a Greek or Roman tomb, of which I am aware and that is certain, is very late and is from Rome512 – a painting from the

82

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

people the possibility of a blessed afterlife, and millennia after it appears for the common population in Egypt, a generalized heroization (or even divinization) after death is suggested in Greece. Guimier-Sorbets has offered the definition of a hero as someone who, “taken from humankind by death, continues in an ideal existence similar to that which religious imagination assigns, properly speaking, to the gods,”517 but initially in Greece heroization is limited to a small number of individuals. The ‘special’ dead – epic and mythical heroes such as Herakles and Amphiarios and Bronze Age Aegean warriors, mythological eponymoi and city founders, and those who died in battle – were worshiped as heroes at least as early as the eighth century bce.518 And though mythical heroes, such as Herakles and Amphiarios, were early awarded cults, a hero cult for the ordinary dead begins with certainty only in the Hellenistic period.519 Heroization of the otherwise undistinguished dead is firmly attested by inscription in Greece in the late-third century bce with the Testament of Epikteta from the Greek island of Thera.520 The inscription describes the institution of a religious association on Thera consecrated to the Muses. Both male and female deceased members of a family are awarded sacrifices, and the altars in two tombs from Moustapha Pasha – Tombs 1 and 2 – and elsewhere in Alexandrian tombs that were unearthed bearing the ashes of the last sacrifice,521 suggest active heroization of the quotidian dead in Alexandria as early as the third century bce. A hero cult arising in Alexandria at so early a time can easily be postulated. Thera was connected to Egypt early in the Ptolemaic period: the island provided a naval base for Ptolemy in the second half of the third century bce, and the presence of an occupation force and its influence on the cultural and religious life of the island are attested by a series of inscriptions dedicated to the Egyptian divinities Serapis, Isis, and Anubis, not only on behalf of the garrison but also by other Theran citizens, who are found among the colleagues of the association of Epikteta.522 It is indeed possible that the concept of a quotidian hero cult is not autochthonous to Thera but arrived there from Alexandria that had earlier embraced a comforting Egyptian eschatological concept. By the second century bce, heroism of the common person is “fairly common” throughout the Aegean and includes an Attic inscription from the Piraeus that provides an instance of heroization within a religious association dedicated to Dionysos,523 and connections between the Piraeus and Egypt, as already noted, are earlier even

2.32. Loculus Slab from a Cemetery East of Chatby with an Image of the Underworld (after Venit 2002: 112, fig. 96)

Hermes, but as Dionysos, which provides a connection to the Bacchic mysteries. Even in a period that witnessed the proliferation of mystery cults promising a blessed afterlife – and despite the latter image and those from the Tyre tomb that specify the Underworld, the loculus slab from Hadra and the image of the reclining figure in the S¯aqiya Tomb that possibly show the Elysian Fields, and the Roman tomb of Octavia Pollina that certainly does – Greek and Roman tomb interiors seemingly retain an aversion to the depiction of a blessed Beyond. The consequence in Alexandrian tombs is the felicitous co-option of motifs and imagery from Egypt that enriches their eschatological visual vocabulary. HEROIZATION AND ALEXANDRIA’S BILINGUAL RESPONSE

With the ‘democratization’ of the afterlife beginning in the Middle Kingdom, Egypt early permitted ordinary

83

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

than those with Thera.524 Thus it is not surprising that with the more extensive and intimate Egyptian contact that Alexandria’s leading role in the Hellenistic world provided, heroization of the ordinary dead penetrated the eschatological psyche of its Greek population. By the Late Hellenistic period in many regions of the Greek world, heroization began to be applied to all the dead without distinction.525 Skeptical scholars had dismissed the term ‘hero’ as merely synonymous with ‘the dead,’526 but more recent investigation has refuted this conjecture.527 A Late-Hellenistic funerary stele of the scribe, Ammonios, for example, discovered in a necropolis in the western Alexandrian quarter of Wardian and ´ published by Etienne Bernand528 refers to the deceased as heros who is invoked “like the infernal gods with pure libations and offerings.” Bernand529 correctly argues that the word heros does not signify simply ‘deceased’ and cites the phrase immediately following, oὐχὶ θαvόvτα κεκλόμεθ’ (we do not call him the dead), noting that it implies that the heros “preserves a sort of existence that is no longer a vέκυς [dead person]; he is endowed with a sort of superior life that belongs to that of the heros.”530 The image of Herakles painted on the jamb of the door to the funerary chamber in Ras el Tin Tomb 3 (see Fig. 2.11) adds another Alexandrian element to the corpus, since comparisons with images of Herakles from Delos531 permit this Herakles to be identified specifically as Herakles Soter – Herakles who has triumphed over death and emerges as hero. In concert with the Alexandrian loculus-closing slabs that refer to the world beyond the tomb, the image of the reclining male from the S¯aqiya Tomb and Herakles Soter who enlivens the pier in Ras el Tin Tomb 3, the ceiling of the burial room in Anfushy II can also be taken to herald the divination of the dead. It is painted with interlaced elements that form a trellis supporting a fictive tapestry into which are woven paintings of Greek mythological figures, unfortunately no longer visible even with infrared photography but preserved in drawings made upon their discovery. These figures, drawn in a style that is clearly Classical, have been seen as having Dionysiac connotations,532 which – given the cult of Dionysos and his mysteries533 – is a fitting subject for a burial room, and Guimier-Sorbets has identified Alexandrian tentlike ceilings, like this one, as acting as funerary baldachins to express the heroic status of the deceased.534 Yet despite these Greek signs that auger heroization, those that reference Egypt are far more numerous. The patron statues in the Main Tomb at Kom

el-Shoqafa should probably be considered as heroizing references; more certain are the human figures crowned with solar discs on the Main Tomb’s interior walls, the many instances of the lustration of the mummy, and the use of style in the Tigrane Tomb, as well as its subject matter. A further Egyptian sign that heralds heroization is the broken lintel like that applied to the reconfigured doorframe between the anteroom and burial chamber in Anfushy II. For broken lintels, replicated on the facade of the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, are characteristic of Egyptian temples. In her dissertation, “The Broken-Lintel Doorway of Ancient Egypt and Its Decoration,535 ” Diana Wolfe Larkin has identified the significance of the element, including its use to herald and mark the epiphany of a deity.536 Its use in funerary context becomes more frequent in the Roman period, where it is especially applied to doors or to doorways of naiskoi on loculus-closing slabs,537 but another early use finds it in Alexandria’s western cemetery in the area of Fort Saleh in a tomb, probably dating, like the redecoration of Anfushy Tomb II, to the first century bce.538 In the Fort Saleh tomb, the kline niche is occupied by a rock-cut kline-sarcophagus, which imitates the type of bronze bed with finely turned legs well known from Hellenistic and early-Roman contexts outside Alexandria,539 but constituting a particularly opulent example of the type.540 The facade of the kline niche, however, assumes an Egyptian style. It is framed by columns with lotus flowers inscribed near the base and crowned with composite floral capitals supporting the lintel, and attached to the inner faces of the columns is an Egyptian broken lintel.541 Loculus-closing slabs from Alexandria and other sites influenced by Alexandrian tomb design present naiskoi that often employ broken lintels. One slab from Alexandria’s western necropolis of Mafrousa, whose naiskos doorway encloses a stand of papyri, shows dependence on both Greek and Egyptian architectural forms. Framing the doorway to the shrine, Egyptian columns support an architrave capped with a Greek triangular pediment; the frieze, however, consists of winged uraeae framing a cluster of lotus flowers, with the left-hand lotus wearing the white crown and the right-hand one, the red. Further realizing the Graeco-Egyptian schema of the architecture is a frieze of uraeae below the architrave with dentils below it. The lintel of the doorway, itself, is supported by two piers, and the piers are fronted by a broken lintel.542

84

EGYPT AS M ETAPHOR

the former slabs, here the broken lintel serves, as well, as a pedestal for recumbent sphinxes. These egyptianizing and bilingual loculus slabs are complemented by a limestone funerary stele, now in Turin, that is given an even clearer Classical turn of phrase: it shows a nude Aphrodite Anadyomene, wearing the disc and horns of Isis, set in an Egyptian naos framed by a broken lintel.547 Thus, in Alexandrian tombs, the broken lintel must affirm the heroizing (or even the divinizing) of the dead. Despite the Classical demeanor of the Ras el Tin Herakles, the baldachins adduced by Guimier-Sorbets, the reclining figure in the S¯aqiya Tomb, and the classicizing loculus slabs, as well as the epigraphic evidence provided by the Alexandrian grave stele, heroization in Alexandria is more frequently manifested differently from elsewhere in the Graeco-Roman world. It most often assumes a purely Egyptian cast, and the broken lintel adds to other egyptianizing choices in Alexandrian tombs as imagery most efficacious to heroize the dead. 2.33. Plinthine (Kom el-Nagous) Loculus Slab (Author Photo)

IM AGING THE AFTERLIFE

Tombs in Alexandria retain their Greek heritage in their architectural details, their treatment of the corpse, the ritual that they concretize, and their traditional necessity to protect the tomb, yet from the third century bce

A series of loculus slabs retained in situ in the early Hellenistic necropolis of Plinthine, which owes a heavy debt to the capital, provides a good range of the types seen in Alexandria, including one that is bilingual (Fig. 2.33). This slab is framed by so-called Nabatean columns, which Daszewski has shown to have had their origin in Alexandria,543 but, in keeping with the mixed architectural heritage of the previous loculus slab, these columns flank an Egyptian naos composed of an arc-shaped pediment decorated with a solar disc, a cavetto molding above a frieze of uraeae, and piers that carry a broken lintel. Other loculus slabs also contain broken lintels, and they embrace deities. One architecturally complex loculus slab from Kom el Kazui, which shows a seated Isis within the naiskos – her hand to her breast in a lactans pose and flanked by ba-birds – is in an entirely architecturally egyptianizing form.544 Another, from Gabbari in Alexandria’s western necropolis, also architecturally egyptianizing, has a broken lintel neatly framing a large Horus falcon that stands within the naiskos.545 Another slab, from Marsa Matruh, about 325 kilometers west of Alexandria, like the loculus slab from Gabbari, shows an Egyptian naos though here framed with Greek horizontally divided, partially fluted columns that also enclose small Horus falcons below (Fig. 2.34).546 In contrast to

2.34. Alexandria 24863, a Loculus Slab from Marsa Matruh (Author Photo)

85

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

through the Roman period almost all Alexandrian tombs incorporate Egyptian figures, narratives, signs, or symbols. The reason behind the co-option of Egyptian imagery is undoubtedly complex, and none of the interpretations presented later is necessarily either independent or incorrect. As I have noted, the mere antiquity and authority of Egyptian afterlife religion may have provided the impetus for the inclusion of the Egyptian content. In concert with this interpretation, I have previously argued that the augmentation of the Greek visual vocabulary by these Egyptian elements is also concurrent with a deficiency in the Greek visual lexicon. Yet since underworld imagery is found in other than tomb context in the Greek world (as well as on vases buried in tombs), it is indeed possible that this new imagery in Alexandria may yet find another reason, for Alexandrians almost immediately renounced loculus slabs – like the two extant – that envisioned the land that lay beyond that of the living.

In their tombs in which the living consorted with the dead, Alexandrians seemingly chose to dispense with the permeable wall that these slabs imagine to retain the physical barrier between the dead and the living that the unperforated wall provided. The foreignness implicit in both style and subject of Egyptian cultural artifacts must have appeared less threatening as well as more greatly efficacious. As they gained greater familiarity with Egypt, Alexandrians discovered there an already constructed visual language that comfortably embraced their own concerns but whose foreignness did not violate the integrity of the tomb wall. For all – or some – of these reasons, Alexandrians chose to employ the visual vocabulary of Egypt metaphorically to express their own eschatological aims. They appropriated this venerable visual vocabulary that carried with it the antiquity and authority and regality of Egypt and, through its use, devised a new lexicon, and one unique to Alexandria, to express their own expectations for a blessed afterlife.

86

thre e

Greek Myth as Metaphor in the Chora of Egypt

G

reek myth, almost entirely absent in the visual repertoire of tombs in hellenized Alexandria, is found with surprising frequency in mortuary monuments in two regions beyond Alexandria – at Leontopolis, in the Delta, and at Tuna elGebel. At Tuna el-Gebel, house-tombs demonstrate a sophisticated use of myth as an eschatological metaphor, and, concurrently, a small number of Jewish grave monuments from Leontopolis accommodate a Greek mode of exposition and Greek mythological references while simultaneously engaging Jewish ideas of the afterlife. Though the single Leontopolis tombstone that explicitly incorporates Greek narrative focuses on the myth of Persephone – a metaphor frequently employed in the ancient world to mediate death – the myths referenced in tombs at Tuna el-Gebel are – for the most part – unknown not only in Alexandrian mortuary context, but elsewhere in tombs in the wider Hellenistic world. In similar contrast, whereas gravestones from Leontopolis indicate the intersection of Greek and Jewish thought in Graeco-Roman Egypt, the relevant tombs at Tuna el-Gebel not only participate in the experience of being Greek in the generally egyptianized countryside, but far surpass tombs in Alexandria in proclaiming the Greek origin and Greek intellectual sensibility of their occupants and patrons. LEONTOPOLIS

afterlife, as they simultaneously express the Jewish community’s own evolving eschatological goals. Biblical references and other speculative documents aside,549 Jews are known in Egypt at least early as the sixth century bce, and by the fifth century they are found manning a garrison and building a temple on the Nile island of Elephantine at Aswan.550 The greatest Jewish immigration into Egypt occurred, however, in the Ptolemaic period, beginning especially after the battle of Gaza in 312 bce with Ptolemy I’s conquest of Syria and Judea.551 Jews, who were afforded the privileges of Hellenes under the Ptolemies, prospered in Egypt, adopting the Greek language and Greek literary forms, while retaining their

About thirty-five kilometers north of Cairo in the ancient nome of Heliopolis, the site of Leontopolis (modern Tel el-Yehoudieh) includes a Jewish fortified city dating from the second century bce through the second century ce.548 It was built upon land granted by Ptolemy VI Philometer (180–164 and 163–145 bce) to Onias IV – a hereditary high priest of Jerusalem who was forced to flee the city and who emigrated to Egypt – to erect a Jewish temple, and thus the city was styled ‘the land of Onias.’ Jewish gravestones preserved in the cemetery at Leontopolis, inscribed in Greek, rely on Greek funerary formulas and employ Greek myth to address a blessed

87

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

own religious institutions.552 Serving as soldiers and in other capacities in the Ptolemaic administration and as tradesmen, they fully integrated into the communities of which they were a part. In Alexandria,553 where the Pentateuch was translated from Hebrew to Greek, at least one of the four domestic quarters was predominantly inhabited by Jews.554 If Diana Delia’s estimation of the Jewish population in Alexandria in the Roman period is correct (which would account for about one-third of the total population estimated for the city),555 it would afford Alexandria primacy as the city with the largest Jewish population in the Graeco-Roman world.556 In addition to Alexandria and Leontopolis, other cities in the Delta as well as in the chora also boasted a Jewish population,557 but Leontopolis was the ‘land of Onias,’ a predominantly Jewish establishment, and the one that preserves the largest corpus of gravestones that incorporate, in their epitaphs, Greek literary style, as well as the Greek conception of the afterlife.558

often giving both the Egyptian month and the Ptolemaic or Roman regnal year, though excluding the name of the ruler. In yet longer inscriptions, the stones may speak, exhorting the passerby to weep for the departed, who is most often described as “the excellent one,” “a good friend,” and one who “has done nothing to harm anyone.” In concordance with the gravestones employing a Greek visual model and a Greek literary mode, a small number also use Greek metaphor to encapsulate conceptions of the afterlife implicit in early Judaism.565 Three of these, for instance, give the destination of the deceased as Hades: I am Jesus. My father was Phameis, passerby; and at this ago of sixty I went down to Hades. All of you weep together for him who suddenly passed to the deep place of the ages, to dwell in darkness. And you, Dositheus, bewail me; for it is laid upon you to pour forth bitter tears over my tomb. You are my child, for I departed childless. Weep, all together, for the hapless Jesus.566

The Tombstones The second:

The epitaphs on the grave markers from Leontopolis, which constitute the second largest collection of inscriptions from the ancient Jewish Diaspora,559 are collected by William Horbury and David Noy, who provide commentary and give the earlier publication history of the stones,560 including the appearance of four of them in ´ Bernand’s Inscriptions m´etriques de l’Egypte gr´eco-romaine.561 Grave markers take the form of simple, usually undecorated, stelai. These stelai are occasionally carved in low relief with a triangular pediment capped, again occasionally, with acroteria, either central and lateral or only at the peak. In Greece, with few exceptions,562 acroteria initially mark buildings set within sacred spaces and, then, from the fourth century bce on, grave stelai. Nevertheless, though their appearance on grave stelai in Greece might suggest that the deceased are considered at one with the gods, by the time of their inclusion on the Leontopolis stelai, acroteria (and the triangular pediment, as well) might merely have just been another mark of Greekness. The more than eighty extant gravestones from Leontopolis563 date from the mid-second century bce through the second century ce. All are inscribed only in Greek,564 and all follow Greek mortuary formulas. The most cursory include only the singularly relevant information – the name of the deceased, and possibly her or his age and patronymic; slightly longer ones include the date of death,

The stele bears witness. – ‘Who are you that lie in the dark tomb? Tell me of your country and your father.’ ‘Arsinoe, daughter of Aline and Theodosius, and the land which nourished us is called the land of Onais.’ ‘How old were you when you slipped into the shadowy region of Lethe?’ ‘At twenty years old I went to the mournful place of the dead.’ ‘Were you joined in marriage?’ ‘I was.’ ‘Did you leave him a child?’ ‘Childless I went to the house of Hades.’ ‘May the earth, the guardian of the dead, be light upon you.’‘And for you stranger, may it bear fruitful crops.’ In the 16th year, Payni 21.567

Arsinoe’s epitaph is as Greek as her name. “There is nothing [but the reference to ‘the land of Onias’],” writes Horbury, “that would identify the epitaph as clearly Jewish.”568 Though numerous Greek epitaphs avoid the name of Hades, substituting instead the thalamos of Persephone for both males569 and females,570 the ‘house of Hades’ ([εἰς] Α ´ ΐδαo δόμoυς, here in its Doric form) is nevertheless a term frequently used in Greek epitaphs.571 Similarly, in this epitaph, the hope that “the earth, the guardian of the dead, be light upon you” (or, in the following, “may you find the earth light upon you for all time”) is a Greek sentiment embodied, for example, in epitaphs from Crete and Rome.572 Lethe, the place of forgetfulness, a synonym for Hades, is also found in Greek

88

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

epitaphs, including others from Egypt,573 but the concept is also at home in Jewish eschatological thought.574 The third:

For in the last centuries of the first millennium bce and the first centuries of the next, with the development of a view of individual retribution after death (concordant with the Egyptian view of individual responsibility as evidenced in the ‘negative confession,’ but independent of it, and with the contemporaneous Greek possibilities for the negotiation of the afterlife), the concept of She’ol changed. Enoch (1 Enoch 22) divides She’ol into four regions, providing the righteous (1 Enoch 22.9) with a spring in one of its divisions. Simultaneously, the idea of life after death for the virtuous, seen variously as the resurrection of the body or the immortality of the soul (or some combination of the two), developed.582 The following two epitaphs from Leontopolis speak to the concept of life after death. In Greece, the possibility of a celestial afterlife can be traced at least as far back as the early fifth century bce, when the Boeotian poet Pindar (Olympian II.25–30) places Dionysios’ mother Semele among the gods. Sophocles (Frag. 837 Radt) declares that “Thrice blessed are those mortals who have seen [the Eleusinian mystery] rites and thus enter Hades: for them alone there is life, for the others all is misery,”583 and Plato (Phaedo 69C) has heard that initiates into the Eleusinian mysteries are rewarded with a place among the gods.584 The epitaph of a second Arsinoe places the immortality of the soul in Jewish context at Leontopolis:

When he had already accomplished a span of fifty-three years, the all-subduer575 himself carried him off to Hades. O sandy earth, how notable a body you cover: that which had the soul of Abramos,576 most fortunate of men. For he was not without honour in the city, but was crowned in his wisdom with a communal magistracy over all the people. ‘For you were honoured by holding a city magistracy in two places, fulfilling the double expense with gracious liberality. Until you hid yourself in the grave all things that befitted you were yours, dear soul, and we, a family of good children, increase them.’ ‘But you, passer-by, beholding the grave of a good man, depart with these favourable words for him: “May you find the earth light upon you for all time.”’577

Though the language, the form, and the metaphor in these epitaphs are Greek, the sentiment expressed is consonant with a strand of Jewish eschatological thought in the centuries to either side of the turn of the millennium. Hades, for example, is synonymous with She’ol (the biblical term for the Underworld), the Jewish place of the dead, which, as here, was considered “the deep place for the ages,” a place of “darkness,” a “shadowy region,” and a “mournful place,” to which all the dead were delivered578 – much like the Hades encountered in the Odyssey (Od. XI). This concept of the land of the dead is found in the earlier biblical tradition,579 in the Septuagint, translated into Greek in Alexandria in the early Ptolemaic period,580 and in the early-secondcentury bce Wisdom of Ben Sira (the Latin Ecclesiasticus),581 translated into Greek also in Alexandria by Ben Sira’s grandson in the last decades of the second century. The term may be used in the epitaphs metaphorically, but its use is entirely consonant with the Greek language in which it is composed, as well as with the eschatological expectations of the Jewish Arsinoe for whom it was written. Its use underscores the similarities of the Jewish and Greek realm of the dead in both Jewish and Greek traditional eschatology before the advent of the Greek philosophers such as Plato, Empedocles, Pythagoras, and others permitted alternative, more sanguine views of the afterlife and before this alternate view was also embraced by the Jewish community of the Diaspora.

This is the grave of Arsinoe, wayfarer. Stand near and weep for her, unfortunate in all things, whose fate was adverse and terrible. For I was bereaved of my mother when I was a little girl; and when the flower of youth dressed me as a bride, my father joined me in marriage with Phabeis, and Fate led me to the end of life in the travail-pain of my first-born child. My allotted span was small, but great charm bloomed upon the beauty of my spirit. Now this grave hides in its bosom my chastely natured body, but my soul has flown to the holy ones. A lament for Arsinoe. In the 25th year, Mecheir 2.585

The concept of the immortality of the soul was current in Greek thought at least as early as the fifth century:586 a war memorial from 432 bce in Athens records that the souls of the fallen had been received by the aither,587 and slightly later, Plato588 expands on the concept. In Jewish tradition, a “soul flown to the holy ones” emerges only beginning in the mid- to late-Second Temple period (third to first centuries bce), a time when the idea of the immortality of the soul vies with that of resurrection of the body on a day of judgement.589

89

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

The immortality of the soul is implied in The Book of Jubilees (XXIII.31), probably written in Jerusalem and usually dated to the second century bce,590 which declares that “their bodies will rest in earth and their spirits will have much joy”591 (though, elsewhere, Jubilees, consistent with thought recorded elsewhere during the period, clearly distinguishes between the rewards meted out to the righteous and the wicked).592 But the general acceptance of the Platonic idea of the immortality of the soul is found primarily in the Jewish intersection with Greeks in the Diaspora: the Wisdom of Solomon (3.4; 4.20–5:23), possibly written in Alexandria, reveals “[t]he centrality of its Platonic teaching of the immortality of the soul.”593 The Alexandrian Jew Philo (ca. 20/10 bce–45 ce),594 in accord with his times, follows Plato in his view of the immortality of the soul, which, as in the epitaph of Arsinoe, “returns to its home in God.”595 Arsinoe’s epitaph, which speaks to the soul’s immortality, influenced as it is by Greek philosophy, accords well with Jewish thought in the Diaspora, on the one hand, as it also encapsulates a Greek Hellenistic ideal, on the other. The final epitaph of note from Leontopolis differs from the others since it explicitly references the narrative of the Greek myth of Persephone:

reference to eternal life among the gods adheres to Jewish philosophical thought in the later Second Temple period, the embodiment of eternal life in the person of Persephone indicates a complete understanding of Greek myth within the Delta enclave of Diaspora Jews during the Graeco-Roman period. TUNA EL-GEBEL

Whereas the epitaphs at Leontopolis rely on Greek metaphor to explicate Jewish eschatological thought current in the Second Temple period, a group of monuments at Tuna el-Gebel are explicit in their use of Greek metaphor to elucidate a vision of the afterlife that is predominantly – though not necessarily entirely – Greek. Despite the Egyptian centerpiece of its cemetery – the tomb of Petosiris that drew pilgrims to the metropolis of Hermopolis Magna – many tombs in the southern cemetery of Tuna el-Gebel resonate with a heritage exceedingly Greek. In his final publication of the tombs at the site, Paul Perdrizet differentiates between ‘temple-tombs’ and ‘house-tombs,’ and this differentiation bears, in general, some culturally specific markers, although these markers may be temporal as well. Though temple-tombs are products of both the Ptolemaic and the Roman period, all house-tombs can be dated to the Roman period.599 Temple-tombs are stone built600 and have generally egyptianizing facades that replicate those of Egyptian Late Period or Ptolemaic temples (or, even closer to home, that of the tomb of Petosiris) on a much lesser scale. House-tombs, however, are constructed of lightly stuccoed limestone or whitewashed mudbrick,601 and their facades show few Egyptian architectural elements. Temple-tombs rarely bear any painted decoration, and few temple-tombs show any connection with the Greek presence at Hermopolis Magna save the rare (and slight) inscription or architectural element,602 though Temple-tomb 6 (which is almost entirely destroyed) preserved an inscription on its facade that reads, “[Tomb of] Ask(l)epiades, son of Exakon, as well as of Herodes and of Exakon, his sons,”603 suggesting it as the tomb of a Greek family or, at least, of one bearing Greek names. House-tombs, on the contrary, most often preserve some painting, and that painted decoration often follows Greek style and is replete with Greek ornament or subject matter. It is thus almost entirely among the Perdrizet-defined house-tombs that Greek imagery and texts emerge. These tombs are multiroom buildings. They normally contain

Weep for me, stranger, a maiden (παρθ[έ]vos) ripe for marriage, who formerly shone in a great house. For, together with my bridal garments, I, untimely, have received this hateful tomb as my bridal chamber. For when the noise of revellers at my . . . was going to make my father’s house resound, suddenly Hades came and snatched me away, like a rose in a garden nurtured by fresh rain. And, I, stranger, who twenty years . . . 596

The concept of the unmarried young woman assimilated to Persephone (Kore) is a Greek trope found in funerary epigrams in the Palatine Anthology,597 and as early as the mid-sixth century in the Attic epitaph of Phrasikleia:598 “I am the marker of Phrasikleia. I shall be called Kore forever, the gods allotting me this name instead of marriage.” And Plato’s affirmation that initiates into the Eleusinian mysteries of Demeter and Kore were set among the gods adheres to the metaphor inherent in the myth. Though the myth of Persephone is almost a clich´e in the Roman Imperial period (it is the single Greek myth figured in tombs of Alexandria [see Chapter Two], and it is figured, too, at Tuna el-Gebel [see later in this chapter]), its very frequency underscores its expected efficacy. In the epitaph from Leontopolis, although the

90

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

floor was divided into two vaulted rooms, with the rear ground-floor room containing a niche. The exterior stair, the platform, and the altar in front of the tomb are restorations, but enough remained to indicate that the stairs existed, that the altar, constructed of mud brick and plastered,606 was on-axis in the middle of the central intercolumniation, and that the rooms on the first floor were vaulted like those of the floor below.607 The side walls of the first room on the ground floor are punctuated by three arched niches, one on the south wall and two on the north. Orthostats – treated similarly to those in other Tuna el-Gebel house-tombs – painted to imitate black marble, breccia, gray granite, and porphyry and decorated with rondels also painted to imitate marble and porphyry flaunt more expensive and more royal ‘stone’ than those in Alexandrian tombs. Above the orthostats, the north wall was decorated with threepetaled roses and leafy stalks,608 recalling the Rosalia, the Roman Feast of the Roses, in which roses were scattered on tombs. Their simulacra in tombs, as Jocelyn Toynbee adds, “perpetuated, as it were, all the year round the offerings of actual roses” at the grave site.609 Against the south wall, on a wooden kline lay the mummy of a man wrapped in a cloth shroud with its feet to the west and its head to the east.610 The doorway that leads to the second room is framed by pilasters with leafy capitals, and on the wall to the left and right of the doorway are the two epigrams that accord the tomb its celebrity. Between the left epigram and the doorway is sketched a funerary chapel with a roof in the form of a pyramidion,611 and the walls to either side of the door are decorated with laurel trees replete with flowers and stylized leaves.612 The second chamber is referred to in one of the inscriptions as the θάλαμoς – a woman’s chamber, inner room, or bridal chamber, and, as previously noted, a euphemism for the house of Hades. Against the room’s back wall was a second kline – this one built of brick (Fig. 3.3).613 On the lower facade of the bed was painted a small table that Perdrizet and Sami Gabra take as a lion-bed,614 but despite its stylized lion’s tail and feet, its narrow shape is closer to the table normally placed alongside a kline known from Greek vase paintings and banqueting reliefs, and preserved, for example, in the Alexandrian tomb Moustapha Pasha 2.615 Thus, as elements in the epitaphs will prove bilingual, so is the bedside table. The ceiling of the niche created by the projecting bed is conceived as a huge Tridacna shell, carved in relief and stuccoed white, similar to the ones that create

3.1. Tuna el-Gebel, a Street of House Tombs with Exterior ¨ Staircases (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, B016)

two or three rooms, usually vaulted, on the main floor and often include a second story with a suite of rooms accessible by an exterior staircase as well (Fig. 3.1).604 One of the rooms on the ground floor – the farther one if the two are aligned – is usually fitted with a niche on its back wall for a brick-built or wooden kline. The Tomb of Isidora The tomb of Isidora (Fig. 3.2) is probably the single best-known, most-remarked, and most completely reconstructed tomb in the necropolis, excluding that of Petosiris. Unlike the other tombs discussed here, however, the tomb of Isidora is famous not for its painted images, but for two inscriptions painted to either side of the doorway leading into its burial room. The tomb is a well-preserved, two-story house with its entrance at the west. In contrast to its reconstruction, which presents an egyptianizing temple facade, the building was probably originally conceived in Greek prostyle.605 Its ground

91

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

3.2. Tuna el-Gebel, the Tomb of Isidora (Author Photo)

the ceilings of the exedrae and hover over the entrance to the Main Tomb in the Great Catacomb at Kom el-Shoqafa.616 In the tomb of Isidora, set on high podiums painted to imitate porphyry – 617 the rare, royal stone – spiral columns frame the front of the niche.618 On the banquette, the mummy of Isidora lay on its back, its head to the south and feet to the north. Summarily prepared, it was nevertheless clad in a splendid cartonnage covered with egyptianizing scenes, and it wore a gold ring set with a small emerald on the little finger of its left hand. Coins from the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius found among the detritus in the tomb suggest that the burial dates no earlier than the second quarter of the second century ce.619 Mummification, originally of course an Egyptian practice, was adopted by Greek inhabitants of Egypt at least as early as the early period of Roman rule and, though mummies are rarely found in Alexandria, individuals who would self-identify as Greek – and Isidora is a Greek name – borrowed this form for the disposition of the corpse in the chora.620 Thus, in the chora, the confluence of Greek and Egyptian burial customs and

3.3. Tuna el-Gebel, Kline in the Tomb of Isidora (after Gabra 1941: pl. XXXII)

92

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

iconography is unsurprising. Remarkable instead are the two epitaphs: the first refers to a myth found in a version unknown elsewhere; the second reframes and extends the metaphor inherent in the first. Taken together, they have engendered discussion querying the divinization of Isidora and the relation of this putative deification to Greek and Egyptian religion. The epitaph written in Greek to the left of the door reads:

reliefs, and in domestic and mortuary context. Not surprisingly, given Hylas’ watery end, the subject often finds itself as imagery in baths.623 Theocritus (Idyll XIII) and Apollonius Rhodius (Arg. I.1171–1357) give the earliest and the most detailed story of Hylas’ abduction by a nymph (or nymphs), and by the first half of the first century bce, Vergil (Ecologue II.45–50 and Georgics III.6), like the later writer of Isidora’s epitaph, is comfortable enough with his audience’s recognition to refer elliptically to the story.624 The seeming demise of a male protagonist, Hylas, in a poem dedicated to a female is in keeping with the lack of gender specificity noted elsewhere.625 The myth of Persephone is employed in tombs of both male and female dead,626 and poses, too, of sculpted figures are interchangeable between the genders as is noted later in this chapter. Nevertheless, the choice of the story of Hylas is remarkable in the context of multicultural GraecoRoman Egypt. In the first decade of the twentieth century, F. L. Griffith627 called attention to the reference in Herodotus (II.90) that states that Egyptians believe that those drowned in the Nile (or slain by crocodiles) are buried in a “sacred coffin” and the body considered “more than human.” M. A. Murray628 continued the discussion with a survey of water, human sacrifice, and drowning in cultures worldwide and from antiquity to the earlytwentieth-century present, adducing, among many other examples, the story of Hylas as reported by Theocritus (Idyll XIII)629 and connecting the search for the body of Hylas (Apollonius Rhodius, Arg. I.1240–1272) with that of the search for the body parts of Osiris.630 Paul Graindor631 advanced the discussion by introducing the epitaphs of Isidora that had just been uncovered and concluded (followed by Jean Hani in 1974632 and others) that Isidora drowned in the Nile and was deified,633 adding that the reference to the myth of Hylas confirms the interpretation. Heracles’ mourning for his young love aside, the view in antiquity agrees that Hylas lived on as a hero. Theocritus (Idyll XIII.73), who composed poetry in the Alexandrian court under Ptolemy II, distinguishes him as “numbered among the blessed” (μακάρωv ἀριθμεῖται).634 Closer temporally, though more greatly removed geographically, are local Phrygian (or Mysian) hero cults of Hylas recorded by Strabo (12.4.3), who wrote in the first century ce, and Antoninus Liberalis (Metamorphoses 26.5), who wrote in the second half of the second century ce.

In truth, it was the nymphs, daughters of the water, Isidora, who built the [women’s or bridal] chamber [θάλαμoς] for you, Isidora. Nilo, the eldest of the daughters of the Nile, began by fashioning a shell such as the river holds in its depths; such one might see, a marvelous thing, in her father’s palace. And Krenaia, mate of Hylas who was snatched away, built the columns on both sides, like the grotto where she herself kept Hylas, who carried the water jar, in her arms’ embrace. And the Oreades, having chosen the site, founded a sanctuary, that you might have nothing less than the best.621

The one to the right of the door: No longer shall I come to make sacrifice with lamentation, daughter, now I have learned that you have become a goddess. With libations and vows praise Isidora, who as a numphˆe [marriageable maiden] was snatched away by the Nymphs. Greetings, child! Nymph is your name, and the Horai pour you their own libations throughout the year: Winter brings white milk, the rich flower of the olive, and crowns you with the delicate narcissus flower. Spring sends the produce of the industrious honeybee and the rose from its bud, flower beloved of Eros. Summer heat brings the fruit from the vat of Bakchos and a crown of grapes for you, having tied back the clusters from the branches. These things are for you. All will be performed here annually, as is the custom for the immortals. Therefore, daughter, no longer with lamentations shall I come to make sacrifices.622

The first epitaph sets out the framework to which the second epitaph appeals to assert the divinization of the deceased young girl. The story of Hylas, drawn down into the depths of a spring by a nymph (or nymphs) overcome (as was his lover, Herakles) by the lad’s inordinate beauty, was popular in the Hellenistic and Roman world in both text and image. It is found in wall paintings and floor mosaics in Roman Europe and North Africa, in stucco and stone

93

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

L´aszl´o K´akosy635 concedes that whereas it is “not sufficiently clear whether [Isidora] met her death by drowning, which would imply an apotheosis in itself[,] the allusion to the myth of Hylas . . . offers a hint . . . in this direction,”636 and Andrzej Wypustek essentially accepts Isidora’s drowning as a given.637 Bernand and others disagree, arguing that the abduction by nymphs is but a trope for a youthful life cut short.638 A. D. Nock,639 who believes that being snatched by nymphs (and Nereids) is a common metaphor for a blessed afterlife, adds that ἒγvωv in the second epitaph means “I have learned by revelation,” indicating that Isidora’s father did not associate her cause of death with Isidora’s divinity, and other epigrams that speak to the deceased’s state as a goddess, either explicitly or by implication, bolster this view.640 It is further worth considering that the play on the word ‘nymph’ (marriageable maiden) in the second epitaph, culminating in the phrase “nymph is your name,” is reminiscent of the similar conceit in the mid-sixth century bce Attic epitaph of Phrasikleia, previously mentioned, in which the deceased maiden, who wears a necklace of pomegranates, was to “be called Kore [unmarried maiden or Persephone] forever.”641 Though Isidora’s heroization (or even divinization, if it is not merely a parent’s hyperbole) seems without doubt, the cause of Isidora’s death must remain inconclusive. Greater interest, and more certainty, lies in the layered meanings the poems evoke and the integration of concordant Greek and Egyptian religious systems that underlie them, noted by nearly all scholars that have addressed the epithets.642 Certainly remarkable, though having remained generally unremarked, is the interweaving of the tomb’s physical elements into the myth.643 The poet calls up the plan of the two-room tomb and the form of its arcosolium with its shell-like ceiling and its supporting columns to fill out the metaphor in the first epitaph, yet none of these elements is discrete to the tomb of Isidora: most Romanperiod tombs in the chora are two-room tombs; the shelllike semidome – the conch – is ubiquitous in Roman architecture, and the supporting columns find a place in many other kline niches. The term thalamos, here used as a metaphor for the burial chamber,644 is used to connote the bridal chamber in numerous epitaphs for young women who have died unwed, and the term is then set antithetically to the tomb,645 as a metaphor for “the grave instead of marriage” (as recorded by Werner Peek646 ), and that is certainly the subtext here. These interweavings of otherwise commonplace Greek elements into the two

epitaphs suggest that Bernand, Nock, and others are correct to query the specificity of the event underlying its creation. To the similarities of the ‘deaths’ of Hylas and Osiris, most often conjoined, and to other intersections of religious ritual and thought previously brought to bear,647 I should like to recall the sacrifice (θύω) mentioned in the first line of the second epitaph.648 As advanced in Chapter One, funerary sacrifices, though known, are rare in Greece and even in the Hellenistic period are limited to heroes;649 in Egypt, however, funerary sacrifice is a fixture in the funerary cult.650 Upon learning that his daughter is “immortal,” Isidora’s father declares that he intends to continue the yearly sacrifice performed for his daughter, dispensing now only with mourning that might accompany the rite. The Greek poem confirms that the sacrifice that has been and will continue to be performed for Isidora – originally unconnected as it is with Isidora’s status as hero – is a sacrifice with roots in Egypt. Egyptian elements remain strong in the second epitaph. For example, the poet has the three seasons perform offerings to Isidora, but, as noted by Bernand,651 seasons even in Ptolemaic Egypt were four. The three seasons named in the epitaph (despite two being associated with Greek mythical/religious figures) correspond to ancient Egyptian convention. The Egyptian year was divided into “akhet, the inundation season, peret, the growing season, and shemu, the harvest season,”652 and the “representation of the seasons through the agricultural cycle constituted a well-established theme in funerary decoration,”653 which, as noted in Chapter Two, Humphreys has proposed indicates an unchanging state that echoes the timelessness of the existence of the dead.654 The offerings bestowed in these three seasons replicate those (the poet says) executed for immortals. Bernand notes that Greeks offered oil and milk at the Nymphalia and that the two liquids were also offered to the dead; and narcissus blooms, he observes, are a suitable offering both to nymphs and to those who die young.655 Hani, who considers that all the elements in the poem may be traced to Egyptian ritual and cult, does not address the narcissus, but notes, citing P. Oxy. 1211, that Egyptians offer milk, honey, and oil at the festival of the Nile on 30 Payni.656 The offerings indicate the similarity in Greek and Egyptian funerary ritual and the difficulty in untangling the two, as well as supporting the confluence of Greek myth and Egyptian ritual. Even if Isidora’s death by drowning is discounted as the reason for her heroization,

94

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

room was a large vine with red boughs replete with green foliage.660 House-tomb 4, the best preserved tomb with Dionysiac imagery, was termed the House of the Dionysiac Krater by its excavators. It is a larger building than the others and seemingly far more opulent, with its rooms arranged in an unusually elongated plan.661 In the first burial room an arcosolium constructed on the west wall holds a sumptuously appointed kline (Fig. 3.4).662 The kline is articulated with plastically defined turned legs painted yellow to replicate wood, a colored and painted mattress cover,663 and a ‘bier-cloth’ painted red with yellow lines to simulate brick. To either side, at the front plane of the kline, white columns with red netting were poised to support the front of the arcosolium. The main frieze of the wall facing the arcosolium – above orthostates painted to resemble regal porphyry and marble and alabaster – was decorated with Dionysiac imagery (see Fig. 3.4 and Fig. 3.5).664 A very large, cylindrical basket or cista mystica, is elevated on a base around which a dark-gray serpent, spitting downward, coils itself.665 At its left, also set on a base, a footless bell krater almost half a meter high is painted yellow to signify gold or gilding. Its opening is covered with a fine, fringededged, beige-colored cloth, which must have been intended to prevent flies from contaminating the liquid. Framing the basket and the krater are two large thyrsoi, their tops pointed downward.666 Thyrsoi and cistae mysticae are regular elements of Dionysiac mysteries,667 and the motifs in all three tombs with Dionysiac imagery speak to the cult and its ritual. Although it is impossible to sustain Perdrizet’s suspicion that the deceased in House-tomb 4 was a hierophant in the mystery cult,668 it is significant that the Dionysiac imagery is painted on the wall facing the kline and that this is the only wall in the house-tomb that bears figurative imagery. Dionysos, a favorite deity of the Ptolemies who traced their lineage to the god, nevertheless had a chthonic presence in the chora, with epigraphic evidence supporting mysteries having been performed to him in Egypt as early as the early Ptolemaic period. An edict of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–205 bce), which directs persons who initiate to Dionysos to sail to Alexandria in order to register,669 and an Orphic/Dionysiac papyrus from Gurˆob,670 dated to the mid-third century bce, which preserves a roughly written hieros logos that may have been used as

Egyptian elements still find a credible place in the Greek texts. The poems are an amalgam of concepts, and their execution is in the tradition of the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel and other tombs in the chora, the tombs in Alexandria, and the epitaphs at Leontopolis. As elsewhere in Graeco-Roman Egypt, cultural artifacts are extracted and, unchanged, are set paratactically constructing a bilingual bricolage or a case of metaphorical code-switching. As in the imagery of tomb programs elsewhere in Graeco-Roman Egypt, the eschatological vocabulary and the eschatological value of the discourse are extended by invoking a bilingual form of expression.

House Tombs with Painted Decoration at Tuna el-Gebel Nevertheless, in contrast to the epitaphs from the tomb of Isidora and the gravestones from Leontopolis, and in greatest contrast to the visual bricolage exhibited elsewhere in the chora as well as in Alexandria, a small number of tombs at Tuna el-Gebel stand apart in assuming a purely Greek mode of representation. These tombs rely on Greek religious paraphernalia, Greek style, and Greek myth alone to convey their eschatological message. Images encountered in these tombs verge on the unique, and their exceptional occurrence at Tuna el-Gebel begs explanation. Tombs with Dionysiac Imagery Imagery directly addressing Greek cult is found in at least three house-tombs at Tuna el-Gebel – House-tombs 4, 11, and 14 – unfortunately none of which is well preserved. The tombs form a closed group: all contain images that are connected with the cult of Dionysos, and none preserves a narrative. House-tombs 11 and 14 are both two-room tombs. House-tomb 11, discovered in 1933 in the south sector of the site, preserves on the back wall of an arcosolium Dionysiac motifs – a thyrsus, masks, and the face of a maenad.657 House-tomb 14, set to the west of the tomb of Petosiris,658 was, upon excavation, better preserved. Painted to the left of the door that led to the burial room (which held a wooden coffin whose mummy had been dumped on the ground by robbers659 ) was a thyrsus tied with a large ribbon, and painted on the back wall of the

95

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

3.4. Tuna el-Gebel, House of Dionysos, the Kline and the Decoration of the Opposite Wall (after Gabra 1941: pl. XXXVII)

a vehicle for initiation by one of these “religious practitioners,”671 indicate an early mystery cult of the deity. The loculus slab from Alexandria that depicts the realm of Hades with the figure of Dionysos in its foreground – discussed in Chapter Two672 – lends credence to the cult in Alexandria, and the tomb paintings from Tuna elGebel provide evidence for a continuation of the cult into Roman times.

Mediterranean world. Thus both the choice of myth and the specificity of visualization require consideration to situate the images within their eschatological context in the ancient world as well as within their social context in Graeco-Roman Egypt. The Tomb of the Abduction of Persephone Among the mythological paintings from tombs at Tuna el-Gebel, the one from House-tomb 3 of the abduction of Persephone is the best known and its subject the most conventional. It shows the only mythological subject from the site that appears with any frequency elsewhere in Greek and Roman mortuary imagery or, for that matter, in Greek and Roman art, and its normalcy occasions its reproduction and reference when its subject is mentioned elsewhere. Nevertheless, despite these commonalities with other representations, the Tuna elGebel image contains details that render it unique among its counterparts. The tomb that includes the painting has been dated at some time before the second century ce on the basis of its architectural resemblance to the tomb of Isidora and the orthography of its inscription.673 Like the great

Tombs with Greek Myth Narratives Conspicuously more remarkable, however, than the cult paraphernalia painted on tomb walls at Tuna el-Gebel are the narratives in the house-tombs that employ Greek myth for their subject. Like the paintings of Dionysiac cult implements, these narrative scenes bear an eschatological meaning, but they also incorporate an intention that extends beyond the metaphysical and that provides their social context. These tombs are notable for two reasons: first, within the context of mortuary monuments in all of Egypt, they are almost unique in choosing to depict Greek myth at all; and, second, they depict aspects or iconographical details of the myth rare (or even unique) in either Graeco-Roman Egypt or elsewhere in the ancient

96

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

3.5. Tuna el-Gebel, House of Dionysos, the Wall Decoration (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-10018)

majority of tombs at Tuna el-Gebel, it consists of two rooms, both of which bore decoration when excavated.674 The first room is architecturally embellished with painted orthostats topped by a red and black band. According to an epigram painted on the back wall of a niche set into the middle of the right wall, the tomb held the remains of two brothers:

Didymos; among men I am also called . . . ton. Yes, on the entrance chamber I have written the inscription.675

The second chamber, as also frequently seen at Tuna elGebel, focuses on a funerary niche. This niche holds a brick-built kline, less sumptuous than that in the House of the Dionysiac Krater, and one that utilizes a very different conceit. Simple legs are inscribed on a structure otherwise painted to appear as if built from brick with dark lines to define the mortar, at once elaborating upon itself and other brick-built banquettes at Tuna el-Gebel in an extraordinarily postmodern fashion. The kline niche is flanked by two columns painted to simulate green, variegated marble that support a vaulted roof.676 Painted on

. . . I have written the inscription in Ionian, so that you might see it, I, the son of Phanias and of Hermias, his brother. But I am going to tell you their names and mine. They were renowned, in fact, among men, both of them, Eudaimon, together with his brother Menelaos. I shared in their renown, and I resemble my fathers. My name is

97

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

the back wall of the niche, about a half-meter above the funerary bed, is the abduction of Persephone by Hades. Almost upon discovery, much of the painting separated from the wall and broke into fragments, but fortunately it had first been photographed and copied in watercolor by Youssef Khafaga (Pl. XI).677 The Tuna el-Gebel Abduction of Persephone is at once a canonical image of the scene and simultaneously unique. Led by Hermes and accompanied by Eros, the quadriga of Hades, centered within the image, dominates the composition as it wheels from left to right. Hermes, a kerykeion in his left hand, and nude but for a chlamys over his left shoulder,678 leads the way into the cavern of the underworld realm. Behind him, the horses of the quadriga, painted a dark brown or black,679 leap forward, their forelegs raised and their hind legs pushing off from the ground, in the pose that the team assumes in almost all Roman depictions of the scene. Hades, dressed in a deep yellow himation that falls off his right shoulder to bare his chest, acts as charioteer, the reins held loosely in his hand: the team clearly knows where it is bound. With his other hand at her waist, Hermes holds Persephone, who wears the saffron-colored (κρoκῖvoς) garment of the bride, her arms upraised in distress and her mantle streaming out behind her. Behind the chariot flies (or runs) Eros, pointing at the scene, his bow strung but his arrow not yet readied to be loosed. Despite Persephone’s distress, following Ovid (Metamorphoses V. 362–396), the scene is to be read as one charged by Hades’ love. With the diagonals inscribed by the chariot pole, the outstretched arms of Kore and the position of her body, and the elliptical shape assumed by the chariot’s wheels, the scene endorses the illusionary depth created by the use of three-quarter view observed in more visually successful versions of the scene. Nevertheless the space that the scene inhabits is distinct from these, and the reliefs on the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum constitute the best comparison for the arrangement of its components. As in these reliefs, the center of the action in the painting breaks the front plane of the image, projecting out into the viewer’s space, while the left and right sides of the narrative recede into the near distance. The artist of the Persephone painting, however, has little of the innate skill that marks the carvers of the reliefs, though the figure of Hermes, passing into the cavern, is eerily reminiscent of Titus’ soldiers receding through the arch depicted in the Spoils scene. If the tomb is correctly dated somewhat before the second century, the similarity of the painting’s compositional technique to that of the

relief on the arch, erected in 81 ce, might not be entirely fortuitous.680 Among the mythological scenes at Tuna el-Gebel, only the scene with the abduction of Persephone lacks a full complement of inscriptions, bearing out Roger Ling’s observation that most mythological scenes in the Levant and Egypt need inscriptions to aid their identification. “[I]t almost seems,” he says, “the artists felt that the subjects were unfamiliar to their clients.”681 In the Roman East, as well as in Egypt, the abduction of Persephone must have been familiar enough to obviate the need for labels. Unlabeled, it is seen painted on the wall of the tomb near Tyre dated to the third quarter of the second century ce,682 which contains the image of Tantalus noted in Chapter Two, and on the facade of a rock-cut sarcophagus in a tomb near Massyaf in Syria dated to the second half of the second century ce or as late as the third.683 In both Levantine tombs, figures in other mythological narratives are labeled. In Alexandria, as has been noted, Persephone’s abduction is the sole Greek mythological scene yet discovered, appearing twice, and again with characters untagged. The Tuna el-Gebel representation of the myth is unique among extant visual treatments of the episode in delineating an underground cavern as the chariot’s destination, though another unusual representation on the sarcophagus in the tomb near Massyaf shows Ge (Earth) lifting her hand to guide Hermes to his destination under the earth.684 Aside from their undeniably clumsy style, the images from Tuna el-Gebel and Massyaf share few similarities, but one detail is especially noteworthy: the figure of Hades in the Massyaf painting is nimbused,685 and, though the observation has been queried, the one in the Tuna el-Gebel painting has also been correspondingly described.686 Greeks inherited the concept the halo of light either from the Ancient Near East or Egypt, employing it first for deities, but by the fourth century bce, according to Plutarch (Alex. 63.4), Alexander could be seen preceded by an apparition of light. By the Roman period the power and authority of divine beings were visualized by affording them a blue or white nimbus with yellow being reserved for astral deities.687 Nevertheless, in the abduction of Persephone, a nimbused Hades is rarely encountered.688 In the Greek and Roman world, from among the possibilities of representation that the Persephone myth presents, the scene of the maiden’s abduction is the one most frequently found in sepulchral context.689 It is the

98

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

horse), but the earliest extended account is in Virgil’s Aeneid (II.13–267). Nowhere in the extant early textual accounts, however, are the details as clear as those seen in early representations. The most ancient extant visualization is on a Boeotian fibula, dated ca. 700 bce;701 it indicates the horse as mechanical by its wheels and as the wooden horse by squares that must indicate the ‘windows,’ which, slightly later, characterize the mechanism. The slightly later relief amphora in Mykonos shows the horse in a rigid pose, similar to the Tuna el-Gebel horse, but employs hatching to visit attention to the wheels supporting its hooves. The Mykonos horse, like the one on the Boeotian fibula, further clarifies its heredity through the windows that punctuate its body and neck and, in its case, in which heads of Greek warriors are illuminated, as are their extended arms bearing weaponry or armor.702 The banquet, seen at the right of the Tuna el-Gebel painting, is apparently a later visual addition to the scene.703 The first-century bce Etruscan urn is perhaps the earliest object to include this episode, which is later seen on a wooden shield preserved from Dura Europus704 and in a vignette in the Vatican Virgil.705 The wide distribution of the motif suggests, as proposed by L. Bouke van der Meer,706 that a Hellenistic manuscript painting underlay the image, and it is to this tradition that the Tuna el-Gebel painting belongs. The myth is fitting in sepulchral context. Based on its explication in the Iliou Persis, and especially after its lengthy account provided in the Aeneid, the myth that is encapsulated in the image of the Trojan Horse could easily be employed to exemplify death at its most poignant: the demise of Laocoon, priest of Apollo at Troy, who had argued against trusting the motives of “Greeks bearing gifts,”707 the destruction of the once-proud city, and all that ensued from the defeat: the deaths of elites – epitomized by Polyxena, Astyanax, and Priam and his sons – and of thousands of others; the abduction of Cassandra and other Trojan women; and the exodus of the living from the land. The image of the Trojan Horse, as the pivotal image for the disastrous end of the war, acts much as that of Persephone’s abduction does in exemplifying the entire myth. The wooden horse augured the end to a civilization, and – aside from the elegiac connotations – the Greek inhabitants of Hermopolis Magna, living as second-class citizens under Roman rule, must have found great satisfaction in the depiction of a myth describing Trojan defeat since, through Aeneas, Trojans were ancestral to Rome. On a deeper level, however,

iconic image that conjures up the extended story and the pivotal moment that activates the raison d’ˆetre of its funerary presence. As the motif is not gender specific – established by the epitaph inscribed on the Tuna el-Gebel tomb and by evidence from other tombs – 690 neither is the seminal moment necessary to picture.691 Her abduction permits Persephone to become the Greek trope for death and resurrection, as the Alexandrian Persephone tombs confirm: her abduction quite literally sets the wheels in motion. Like the other painted images at Tuna el-Gebel, the Abduction of Persephone participates metaphorically for an audience educated in the Greek literary tradition. The Tomb of the Trojan Horse Unlike the often-replicated and well-understood theme of the abduction of Persephone, the painting from House-tomb 23 inserts itself among the enigmatic paintings from Tuna el-Gebel whose meaning and inclusion in funerary context implore explanation (Pl. XII).692 The painting was badly damaged when discovered, and even the watercolorist who attempted to reproduce the image had trouble re-creating the credibility of the wooden horse.693 Nevertheless, the original excavation photograph694 and the actual fragment preserved in Cairo695 permit the horse’s wheels (not mentioned by Perdrizet) greater clarity,696 and the entire composition seems to follow one that is well known: the horse at the left of the image and a scene of banqueting Trojans to the right – the latter also clearer in the original than in the watercolor copy. The subject is rare in Greek and Roman representation, but its appearance elsewhere in funerary context further supports the identification by Perdrizet. A similar, though longer, scene is found on an Etruscan funerary urn, probably dating to the first century bce;697 and another long scene, which, however, excludes the banqueting Trojans, is seen on a Roman sarcophagus lid at Oxford.698 A second Roman example on the vault of a funerary chamber, now destroyed, on the Villa Corsini in Rome showed the horse and included Cassandra attempting to restrain a Trojan woman.699 The extract of the scene on a relief amphora in Mykonos, dated to the second quarter of the seventh century bce and found in a tomb,700 however, is probably the best known image. Homer mentions the Greek plot to breech Trojan defenses with a wooden horse in the Odyssey (4.271– 289; 8.499–515), as do the authors of the Little Iliad (I) and the Iliou Persis (who begins his account with the

99

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

3.6. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 16, Electra at the Tomb of Agamemnon (after Gabra 1954: pl. 17 [Upper Left])

In the Tuna el-Gebel painting, the mourning Electra (inscribed ΗΛΕΚΤ) sits at the left, clothed in black. At the right, from a distance and on a curved expanse indicative of a slope, two nude males approach, both of whom are preserved only in their lower halves. Assuredly they are Electra’s brother, Orestes, and his companion, Pylades. The image may originally have been imagined as a vignetted sacral landscape, though all that now remains is the indication of the hill down which Orestes and Pylades descend and a tree to the left of the tholos, which, finding a visual counterpart in a funerary urn from Olbia,716 is undoubtedly intended as the tomb of Agamemnon, the father of the siblings. Seemingly out of place, just to the right and painted lower on the wall, a large, sanguine cock confronts a fierce griffin, both painted to a scale far greater than the mythological scene and thrusting it to the middleground of the wall (Fig. 3.7). This confrontation finds parallels. House-tomb 20 (see Chapter Four) shows two pairs of confronted cocks, one pair of which dispute over a garland.717 Maggie Popkin has argued for roosters on Panathenaic amphorae embodying protection,718 and cocks are seen inhabiting the underworld in South Italy, where they may well play that role719 – a role undoubtedly transferred to the walls of tombs at Tuna el-Gebel. For their part, griffins in the Late Classical period guard the gold – the treasure beneath the earth – from Arimasps in the north,720

the myth of the Trojan Horse, incorporating, as it does, the theme of ignorance setting in motion the tragedy that ensues in its wake, accords with subjects painted in House-tomb 16 at Tuna el-Gebel, and that similarity may herald the more profound reason for its inclusion in funerary context. The Tomb of the Oresteia and of Oedipus House-tomb 16 boasts the largest collection of Greek myths at Tuna el-Gebel and the most remarkable. Another two-story mortuary building, it supposedly had been decorated on both the interior and the exterior with paintings,708 which must have comprised an enormous ensemble but of which only fragments existed upon its excavation in February 1934.709 The tomb preserves an almost complete painting of the myth of Oedipus and fragments that indicate the possibility of an Orestes cycle: one fragment of painted stucco, found in an upper-floor room,710 retains the letters ΑΓΑΜ – the beginning of the name of Orestes’ father Agamemnon – and, on another fragment, the name Orestes is inscribed beside the head of a young man.711 More complete among the fragments from this putative Orestes cycle is the painting from the ground floor of the tomb. Centered by a prostyle Corinthian tholos,712 the scene is focused on Electra (Fig. 3.6),713 and though Orestes cycles are frequent on Roman sarcophagi,714 the part of the story that concerns his sister is usually absent.715

100

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

3.7. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 16, Electra at the Tomb of Agamemnon and Cocks (IFAO NU 2000–4902)

and their fierceness and their Roman-period association with Dionysos and Nemesis721 afford griffins a role in the sepulchral realm.722 These connections – as those of the sepulchral and protective cocks – may well explain their introduction here. Though Perdrizet believes that the mythological image of Electra mourning at the tomb of her father stems from Aeschylus’ tragedy the Choephoroi (458 bce), the image adheres neither to Aeschylus’ text nor to other images that use the play as their inspiration.723 The Choephoroi opens with Orestes and Pylades at the tomb of Agamemnon (Choeph. 4–5); Orestes prays to Hermes Chthonios, dedicates a lock of hair (6–7), then draws aside as Electra and her slave women approach. Here, though, with the seated Electra and approaching youths, the painting describes the antithesis of that encounter. Concurrently, the Tuna el-Gebel image differs from the scheme of the Electra of both Sophocles and Euripides. In Sophocles’ Electra (1113–1170), the meeting takes place in front

of a palace: Orestes and Pylades approach Electra, the former carrying a golden urn allegedly containing his own cremation, and Electra laments his apparent death until Orestes reveals himself.724 In the Electra of Euripides (215–219), the reunion takes place in front of Electra’s house. The Tuna el-Gebel image fits none of the fifthcentury bce tragedians’ accounts. The reunion of sister and brother in front of the tomb of their father Agamemnon is found frequently on fourth-century bce South Italian vases, where it is likely that the scene, as here, had a funerary function.725 Images on these vases rarely show the crucial moment of recognition embedded in the text of fifth-century dramas, preferring most often, however, a symmetrical composition with the mourning Electra seated at the grave site flanked by the two young men.726 Yet the Tuna el-Gebel image circumvents these earlier visual models too.727 Though it is plausible that the fragmentary figure of Orestes bore the golden urn, and thus it is Sophocles’

101

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

version of the meeting at the palace that the painter had in mind or, equally plausible, that he imagined Euripides’ Electra in front of her house, even though the building is temple or tomb shaped,728 it is most likely that he knew only the general schema of the story and that in his painting he alludes to no specific text at all. The House-tomb 16 Orestes cycle (if we can postulate even more images than are actually extant) revolves around grievous acts, but speaks ultimately to redemption. Without knowing the specific scenes that were depicted and their spacial relation to one another on the walls, it is difficult to derive any definitive meaning from their choice. Nevertheless, the most complete painting, the one that joins Electra and Orestes at the tomb of their father, recognizes the intense emotional effect the meeting evoked – the death of Agamemnon deeply lamented by his two children – and the image might be considered analogous to mysteries that elicited from its initiates a similar profound emotional experience, as argued by Richard Seaford for Sophocles’ play.729 Despite the presumed complexity of the putative Orestes cycle, however, the most important and most tantalizing find preserved from House-tomb 16 is the painting discovered in a room on the upper floor of the house.730 The painting comprises a frieze illustrating key moments in the life of Oedipus, and it remains the most complete, most complex, most original, and probably the largest Greek-style painting preserved from Tuna el-Gebel and perhaps from all Egypt (Pl. XIII).731 The painting is unique, not only among extant examples from Egypt, but also among extant visual representations of the myth from any time and any place in antiquity. It combines the major scenes that visually identify the story of Oedipus and three personifications, two of which are rarely seen elsewhere (and, in those cases, iconographically distant from their Tuna el-Gebel representation) and a third that is unique to the Tuna el-Gebel painting. The painting finds few parallels for any of its components, and the affinities it does find carry a meaning far removed from those encountered in the Tuna el-Gebel image. The frieze is bounded by a triple line in blue, yellow, and black delineating it as a system complete within itself: it is meant to be read as a picture hung on the wall of the mortuary house. Conceived as a tripartite composition, it presents two scenes from the life of Oedipus bracketing the personifications that add both texture and meaning to the composition. At the left, Oedipus confronts the sphinx, while at the right, he slays his birth-father, Laios.

3.8. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 16, Oedipus and the Sphinx (Author Photo)

Between these two episodes, the personification of the Boeotian city of Thebes, reclining against a rocky outcrop that indicates Mount Kithairon where Laios had exposed the infant Oedipus,732 is centered in the panel. To her right and slightly in front of her lounges the male personification Ζetema (Inquiry or Search), and, to her left, the female personification Agnoia (Ignorance) recoils from the murder at the right end of the panel. All the characters, including the sphinx and the nymph personifying Thebes, are designated by inscription, reminding us of Ling’s observation that mythological scenes in the Levant and Egypt necessitated inscriptions,733 though, in this case, the obscurity of two of the personifications and the unique forms all three assume would have confounded even mainland Greeks. Seemingly a continuous narrative, the artist (if we accept a normal reading being left to right) chose to invert the chronological order of the two scenes from Oedipus’ life: the death of Laios is at the right end of the panel, and Oedipus’ mastery of the sphinx’s question is at the left. Oedipus, nude but for calf-high boots and chlamys and with the baldric of his sword sheath slung over his left shoulder, leans toward the sphinx (see Pl. XIII and Fig. 3.8). His left hand grasps the hilt of the sword; his right

102

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

arm is raised.734 The sphinx is a Greek sphinx. Female and winged, she sits back on her haunches with her forelegs locked as she crouches on a wide rectilinear base. In most extant images of the scene – both Greek and Roman – the sphinx dominates the composition: either she is placed on a high column, pillar, or promontory, gazing down at the pitiable mortal she expects to dispatch, or, if seated at the same level as Oedipus, she is usually pictured as preternaturally large.735 Yet the Tuna el-Gebel sphinx is painted as unusually small, seemingly far out of proportion to the podium on which she sits, and, instead of the proud, upright pose Greek sphinxes normally assume, she draws back. Despite the human skulls that lie about beneath her support,736 both her scale and her posture suggest she has been intimidated by Oedipus: she is quite literally taken aback. For unlike the greatest number of interpretations of the scene, which show Oedipus – hand at chin – pondering the sphinx’s question, the Tuna elGebel artist has chosen the revelatory moment of the encounter.737 Oedipus raises his right hand and points to himself. As Karl Lehmann notes, Oedipus has solved the riddle posed by the sphinx and indicates himself as Man.738 The setting of this third of the painting is outside the walls of Boeotian Thebes, marked by a stone, arched gateway. Perdrizet, who adduces the theater for all aspects of the representation, identifies “the door under or in front of which Oedipus stands as he responds to the sphinx” as theatrical,739 but since doors and doorways are not normally arched, it is unlikely that his identification is correct. Lehmann,740 more imaginatively, identifies the gateway as the door to the Elysian Fields but, though Lehmann’s interpretation is seductive given the funerary context of the picture, no evidence can be brought to bear to support his thesis. Certainly, since the inquisition of the sphinx occurs outside the city walls of Thebes, and since arches often mark the entrance to a (Roman) city, it is most plausible that a city gate is the intended meaning for the arched opening. The central third of the composition depicts the personifications Thebe and Zetema (see Pl. XIII and Figs. 3.9 and 3.10). Zetema, seated with his legs to his left, looks back to his right, his gaze connecting him to the scene of Oedipus and the sphinx. Thebe, seated in a mirrored pose, gazes to her left toward the murder of Laios. The Tuna el-Gebel painting depicts the only known example of the personification of Zetema (Inquiry or Search).741 Greek personifications normally follow the gender of the aspect they personify: Thanatos (Death),

3.9. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 16, Zetema and Thebe (Author Photo)

for example, is male, whereas Thebe, as most city personifications – to accord with the gender of the Greek noun for city (ἡ πῶλις) – is female.742 Zetema (τ`o ζήτημα), however, is neuter, so, unless a tradition existed of which no examples remain, the artist was free to choose either gender for his personification. He chose male. This choice of gender might have been arbitrary, or it might reflect the antithetical relationship of Zetema and Agnoia explored at the conclusion of this section. In either case, Zetema is shown as a seated, half-draped youth with a himation wrapped about his lower body, who looks toward Oedipus. Lehmann identifies Zetema as assuming the pose of Narcissus, based presumably on the image best known from the Pompeian Domus Lucretii Frontonis743 (seeing Zetema, too, gazing at his reflection in the lacuna that remains below), and draws a connection between the two youths,744 but this interpretation is impossible to endorse. First, though Zetema is a young, halfdraped male relaxing languorously, his head turned back

103

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

3.10. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 16, Oedipus Painting, the Right Side (Author Photo)

figures.757 And this seems to be the way models work in antiquity. The painting in Bissing’s tomb from 1897, discussed in Chapter Five, uses the same model for a ‘portrait’ of the deceased as that employed for Moses in the synagogue at Dura Europus in Syria, and not even the greatest imaginative stretch can easily link the two characters portrayed. In the Oedipus painting, as elsewhere, model and meaning do not necessarily coincide.758 To Zetema’s left sits Thebe, in her mirror-image pose of Zetema. Framed by Mount Kithairon, she marks the midpoint of the painting. Thebe is the nymph who lent her name to the city Laios ruled and in which Oedipus was born and that he was to rule. Thus, whereas Search or Inquiry regards Oedipus’ encounter with the sphinx, Thebe turns her gaze toward the confrontation between her former and her future king. Topographical personifications were well established by the time of the Tuna el-Gebel painting. In literature, localities, like deities, were early given human form, and, although no Xenophanes mocked their similarity to humankind,759 one only has to consider the ‘Homeric Hymns’ to Apollo (30–47) for the anthropomorphized lands that “trembled” and “were afraid” when Leto begged them to permit her touching down to give birth to her twins and to recall Telphousa (244–276),

toward his supporting arm like Narcissus in the painting from Pompeii, he merely assumes the open pose that best exhibits the bodies of young, seductive males and one that is therefore employed for a number of mortal and semimortal mythic youths – Kyparissos, for example, who is a narrative doublet of Narcissus, known from his mention by Ovid;745 Hippolytos;746 Endymion;747 Ganymede (who assumes a variant pose of Endymion);748 and Adonis749 – as well as for generic youths.750 Nor is the pose exclusive to attractive youths: it is also employed for females,751 female deities,752 and nymphs,753 so any meaningful iconographic connection of Zetema with Narcissus is impossible to sustain.754 Second, the pose for the self-absorbed Narcissus finds a number of variations, as does that of the other characters that assume like poses,755 and these variations deny any pose assuming a specific identification. Third, the actual painting from Tuna el-Gebel (unlike the watercolor rendering of it) shows that although Zetema’s head is inclined, his gaze is directed toward Oedipus.756 Fourth, the nymph Thebe in the Tuna el-Gebel painting is one of the nymphs that assumes the precise mirror image of the ‘Narcissus pose.’ And fifth, and most important, other figures (including, here, Thebe) also find their models in well-known works without necessarily carrying the meaning of these

104

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

painting is one of only two certain extant visual examples of the personification, and the second, a standing frontal female figure drawn on a papyrus,770 bears no formal resemblance to the Tuna el-Gebel image, despite its identifying inscription.771 Oedipus’ encounter with the sphinx is a frequent subject in funerary context, but the death of Laios, seen at the far right of the panel (see Pl. XIII and Fig. 3.10), is a scene rarely represented,772 and an extended narrative of the Oedipus tale, as seen at Tuna el-Gebel, is even more unusual. A rare extant example of the death of Laios paired with Oedipus and the sphinx appears on a sarcophagus lid in the Vatican dated ca. 220 ce.773 The disposition of the two scenes parallels that of the Tuna el-Gebel painting, with the sphinx encounter at the left and the death of Laios (whom Oedipus wrests from his chariot to slay) at the right, but instead of depicting the personifications found in the Tuna el-Gebel painting, the central scenes on the sarcophagus lid are given over to the childhood of Oedipus.774 In literature, the fullest verison of the encounter of Oedipus with Laios is related by Apollodorus (III.V.7), active in the second century bce. He records that when Oedipus and Laios, each in a chariot, met at a narrow spot in the road, Laios’ herald ordered Oedipus to move aside. When Oedipus refused, the herald killed one of Oedipus’ horses, and an enraged Oedipus then dispatched both the herald and King Laios. As on the Vatican sarcophagus lid, the moment chosen in the few extant visualizations (and, among those, in which the moment is clear enough to interpret) is the one at which Oedipus drags Laios from his chariot before he delivers the fatal blow. The Tuna el-Gebel painter, idiosyncratically, chooses a later moment. Here Laios, garbed in white chiton (?) and thick brown himation, has sunk to his knees, facing threequarters toward the viewer. He spreads out his hands in supplication as Oedipus grabs him by the hair with one hand and, with the other, sinks his short sword into the body of his father. The outstretched legs and arms of Oedipus, his chlamys billowing behind him, and the diagonal shadow that emphasizes the thrust of his feet conspire to contrast the virile ephebe with the submissive older man. Though he positions himself as far from Laios as his short weapon permits,775 at this horrific moment Oedipus is nevertheless seen as heroic. The horizontal created by Oedipus’ arm and the vertical line created by his sword mirror the form of the stele in front of which Laios sinks, which must represent the stele that will mark his grave.776 The stele also connects the figure of Agnoia

whom Apollo encountered when he sought a spot for his sanctuary. Given this literary inclination toward personification and the added impetus provided by the many Greek cities that boasted illustrious founders who themselves incorporated well-known mythical form, it is surprising that personifications of cities and other geographical features can be identified with certainty in visual form beginning only in the Early Classical period. The Boeotian city of Thebes is among the earlier preserved visualizations of topical personifications,760 though in no other extant monument is the female figure paired with Oedipus. The Tuna el-Gebel Thebe wears only a himation wrapped at her hips and supports the stem of a large bud with her right hand761 in a depiction that is unique. She does not find her visual model in the fully draped female figure that had early personified the city,762 nor in Hellenistic images of the personification,763 nor in Imperial images known from Boeotian coins.764 Instead, her depiction is either based on a much copied statue of a generic nymph,765 or, alternatively, it is intentionally constructed to mirror Zetema, to whom Thebe bears a close, though gender-bent, resemblance. In either case, like Zetema, the figure of Thebe in the Tuna elGebel painting takes its form from an image unconnected with the meaning it carries, and like Zetema, by inscription, she imposes her identity upon that form. As with all personifications in the painting, the form itself does not convey the meaning. The third personification, Agnoia (Ignorance) (see Pl. XIII and Fig. 3.10), is one rarely depicted visually and one that may have surfaced relatively late. Lucian (Calumniae non temere credendum 4), writing in the second century ce, credits Apelles (whose date is problematic) with including Agnoia in his painting Calumny but, in his ekphrasis, Lucian makes it clear that the figure is not labeled and that the identification is his own.766 The earliest certain occurrence of Agnoia is in a play by Menander (ca. 342–291 bce; the date of the play uncertain), as Perdrizet points out,767 who had the personification recite the prologue in his Perikeiromene (The Girl with Her Hair Cut Short),768 and surviving papyri that preserve texts of Menander’s plays testify to the admiration of his works by Greek speakers in Egypt. Later, multiple Agnoias are met in the philosophical landscape of the ‘Plaque of Kebes’ (27.4), written probably in the first century ce.769 Nevertheless, despite Lucian’s familiarity with the personification, any lasting influence that Apelles or Menander or ‘Kebes’ might have had on the introduction of Agnoia seems slight, since the Tuna el-Gebel

105

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

with the Oedipus and Laios group, since Agnoia stands directly in front of the stele as she raises her arms, recoiling from the scene.777 No one has satisfactorily explained the meaning of the Oedipus painting in its mortuary context. Perdrizet778 takes the owner of the house-tomb as a Sophist who desired a moral in the decoration for his tomb, whereas Ida Baldassarre, who faithfully follows Lehmann’s description of the painting, presents a fragmented and convoluted interpretation. She argues that the painting illustrates neither the myth of Oedipus nor any play based on that myth, but instead is a philosophicalreligious elucidation of the myth, in which “the search itself, the recognition itself, the zetein, is interrupted by the disaster of ignorance.”779 She notes that “in Neoplatonic thought of late antiquity, the story of Narcissus will become, in fact, an allegory for the search for truth carried finally to its extreme consequence.”780 Her explanation of the painting’s meaning is clearly tortuous. How Narcissus is perceived in late antiquity is irrelevant to the painting since the painting, on the one hand, does not illustrate the myth of Narcissus and, on the other, is not of Late Antique date. It is unquestionably a painting of episodes in the life of Oedipus, and its meaning has to be derived with that materiality in mind. Jean-Marc Moret disputes any philosophical similarity of Zetema to Narcissus, arguing that “the contemplative act [had], in each context, an entirely different signification,”781 and he correctly stresses the symmetrical composition as a key component to the meaning of the scene. He draws attention to the “centripetal action” of the two narrative scenes emanating from the centrality of Thebe and thus locates the city as the focal point of the action, but he takes this signification no further.782 Moret’s visual analysis is compelling, although his conclusion does not fit the context of the image: a focus on Boeotian Thebes seems an unlikely reason for the scene to appear at Tuna el-Gebel. Yet if Thebe – sited beneath Mount Kithairon and acting as its identifier – is viewed metaphorically to reference the infancy of Oedipus, complementing the ephebe who has solved the riddle and the old man Laios about to meet his death, the tripartite composition can be seen to reiterate the riddle’s three stages in the life of Man. The composition then reinforces not only Oedipus’ solution to the sphinx’s puzzle, but the breadth of human life, itself appropriate to a funerary monument. It connects the painting to the only other extant monument that includes the episodes of both the sphinx and the death of Laios, the sarcophagus lid in the Vatican adduced earlier that

shows scenes from the childhood of Oedipus bridging the two events.783 The centrality of Thebe, referencing the exposure of the infant on the slopes of Mount Kithairon that precipitated the two flanking events, becomes pivotal to the signification of the image (endorsing the centripetal composition identified by Moret), as it too recalls the innocence of Oedipus in all that was to come. Viewing Thebe as a metaphor helps explain the composition of the painting and provides a clue to its meaning, but to mine the eschatological import of the picture, it seems fruitful to interrogate the character of Oedipus, who is, after all, the subject of the work. Most recent scholars who have addressed Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus agree that in the resolution of the narrative, the playwright transforms Oedipus from an outcast into a hero.784 The play ends, in the words of Peter J. Ahrensdorf,785 with “the hopeful tale of the apotheosis of Oedipus”: But in what manner Oedipus perished, no one of mortal men Could tell but Theseus. It was not lightening, Bearing its fire from Zeus, that took him off; No hurricane was blowing. But some attendant from the train of Heaven Came for him; or else the underworld Opened in love the unlit door of earth. For he was taken without lamentation, Illness and suffering; indeed his end Was wonderful if mortal’s ever was.786

Within his discussion, Ahrendorf also comments upon the character of Oedipus: arguing that Oedipus exhibits a singularly strong interest in the afterlife,787 Ahrensdorf further identifies Oedipus as a monster-slayer in the lineage of Herakles and Perseus, but incisively notes that what differentiates Oedipus from the other monsterslayers is that his victory is intellectual.788 Other scholars take Oedipus-as-hero even more substantively. Lowell Edmunds holds that Oedipus – who had cults at Eteonos near Thebes, at Sparta, and in Attica – can be identified as a chthonic hero,789 and, with even greater specificity, Claude Calame,790 Andreas Markantonatos,791 and Adrian Kelly792 connect Colonus with Eleusis, equating the death of Oedipus with that of an initiate into the Eleusinian cult,793 a connection earlier suggested by Seaford in relation to both Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus and Aeschylus’ Oedipus.794 The visualization of the personifications of Zetema and Agnoia cannot merely have been intended to embellish

106

GREEK M YTH AS M ETAPHOR IN THE CHORA OF EGYPT

the narrative scenes that flank them: their rarity alone precludes that possibility. Moret notes that in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King the verb “to search” (ζητεῖv) is connected only with the murder of Laios, never with the sphinx,795 which underscores (were further evidence necessary) that the labeled personification in the Tuna el-Gebel painting must carry more extensive significance than its relation to the untangling of the riddle. In Sophocles’ Oedipus the King (109–110), Creon says: “‘In this land,’ [Apollo] said, ‘That which is sought (τ`o . . . ζητoύμεvov), is found; that which is overlooked escapes.’” This phrase, coupled with the other connections set out earlier, suggest that in the painting “that which is sought,” that is, Zetema, personifies a fruitful afterlife. As Oedipus, through his intellect, triumphs over the sphinx that augurs death, so the initiate achieves a similar transcendent state through knowledge accrued by initiation into the mysteries.796 ‘Ignorance,’ visualized in the painting as contrapuntal to ‘the search,’ can also be detached from its literal meaning in the myth: in concordance with Zetema and as his counterweight, Agnoia is death without the knowledge gained through initiation into the mysteries and thus without the hope of achieving a blessed afterlife. Which mysteries are specifically referenced in the painting is difficult definitively to determine, since the mysteries of Isis, those of Demeter and Kore, and those of Dionysos all had currency in Roman-period Egypt. Though a celestial aspect to Egyptian Isis has been cited to exist as early as the Pyramid Texts,797 little secure epigraphic evidence for the practice of Isiac mysteries emerges from Egypt. Pictorial evidence for the mysteries of Isis originates primarily from tombs in Alexandria, though tombs in the chora preserve visual evidence for Isiac mysteries as well.798 In the Roman period, suppliants streamed in increasing numbers to Eleusis in Attica for initiation, and, based on its name, the Alexandrian suburb of Eleusis has also been invoked as a site for the cult of Demeter and Persephone.799 Paintings of the abduction of Persephone by Hades, found both in Alexandria and at Tuna el-Gebel, attest either to a purely metaphorical use of the image to reference a blessed afterlife or, more specifically (and, I think, perhaps more likely), to the inhabitants of the tomb as initiates in the Eleusinian mysteries. On the basis of the decoration of other house-tombs at Tuna el-Gebel, however, the mysteries of Dionysos find the most traction. The painted decoration from the house-tombs at Tuna el-Gebel that

include Dionysiac cult implements permits House-tomb 16, in which the Oedipus painting was ‘hung,’ but which shows no direct evidence for Dionysiac worship, to be – with caution – added to the other monuments that revel in the mysteries of the god. Regardless of the specific cult addressed, the extraordinary choice of the subject of the Oedipus story and its idiosyncratic and original means of presentation argue for a highly sophisticated clientele at Hermopolis Magna and one that is deeply engaged in furthering its chances of a blessed afterlife. The Oedipus painting from House-tomb 16 remains a major moment in the history of Romanperiod painting and an evocative monument in the religious history of Graeco-Roman Egypt. The Myths and the Mysteries The Dionysiac imagery at Tuna el-Gebel suggests initiation into mystery cults, and the myths that underscore the vulnerability of those who lack the knowledge gained by initiation also suggest the mysteries as a pathway to salvation. The epitaphs of Isidora and the abduction of Persephone as eschatological markers are self-explanatory, even if their explication necessitated the earlier discussions, but the Oedipus cycle and the image of the Trojan Horse (and possibly the image of Electra, who believing her brother dead, does not at first recognize him) each speak to the tragedy of ignorance and, by extension, the triumph of knowledge. In this way, each metaphorically addresses the fruits of initiation. Plutarch (frag. 178), himself a priest in the Eleusinian Mysteries, notes the changed state of the soul at death, and how it mirrors initiation: . . . In this world [the soul] is without knowledge, except when it is already at the point of death; but when that time comes, it has an experience like that of men who are undergoing initiation into great mysteries; and so the verbs teleutˆan (die) and teleisthai (be initiated), and the actions they denote, have a similarity.800

In another context, Seaford801 notes that “[a] precondition for the effectiveness of mythic initiation is initial agonising ignorance of its blissful outcome (a reason why the cult has to be secret).” The myths of Orestes and Electra, the Trojan Horse, and Oedipus each speak to a traumatic event propelled by ignorance, and the myths of Orestes and Electra and Oedipus (and, from the Greek point of view, the Trojan encounter) resolve the ensuing tragedy with the redemption of the protagonists.

107

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

and in the other ‘Greek’ cities. Legally differentiated from those in Alexandria, Greeks in Hermopolis Magna were instead grouped with Egyptians.802 Thus Greek citizens of Hermopolis Magna – save those few who could claim Alexandrian citizenship because of their primary residence in the capital – endured not only an economic encumbrance, but a lower social status than their compatriots in the capital, and it is likely that this imbalance in social status underlies the use of Greek myth by Greek residents of the metropolis. By socially positioning themselves as Greeks in death and by demonstrating their Greek education, erudition, and sophistication by the extraordinary choice of images painted in their tombs, they strove to distance themselves from Egyptians, the legally determined underclass, and to align themselves with the uppermost social and economic class – that is, with the citizenry of Alexandria – that their lack of Alexandrian citizenship otherwise denied. Thus instead of crossing an iconographical boundary and extending their range of possibilities to visualize their negotiation of the afterlife, as did Greeks in Alexandria and Jews at Leontopolis, Greeks interred at Tuna el-Gebel invented or refashioned images of Greek myth to expedite their journey. Greeks at Hermopolis Magna were as equally concerned with their life on earth as with their afterlife, and they used Greek myth, not only to further their eschatological goals, but also to further their social ambitions.

GREEK M YTH AT LEONTOPOLIS AND TUNA EL-GEBEL

Leontopolis, the land of Onias, was sanctioned by the Ptolemaic administration as a city founded specifically by Jews, and in this predominantly Jewish city, coupled with the comfortable legal standing its population generally enjoyed, Jews flourished. As members of a robust diasporic minority, Jews in Leontopolis, like other Jews in Egypt, were fully integrated into all aspects of the greater polity’s life. Serving in the army and as merchants, shopkeepers, farmers, and artisans, they lived in their own city as a religious majority, and within the greater fabric of the polity, they constituted an assimilated minority. Content with their social position and their selfworth, they comfortably adopted (and adapted) Greek language, Greek forms, and Greek visions of the afterlife encased in Greek myth to suit their own eschatological needs. Greeks who lived in Hermopolis Magna write a different story. Hermopolis Magna was a cosmopolitan city with metropolitan status, which conferred upon its citizens of Hellenic heritage somewhat greater privileges than those enjoyed by most Greeks in Egypt. In Romanperiod Egypt, Hermopolitan Hellenes, for example, paid a poll tax at a lower rate than others in the chora. Nevertheless, its Greek population still lacked the status of ‘citizen,’ which was reserved for Greeks in Alexandria

108

four

Tradition and Innovation in the Tombs of the Egyptian Chora

I

n contrast to the tombs at tuna el-gebel dominated by greek myth, most late-Ptolemaic and Roman-period tombs in the Egyptian chora – like that of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel – rely on Egyptian motifs and Egyptian narratives to facilitate their patron’s voyage to the afterlife. Nevertheless, these tombs remain products of their time and circumstance. Situated in an era of political change, their eschatological visualization cannot but help reflect the contemporaneous conditions that governed the fraught landscape of the time.

By the late-Ptolemaic period, Egypt had been under foreign rule for the better part of a millennium and the polity had devolved into a near chaotic state. The expectation of the ruler maintaining ma’at, an underpinning of Egyptian societal expectations, was challenged by infighting among the Ptolemaic rulers and their reliance on the mob to assist them in their consanguineous disputes. Civil unrest roiled through the chora. Not only were Egyptians pitted against Greeks, but they quarreled among themselves: under Ptolemy VIII (170–166 bce), for example, the Upper Egyptian cities of Hermonthis (Armant) and Theban Crocodilopolis had engaged one another in war, and, earlier, in 205 bce, fraction had occurred when an independent state was established in the Thebaid, which, until 186 bce, was ruled by local Egyptian kings.803 The generalized disintegration under the Ptolemies of the historically unified state, coupled with the low status conferred on Egyptians – Egyptians, for example, who served in the military were awarded with land allotments that were significantly smaller than those given non-Egyptians and that could not, in fact, sustain a soldier on active duty – is reflected in strikes, banditry, attacks on villages, and the despoliation of temples. In the words of Alan B. Lloyd, “These are indisputably the reactions of people pushed beyond the limits of endurance by famine,

rampant inflation, and an oppressive and vicious administration.”804 After the Roman conquest of Egypt in 30 bce, Egyptians – whose second-class citizenship under the Ptolemies was only partially legislated – were legally invested as an underclass. Philo (In Flacc. 78–80), for example, in a famous passage usually adduced to describe Jewish Alexandrians’ resentment at their treatment under Roman rule, makes the juridical institutionalizing of this social differentiation clear by providing a telling detail: (78) . . . There are different kinds of scourges used in the city, and these differences are related to the status of the persons to be beaten. So, for instance, the practice is that Egyptians are beaten with a different kind of scourge and by different people than the Alexandrians, who are beaten with flat blades and by Alexandrian blade-bearers. (80) It was therefore unbearable that, although Alexandrian Jewish commoners had always been beaten with the scourges that more befitted freemen and citizens even when they were thought to have committed things worthy of stripes, now their rulers, the members of the council of elders, whose very title implies age and honor, were in this respect treated with a greater lack of dignity than their inferiors, as if they were Egyptians of the lowest status.805

109

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

References to the Amduat, as in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, are seen in other Graeco-Roman tombs in the chora, as are references to the Book of Gates and the Book of Caverns, both initially also at least of New Kingdom date.813 These books, which finally supercede the Book of the Dead, stress the knowledge needed to negotiate an afterlife journey fraught with previously unimaginable perils,814 and tomb decoration in the chora incorporates this anxiety. Tombs in far-flung locales in the Egyptian chora reflect the new realities imposed by the socially strained situation, and this chapter addresses egyptianizing tombs at Tuna el-Gebel and those in the Siwa Oasis and Athribis. These tombs are highly traditional in their content. At even their most inclusive, they only marginally acknowledge the presence of Greeks in Egypt, and that acknowledgment – as occasionally in the chapel scenes in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel – is visible most often through threads that acknowledge the reality of contemporary life embroidered upon an otherwise traditional fabric. This admission of the contemporaneous landscape, in concert with the weakening of – or the disdain for – central authority, elicits a more frequent appropriation of once-royal texts, and, concurrently, once-royal motifs became even more frequently admissible in tombs of ordinary people. Simultaneously, the tomb itself becomes less welcoming. Its supernatural protection is often explicit, which may reflect the political instability, but which may also – or singularly – mark a Greek acquisition.

Documenting the further distancing of Egyptians in the power continuum after Egypt’s conquest by Rome is the exclusion of Egyptian (in Demotic or hieroglyphic script) from official decrees. During the Ptolemaic period, Egyptian had been one of the languages of bilingual state decrees – such as the decree inscribed on the Rosetta Stone – but decrees were now constituted only of Latin and Greek.806 Hieroglyphs were employed only in temple inscriptions and in tombs. In all societies, a reliable connection to the past is provided by religion, which, by its nature, is conservative and retrospective. Though products of the increasing disruption of the social order, egyptianizing tombs in the late-Ptolemaic- and Roman-period chora nevertheless knowledgeably follow an older Egyptian religious tradition. In contrast to tombs in Alexandria with their limited egyptianizing subject matter, tombs in the Egyptian chora retain much of the narrative richness of pharaonicperiod Egyptian tombs. Though few rival the narrative complexity of earlier tombs, or even that of the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel – and though they almost entirely abjure ‘quotidian’ subject matter – they nevertheless stand as heirs to the millennia-long tradition of Egyptian eschatological expression. These tombs also normally integrate hieroglyphic inscriptions or tags,807 and they often embrace even longer texts, indicating that Egyptian priests were active in the tomb’s decoration.808 Cognition of the contemporaneous world necessarily invades latePtolemaic and Roman-period tombs, but despite this recognition, the religious system that these tombs concretize is Egyptian. The tomb is a sacred space, and in the chora, this sanctity is additionally marked by the inclusion of the sacred script. Though based strongly on tradition, Egyptian afterlife religion nevertheless sees new expressions in the GraecoRoman period. The Book of the Dead, appearing first in Dynasty Seventeen,809 which sets out spells to provision and protect the deceased in her or his negotiation of the afterlife (and which, as an independent entity, seems to have come to an end in the first century bce,810 though its imagery and textual extracts persisted811 ), focused on the Judgement of the Dead, and that scene is visually perpetuated in the tombs of the Roman period, as are others. Other books of the afterlife, however, played a special role in the Roman period. The Books of Breathing, which incorporated some of the spells from the Book of the Dead that stress the importance of breath for the deceased,812 can be seen reflected in the images in tombs in which the sail-sign, which denotes this crucial aspect, plays a part.

TUNA EL-GEBEL

Unlike the tombs based on Greek myth discussed in the previous chapter, other tombs at Tuna el-Gebel employ primarily Egyptian eschatological content, Egyptian narratives, and Egyptian style to secure the afterlife journey of their deceased occupants. Among these tombs, the most complete are the tomb of Petekakem (earlier read as Padykam and Padikem), an official in charge of the animal sanctuary,815 and House-tombs 18, 20,816 and 21. The tomb of Petekakem, except for its approach – which consists of a stairway flanked by two ramps817 on which offering bearers were carved in relief 818 – and though preserved only to its lowest course, responds directly to the tomb of Petosiris. It assumes the same temple-like plan as that of Petosiris’ tomb, though, in its case, the pronaos is integrated structurally into the fabric of the tomb; it also opens toward the north, and

110

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

¨ 4.1. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 18, Isis (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, A011)

much of its extant decoration is executed in relief. Similarly, too, though perhaps fortuitously, the pronaos of the tomb of Petekakem served as a burial place in the Roman period.819

his staff, the imagery is comfortably in an egyptianizing tradition. House-tomb 18 preserves little, if anything, that speaks to other than a traditional approach to Egyptian funerary iconography. House-tomb 20 and House-tomb 21, however, though not fully embracing the Hellenic world as do tombs discussed in Chapter Three, both incorporate motifs that lie outside the Egyptian canon.

House-tomb 18 In contrast, House-tomb 18, a small three-room tomb, assumes the more usual plan for Tuna el-Gebel tombs. Its major interest lies in the figures that are painted to protect the deceased interred beneath its floor: Isis, at the right of a niche in the wall, is seated and crowned with a vulture headdress surmounted by a solar disc between cow horns and her identifying throne sign (Fig. 4.1) and holds a scepter and an ankh; at the left of the niche sits Nephthys, also with a scepter and an ankh, and Osiris, the latter bereft of mummy bandaging and wearing an atef crown embellished with the horns of Amun and holding an ankh and a was-scepter (Fig. 4.2).820 Hieroglyphs identify the figures, and, except for Osiris’ garments and

House-tomb 20 The decoration of House-tomb 20 stands apart, because it admits a number of Greek elements into a tomb that was originally almost entirely canonically Egyptian. The tomb is oriented with its entrance at the north. Perdrizet described it as a four-room tomb, with the rooms disposed in two stories,821 but G¨unter Grimm subsequently determined that what Perdrizet had interpreted as two buildings – called by him House-tombs 19 and 20 – was, in fact, a single tomb with four rooms on the lower floor

111

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.2. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 18, Nephthys and Osiris (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-10036)

and two on the upper.822 The north rooms of the lower story were added against the original painted facade in a period later than the tomb’s initial construction, and the upper story is also a later addition,823 as is probably the exterior staircase. The original section of the tomb is decorated with delicately drawn, traditional Egyptian figures engaged in traditional Egyptian narrative, whose minor eccentricities

accord with the period in which they were painted. The scenes that remain are repetitive, but the poor state of the entire program’s preservation may exacerbate their apparent lack of variation. On the interior of the right jamb of the entry door to the original section of the ground floor, which comprises a large room in the south section of the building, stands Isis, preternaturally elongated with unusually thin arms

112

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

solar disc, and in the middle of the beam are the remains of Thoth, the ape who guards the balance.831 Though the paucity of eschatological content of the imagery is exacerbated by the paintings’ state of preservation, the fineness of execution is nevertheless rare in tombs of the Graeco-Roman period. In marked contrast to the generally Egyptian schema of the decoration of the original structure, the additional rooms all show marked Hellenism. The decoration of the two rooms added to the structure on the ground floor (the ‘porch’ and the ‘annex’) is fragmentary, but notable is a garland flanked by two grape vines on the south wall of the annex and, on its east wall, two additional confronted cocks, more comfortable in their Classical ambiance,832 and a unique image of a frog-headed male impregnating a squatting, frontally positioned female with his hose-like penis (Figs. 4.4 and 4.5). The latter image finds conceptual parallels in Hellenically influenced monuments of Graeco-Roman Egypt and here probably relates both to the primordial gods of Hermopolis Magna and to fecundity and (re)birth.833 The treatment of the two rooms that consitute the added upper story incorporate a Hellenic flair that compares well to the tombs at Tuna el-Gebel that boast Greek myth. As in those tombs (and as in Alexandria), the front room incorporates orthostats painted to appear as alabaster alternating with other stone,834 and, in the rear room, a funerary niche is fitted with a bed or sarcophagus. A grape vine decorates what would be the voussoirs of a built arch, and the back wall of the niche is painted to appear as covered by a curtain835 – a treatment of the kline niche wall similar to that found in other tombs at Tuna el-Gebel and seemingly restricted to that site.836 The later addition of the front rooms and upper story of House-tomb 20 may explain some of the dissonance in style, yet the tomb remains significant as a rare occurrence of clearly distinctive cultural materials existing independently one of the other (with the exception of the Greek garland and the cocks and feline in the original structure), instead of their more normal, thoughtfully considered integration seen in the greatest number of tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt.

4.3. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 20, a Falcon with an Ankh ¨ (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, A009)

and unusually coiffed with a nemes-like headdress and her hieroglyphic sign between two uraeae.824 Originally, she would have welcomed the visitor to the tomb, employing traditional Egyptian etiquette. In front of her is an altar, and above is sketched a profile head (probably not part of the original decoration) and a neatly drawn garland ‘pinned’ to the wall as in tombs in Alexandria. To the right of the door, on the north wall, is a small niche, and between the niche and the door are the Four Sons of Horus, and, to their right, are two confronted cocks, below which is painted an indeterminate feline, unusual in such an Egyptian-themed environment.825 On the east wall near the north corner, a small, poorly preserved image shows a deity – Isis or Nephthys – raising her hand in mourning near a mummy lying on a lion-bed,826 and, in the middle of the same wall, is a painting of a splendid falcon holding an ankh in its claws (Fig. 4.3). If the falcon can be connected to the poorly preserved lustration scene below it, it provides an instance – as noted by Dieter Kurth in another context – of the ba-bird’s assimilation to the falcon, one of the appropriations of royal imagery in private tombs noted by Kurth in the Graeco-Roman period.827 On the west wall is another badly damaged lustration scene, of which only a poorly preserved figure at the left and part of Anubis (over a half-meter high), the lion-bier, and the mummy remain.828 On the south wall of the original part of the tomb is a Judgement scene.829 In this image, which is also very poorly preserved, Anubis holds the left-hand pan of the scale (the right side of the scale is destroyed) in which the ‘soul’ is figured by a black eidolon eccentrically emerging from a vessel set upon the pan.830 To the other side of the scale, and facing toward the lost right-hand pan, stands Horus, crowned with a

House-tomb 21 Unlike the Roman-period tombs previously mentioned at Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21 stands among the best known tombs emerging from Graeco-Roman Egypt. Usually dated to the first century ce or the first-half of

113

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.4. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 20, Cocks, Coitus, and Grapevine (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-10044)

the second,837 it ranks among the best published painted tombs, and, as such, it affords access to a well-planned mortuary program in early Roman-period Egypt and the concomitant eschatological expectations of its patron. The tomb was originally constructed for a woman, and this gender specificity is unusually apparent throughout the tomb’s decorative program. Steeped in traditional iconography, it nevertheless creates newly comforting imagery for the unsettled time in which it was constructed. House-tomb 21 was uncovered in February 1935 by Sami Gabra, and its description forms the substance of his own contribution to his book on the site,838 as well as five plates in his portfolio of watercolors,839 which are frequently reproduced, as they are here. The tomb faces north on a narrow street on which the houses had exterior staircases, which it too may have had, though it bears no indication of an upper story. Extant are four

4.5. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 20, Coitus of a Frog-Headed Male and a Female (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-10041)

114

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

vaulted rooms: an anteroom and a burial room are on axis with one another, and two side chambers open from the anteroom. The two main rooms were decorated with paintings, whereas the side chambers were merely coated with white plaster.840 With the paintings subsequently having suffered catastrophic damage,841 and despite efforts at their conservation,842 the images and descriptions in Gabra’s initial publication and the watercolor paintings in the later accompanying portfolio currently provide the best record of their original state.843 The facade of the tomb admits both Greek and Egyptian architectural elements. The entrance door is surmounted by a Greek pediment and framed by two piers, but beneath the Greek pediment is an Egyptian molding.844 The organization of the decoration within the tomb, however, closely follows Egyptian tradition: in the anteroom, the deceased is greeted by the gods, while in the burial room, the decoration focuses on the afterlife journey and its reward.

signs that reach the full height of the djed (Fig. 4.7); they semi-anthropomorphize and identify as a mirror image of the uraeae to the other side of the door, with the right-hand tiet wearing the crown of Isis and the left that of Nephthys.846 Both djed pillars are also anthropomorphized: two eyes, emerging from a lotus blossom, peer out between its two uppermost horizontal bars, and the ensuing head is crowned with the sun-disc of Re. Neither the anthropomorphism of the djed pillar nor that of the tiet is original to the Roman period: both images follow pharaonic models. From the Old Kingdom on, the tiet was fused with the bovine face of the goddess Hathor. By the Late Period, it is associated with Hathor or Isis and Nephthys, as here, and it forms the garment for the fully anthropomorphized goddess Nut.847 The djed pillar, which is associated with the spine of Osiris and which can allude to the deceased man or woman as an Osirid, is also earlier anthropomorphized: an Osiriform djed, with a face similar to the one on the wall of House-tomb 21, is drawn on the Twenty-first Dynasty papyrus of Padiamun, where it is revered by fully anthropomorphic images of Isis and Nephthys.848 Furthermore, the ‘syncretism’ of Osiris and Re,849 shown here by the solar crown the djed pillar wears, is also apparent earlier as, for example, in the Nineteenth-Dynasty tomb of Nefertari (QV66).850 In contrast to the symmetrical arrangement in the panels of the north wall, the lower figured registers of the long walls of the anteroom show a procession of figures that moves from the doorway toward the back wall of the tomb.851 The friezes accommodate the doors to the lateral chambers that punctuate each wall, so that each section of the frieze is composed of four figures. The procession on each wall culminates on the short walls flanking the door to the burial chamber. The choice of deities and the order in which they process are carefully considered: the gods chosen are, for the most part, the old gods – those whose genealogies situate them near the beginning of the construction of the Egyptian cosmos; most are divinities who present a protective function, and this aspect is reiterated in their denominating inscriptions;852 with one possible exception, female and male deities alternate; and the deity that leads the procession on each section of the wall is a female, which is appropriate given the gender of the deceased, and also a mortuary deity, which is fitting given the funerary context of the images. The affinity between the two walls is accentuated by the inherent relationship of the deities situated opposite one another across the tomb, and these correspondences

The Anteroom The walls of the anteroom are divided into four registers. The lowest assumes the form of a course of orthostats decorated in an alabaster pattern – similar to those of House-tomb 20’s upper story and other tombs at Tuna el-Gebel845 – topped by a band of varicolored short bars disposed in a weave pattern. The upper register was missing or was never painted, but the two middle registers carry figured scenes. Because the friezes of the long walls respond to one another across the width of the tomb, it seems pertinent to organize the discussion based on the arrangement of the lower and upper figured friezes as they wrap around the room. The Lower Frieze On the north wall, the entrance to the tomb creates a short wall to its either side on which the lower figured area is treated as a panel. This configuration, and the wall’s treatment with icons rather than with figures enacting a narrative, separates the execution of this part of the wall from other walls of the anteroom, though it perfectly accords with the treatment of the entrance wall within the burial room. Each panel contains a djed pillar that stretches the height of the panel, but each of the djeds is individualized. The support of the one on the west side of the wall loops up to form a uraeus to either side of the djed, with the left uraeus crowned as Isis and the right one as her sister Nephthys (Fig. 4.6). The djed pillar to the east of the door is flanked by two tiet

115

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.6. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the North Wall, West Side, the Lower Figured Frieze, Djed with Uraeae ¨ (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D007)

4.7. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the North Wall, East Side, the Lower Figured Frieze, Djed and Tiets (Pro¨ jekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D005)

furnish the impression that the procession is a double one, with the deities of the east and west walls walking side by side.853 The first scene on the lower figured frieze of the west wall extends from the north corner of the room to the doorway to the lateral chamber (Pl. XIV).854 Fittingly for the west wall, and for a tomb itself, the deity that leads this section of the procession is Imentet, goddess of the land of the west – the domain of the dead. She, as the other gods in this section of the frieze, holds up her hands in praise or reverence. Her skin is painted green, establishing her revivifying function, as does the sail-sign, indicating breath, supporting her crown, which is composed of a feather and a falcon that denotes ‘the west.’ The Books of Breathing, which are known primarily from the Graeco-Roman period,855 convey that “Imentit [Imentet] stretches out her arms to welcome you as messenger of the first royal wife [i.e., Isis], and you will be at peace in the west of Thebes, without dying a second

time.”856 Behind Imentet, with his name also inscribed, is Atum,857 the primordial god of the Heliopolitan creation, who, rising from the waters of chaos, self-engendered the first pair of deities, Shu and Tefnet, of the great ennead that culminated in the births of Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys. He wears the normal garb for male deities in the frieze: a pectoral and an imbricated kilt and corset, with another – seemingly feathered – garment pulled over his buttocks and a tail tied to the waistband. He is crowned with his identifying double (pschent) crown, but the crown for Lower Egypt is surprisingly painted green, perhaps affirming the generative power of the deity, with the part representing Upper Egypt painted gold instead of white, perhaps confirming his role as primal god. In his right hand he holds a short staff with a lotus finial, springing from which are cow horns, one seemingly bound with a ribbon that flutters as he processes. Behind Atum walks Wadjet, who lacks a denominating inscription but whose depiction as a cobra-headed female

116

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.8. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the West Wall, the South End of the Lower Figured ¨ Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D002)

is unmistakable. As the deity that signifies Lower Egypt, she wears the appropriate red crown, and her skin is painted the gold color of the gods. The last figure in this section of the procession takes the form of a mummified female figure wrapped in an Osirid-type garment, but red and fringed, whose extended hands hold out a linen bandage. The mummiform figure’s skin is painted the green of regeneration – like the faces of the mummies painted in the burial chamber of the tomb – and she is crowned with a gold solar disc. This figure finds a perfect mirror image in a figure from the left wall of the left niche of the Roman-period Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa in Alexandria (see Fig. 2.25) with the exception of the extended objects that the figures hold, which, for the Alexandrian figure, is a scepter. Although the fringes on the Tuna el-Gebel figure’s garment may serve to connect her with Isis, if her solar disc and the color of her skin are significant, she should stand as the deceased, as I have now identified the similar figure at Kom el-Shoqafa.

A completely mummiform figure reappears twice more, albeit with white skin, in the lunette over the doorway to the burial room (see Fig. 4.19), where Gabra does identify it as the deceased.858 The frieze continues beyond the door that leads to the lateral west room with a cortege of four more divinities (Figs. 4.8 and 4.9). At the head of the entire procession is Nephthys. She wears a complicated crown consisting of a vulture headdress that supports two cow horns framing a disc (like that of Isis in House-tomb 18) that is finally surmounted by her cup sign. Behind Nephthys strides Amun, who holds the sail-sign, signaling life and breath in accord with the Book of the Dead, Chapter 38, and the Books of Breathing.859 As the great sun god of Egypt and one of the most important in the Egyptian pantheon, his inconsequential position in the frieze scarcely justifies his status in the hierarchy of the divinities, underscoring the lead in the procession taken by both female and mortuary deities. Cow-headed Hathor follows crowned with

117

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.9. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the West and South Walls (IFAO NU 2000–4894)

norm. In the fourth hour of the Amduat, Sokar protects and renews the solar eye, which is threatened by powers of evil,862 and in the fifth hour, the union of Sokar and Re is achieved, which allows the sun to complete its course during the night and ultimately – through the further union of Re and Osiris – to be reborn in the morning.863 As such, Osiris-Sokar is a deity of resurrection. The lower frieze on the long wall to the east of the entrance is organized similarly to that on the west wall with deities who respond conceptually to those on the opposite wall (Pl. XV).864 The name of the first goddess, placed directly across from Imentet on the west wall, is missing. Gabra suggests her as Ament,865 a deity of the gates of the underworld, who is depicted as a queen and, who, bearing that function, would correspond well to the image on the opposite wall of Imentet, Lady of the West. The second deity in the procession self-identifies by inscription as Geb. The male deity in the third generation of the Heliopolitan Ennead represents the earth

two thick horns surrounding a red sun-disc surmounted by two plumes. Behind Hathor marches Thoth with the head of a black ibis. Undoubtedly acknowledging his titular position at Hermopolis Magna, he alone of the male gods wears a long garment, striated to indicate folds. He is also abnormally crowned with a feathered headdress. His inscription reads: “Words spoken: O Thoth, three times great, Trismegistus,”860 also appropriate for the site. The procession on the west wall concludes on the short west side of the rear wall of the anteroom (see Fig. 4.9 and Fig. 4.10). Anubis, who might be considered as the true leader of the procession, stands before a falcon-headed mummiform deity, who must be Osiris-Sokar, and pours a libation onto an altar with one hand while, with the other, he raises a cup of incense toward the deity. OsirisSokar is seated on a patterned throne raised up on blocks that replicate the groundline of the frieze. Osiris-Sokar is usually depicted as a standing mummiform god,861 and his seated position here appears as a departure from the

118

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.10. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the West Side of the South Wall, the Lower ¨ Figured Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, LudwigMaximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D013)

and, by extension, can also metaphorically denote the tomb.866 As heir of the older gods and as father of Osiris, Geb was early associated with kingship and hereditary descent, and in the Contest between Horus and Seth, he acts as judge, supporting the right of Horus, son of Osiris, to the throne.867 His accompanying inscription sustains this royal aspect of the god: “Geb, prince of the gods, who offers this scroll to his son,”868 as does his composite crown composed of the red (here painted yellow) crown of Lower Egypt combined with the atef crown of Osiris.869 Geb holds out a scroll870 – presumably the one mentioned in the inscription – in his left hand and raises his right in reverence, as do all the deities in the procession. He is paired with another ancient regal god, his grandfather in the Ennead, Atum, on the west wall. Behind Geb, and directly across from the image of Wadjet on the opposite wall is her counterpart, Nekhbet, with the head of a vulture. Behind her, responding to the mummiform female figure on the west wall, is a mum-

miform figure with a mummy mask, complete with false beard, that replicates that of the mummy painted in the burial room. This figure holds a strip of linen bandaging and is crowned with a solar disc similarly to its counterpart across the tomb. Only the position of their hands differ. This figure cannot but make the connection to the mummiform figures on the walls of the lateral niches in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa,871 noted earlier, even more convincing and the connection between the two female-specific tombs even more closely parallel. Beyond the door that leads to the lateral east chamber, Isis, crowned with the throne sign, leads the procession on the long wall (Fig. 4.11). She is paired across the tomb with Nephthys, her sister and usual companion, who leads the western convoy. Behind Isis walks PtahTatenen, a Memphite deity, who fuses the old Memphite creator deity Ptah with the younger Tatenen, also originally of Memphis, and who, from the Middle Kingdom on, symbolized the risen land (the meaning of his name)

119

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.11. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the East Frieze, South End of the Lower Figured ¨ Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D003)

that emerged from the waters of Chaos. As a primal deity, he is associated with Geb, but he can also represent Egypt, itself,872 which is probably his meaning here, paired as he is across the tomb with Amun, the universal god of Egypt. Ptah-Tatenen extends his left hand holding out a statuette of Ma’at. The inscription in front of him, which reflects both the primal nature of the deity and his gift, declares: “Ptah-Tatenen, father of the gods, offering ma’at.”873 Behind him walks Sekhmet – the lion deity, daughter of Re, and the consort of Ptah – in a mosaic-patterned garment, in accord with that of Hathor on the opposite wall; her inscription identifies her as “Sekhmet, the great, beloved of Ptah, who kills the enemies.”874 Like many deities – not only those of Egypt – Sekhmet’s nature incorporates two seemingly antithetical aspects: she is at once a great destroyer and the ultimate guardian. She functions as a protector and almost as a mother goddess of kings,875 and these aspects align her with Hathor, her counterpart on the west wall. Behind Sekhmet strides Shu, a second-generation god of the Ennead and the deity of dryness, air, and light, who holds out another

image of Ma’at. Shu is associated with the lunar deities Thoth and Khonsu,876 and it is probably this association that places him opposite Thoth on the west wall. On the southeast wall of the anteroom that flanks the doorway to the burial room, falcon-headed Horus approaches Osiris himself, holding out linen strips to the seated deity (Fig. 4.12), corresponding to the image of Osiris-Sokar and Anubis on the southwest wall. The Upper Zones The upper frieze of the anteroom is painted above the doorways at the north and south end of the room and on the lower part of the vaulted ceiling on the long east and west walls. Slightly above and to either side of the entrance door on the north wall, mirror images of a female with whitish skin and wearing a red garment that bares her breasts stand with their heads and upper torsos in three-quarter view and raise their hands (Fig. 4.13). Both G¨unter Grimm and Irene Kaplan identify the figures as the deceased woman to whom the tomb is dedicated.877 Yet despite

120

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.12. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the East Side of the South Wall, Lower Figured ¨ Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D025)

the females’ long, black, wavy hair that almost precisely replicates that of the woman in the upper frieze on the west wall (see Fig. 4.14),878 who is surely the deceased, and their – albeit, generic – facial features that follow those of the woman on the west wall, Christina Riggs argues for them as mourners.879 Unfortunately whatever had once appeared between them directly above the door no longer existed when the tomb was cleared, so to whom (or to what) the females address their reverent gesture has been lost,880 and this detail might have clarified their meaning. Above the two females, but seemingly unconnected to them, in the frieze to either side of a small window above the north doorway, Anubis in jackal form crouches on a naos-shaped chest.881 Within the context of the figural program of the frieze, it is most likely that the female figures indicate the deceased. The gesture of the female figures does not comply with the traditional Egyptian (or Greek) mourn-

ing gesture for women, but instead follows the position assumed by almost every deity in the friezes of the long walls of the room, which in Egyptian context normally denotes praise or reverence. Given the parallelism of the east and west walls of the tomb and the definite repetition of the deceased female in the upper friezes of the east and west walls (as noted later) and – if I am correct – the mummified figures in the lower friezes of the east and west walls that also indicate the deceased woman, another pair of women that image the deceased is easily accommodated. Like the lower figured friezes, the upper preserved friezes of the east and west walls also respond to one another. In fact, they nearly replicate one another. In the section of the frieze on the west wall closest to the entrance, the deceased woman, her skin painted pink, stands frontally garbed in what is probably a poorly understood himation, painted red, wrapped over her green

121

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.13. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the North Wall, Upper Friezes (Projekt “Tuna ¨ el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D004)

chiton, which has unusual banding on the ‘sleeves’ painted in black (Fig. 4.14).882 Her face is drawn in threequarter view, turned toward her right and the interior of the tomb, and she spreads her arms slightly. Her frontal pose is rare for humans in either Egypt or Greece, whereas the treatment of her garb, with its lack of folds to indicate the volume of the material, connects her to Egypt. Concurrently, the three-quarter view of her face and the drawing of her features separate her from a traditional Egyptian image and associate her instead with the Classical world. Above her is a falcon that assumes the function of a ba-bird, one of the escapees from royal tombs that provides this private tomb with a regal aspect.883 To the proper right of the deceased, Thoth in ibis-headed form and, to her left, falcon-headed Horus raise libation vessels and bathe her in the purifying liquid. This female figure is one of the stylistic anomalies of the tomb, appearing as she does in quasi-Hellenic form. Though a Classical form appears to have been adopted for the deceased in a number of the otherwise egyptianizing tombs of the chora, as well as on burial shrouds and in other

contexts (see Chapter Five), the deceased figure here does not follow the more normal classicizing style these images assume. The image does not stand alone as the tomb’s patron, since it is deeply involved in a narrative, and it is not, as they are, in fully Classical style: though lines at the woman’s neck indicate corporeality, her pose lacks the expected weight shift and her garments lack the expected tonal definition of its folds. Riggs sees the mode of representation as indicating that the woman in this image is still connected to the world of the living,884 yet that interpretation is belied by the narrative itself: a live figure does not necessitate rejuvenation. I suggest that the image (whose symmetry permits it icon-like status) is intended to define a woman ready to undertake the voyage to the afterlife. Behind Horus is the black, desiccated form of the female’s shadow,885 with closely cropped hair painted red and its contour delineated by knobs. It replicates her gesture, but it is portrayed in a composite pose, and the contrast in form and content between the two images, I think, strengthens my conjecture.

122

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.14. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the West Wall, North End of the Upper Figured ¨ Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D011)

Behind Thoth, above the cavetto molding of the doorway to the west lateral chamber, two mummiform figures in decorated garments with their backs to the lustration scene continue the narrative (Fig. 4.15). The figure directly behind Thoth is crowned with a solar disc. She may again represent the deceased female, though what she holds, which might secure her identification, is lost in the damage to the scene. The figure that precedes her is identifiable, however, by her crown as Meskhenet. As well as being a goddess associated with childbirth, Meskhenet is also a funerary deity invested with rebirth. The sign she wears on her head with its two loops “almost certainly” represents the bicornuate uterus of a heifer.886 Meskhenet holds an ankh and a flail.887 In front of her are two anthropomorphized ankhs,888 each holding a staff: the left staff supports a plaque with an image of Anubis in jackal form posed erect with its four legs extended; the right one is topped by a plaque with a Horus falcon.889

In front of the figure holding the Anubis staff, a male figure offering incense and garbed in an imbricated kilt and corset like those worn by male deities elsewhere in the tomb, moves toward the burial room, turning back toward the personified signs.890 Though his garb is that of the gods, unlike them, he wears a short wig and lacks a crown. The upper frieze at the north end of the east wall shows a scene analogous to the one in the corresponding register directly across from it on the west wall (Fig. 4.16)891 : the deceased, this time shown in Egyptian style with the golden skin of the gods and wearing an Egyptian close-fitting garment and an Egyptian wig secured by a band, is followed by her shadow, which is drawn much the same as the one on the opposite wall including the cropped, red hair with its knobby ends. She is led forward by a female figure, presumably a goddess of regeneration since her skin is painted green. The deity’s upper body is

123

4.15. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the West Wall, South End of the Upper Figured ¨ Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D012)

4.16. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the East Wall, North End of the Upper Figured ¨ Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D006)

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.17. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, East Wall, South End of the Upper Figured ¨ Frieze (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D024)

not preserved, but it is clear that she holds the deceased woman by the wrist. It is possible that the latter figure also holds the wrist of the figure in front of her, which appears to have been mummiform, but too little is preserved to be certain. Signs, presumably anthropomorphic ankhs, holding staffs similar to those on the west wall, are also painted here (Fig. 4.17), and in almost precisely the corresponding section, but they are even more poorly preserved than those on the west wall. At the south end of the east wall, beyond the anthropomorphic ankhs and facing the procession, a figure that separates herself from others in the tomb reads from a papyrus scroll held in her outstretched hands in front of an altar composed of a sema tawy sign (the sign for united Egypt and another usurpation of royal insignia), on which three Egyptian libation vessels stand (see Fig. 4.17 and Fig. 4.18).892 In both the placement on the wall and its function, this figure responds to the male on the west wall who censes. Based, albeit subjectively, on the slight and delicate facial features, the figure should be female. Nevertheless, she is shown with either short-cropped hair or a shaven skull, in what appears as a male hairstyle,893 though her

4.18. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, East Wall, South End of the Upper Figured Frieze, Detail of Priestess ¨ (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D035)

125

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.19. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Anteroom, the South Wall, Upper Figured Frieze (Pro¨ jekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, B035)

hairstyle does concur with those of the shadows in the upper registers of both the east and west walls, except for the knobby contours of the shadows’ hair. Her skull is banded with a ribbon that secures two feathers and whose ends fall down her back, and she wears the leopard skin of priesthood. Setting her apart in yet another way is the delineation of her head, which differs markedly from the other figures in the room. Her profile, from nose to ear, is narrower than the almost-square profile faces of the other human-headed figures. Her skull, unobscured by a wig, is held at an angle slightly oblique to her neck, and this angle is enhanced by the diagonally curved sweep of the bridge of her nose into her forehead. Gabra sees her as the deceased figure acting as a sem-priest,894 and if his (and my) identification of the gender of the figure is acceptable, the unusual aspect of a female reading from a scroll might sustain his point of view, though I would describe her as a lector-priest.895 This figure, if indeed the identification of female holds, permits the deceased patron of the tomb to be recognized as a priestess, and this office would account for the opulence of the tomb’s painted program.

Set between the directional friezes of the east and west walls, the image in the lunette over the south door that leads to the burial chamber door is symmetrical (Fig. 4.19). Closing the scene at either end, the deceased stands as a mummiform figure, similar to the two mummiform figures at the ends of the procession in the lower figured friezes of the lateral walls (see Pls. XIV and XV), her mummy wrappings decorated with small points and, at the shoulder, with more complex designs like theirs. Also like theirs, diagonal lines, indicating fringe, are painted as if emerging from the front of the tight garment.896 In front of the left-hand mummiform figure is Nephthys, and in front of the mummiform figure at the right is Isis. The goddesses each hold a scepter with the rempet (million-year) sign in their farther hand and raise their other hand in reverence. In the middle, directly over the cavetto of the doorway, Anubis, on the left, coiffed with the pschent crown and holding a linen bandage in his lowered left hand, raises his right in praise. Opposite him, in front of Isis, falcon-headed Horus, also wearing a double crown and also holding a strip of linen, affects the same pose as Anubis. Centered between them,

126

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

two kneeling ram-headed deities hold up a staff with a plaque that recalls the reliquary of Abydos, but on which is painted a scarab beetle that supports a feathered sun-disc. Set above the doorway to the burial chamber, this scene forms the transition between the welcoming realm of the gods painted in the anteroom and the journey to the afterlife negotiated by the dead seen in the burial chamber. Anubis (the deity connected with mummification) and Horus (often depicted in the lustration scene, though not in House-tomb 21) stand above the entrance, and the plaque that they flank depicts the image that most cogently conceptualizes the afterlife journey – the scarab-beetle Khepri pushing forth the rising sun, Re – and the one that initiates the journey of the dead.

registers in the antechamber – a small detail that connects the second room to the first, despite their differences in overall design. To the east of the entrance door, a similarly symmetrical scene shows Nekhbet and Wadjet facing one another across a disc supported by interlaced snakes (Fig. 4.21). The deities are depicted as fully anthropomorphic, with their crowns acting as their distinguishing feature. The goddesses cover their faces with their farther hand, shielding their eyes from the disc’s brilliance898 and rest their nearer hand on the low backs of their thrones. Like the thrones of Isis and Nephthys, these thrones are also raised upon elements having escaped from the anteroom’s defining bands. These four deities replicate four of the female deities from the first room, slightly altering their iconography by removing the identifying crowns from Isis and Nephthys and giving the semi-zoomorphic Nekhbet and Wadjet human-female heads. Visually, in their symmetrical arrangement, the images respond to the iconlike djed-pillar images on the corresponding entrance wall of the anteroom, and conceptually they provide the protection of all Egypt for the bodies buried beneath the chamber.

The Burial Room Beyond the south doorway, the second chamber contains the burial shaft, which terminates in two small rooms that each measure only two meters square. No sarcophagi were found, but masks left behind by the looters date the burials to the Roman period.897 The decoration of the burial room diverges both in conception and in subject matter from that of the anteroom. First, the wall of the lowest zone is painted with a pattern recalling a niched palace facade (adding another regal aspect to the tomb), instead of the alabaster pattern of the first room; second, the figures are placed in a deep single frieze above the lowest zone; third, the scenes lack the directional thrust of those of the anteroom; and fourth, and most cogent, in contrast to the processions of deities in the entrance chamber, the scenes of the burial room show narratives of the afterlife journey. Connecting it to the anteroom, however, is the pattern of stars and bars that cap the friezes and the panels that decorate its north wall. The north wall of the burial chamber accommodates the door to the room, and like the corresponding north wall of the anteroom, the sections to either side of the door are treated as panels and contain icon-like images. At the west of the entrance door, Isis and Nephthys sit facing one another, their farther hands extended to touch the solar disc raised on a staff between them, while with their near hand, they make the gesture of adoration (Fig. 4.20). They are uncrowned, and their identity rests on their mirror-imaged form. The two deities sit on thrones whose bases are composed of short lengths of the same niching pattern that constitutes the band between the

The Three Long Walls Unlike the icon-like images on the north wall, the three remaining walls of the burial room contain narrative scenes that refer to the Egyptian books of the afterlife. They reference narratives, known since the New Kingdom, that are intended to speed the deceased’s journey to the land of the blessed. The east and west walls, unlike those in the antechamber, bear little structural relation to one another: they are neither visually responsive across the room, nor are they figurally alike either visually or conceptually. Nevertheless, the three walls that carry narrative assume the pattern of temporality seen in earlier Egyptian tombs. The south wall at the far end of the burial room – the one that confronts the viewer entering the room – is the one to be read first; then the east wall, which describes the journey of the dead and, finally, the west wall, which situates her within the heavens. The south wall, like the north and south walls of the anteroom, is bilaterally symmetrical. It carries one of the most frequently figured scenes in Ptolemaic and Romanperiod tombs – the ministration of the mummy lying on a lion-bed (Pl. XVI and Fig. 4.22). Jackal-headed Anubis stands behind the mummy, which is covered with a faience-bead, net shroud, which was often placed on

127

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.20. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Burial Room, the West Side of the North Entrance Wall, Isis and Nephthys (Pro¨ jekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D010)

4.21. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Burial Room, the East Side of the North Entrance Wall, Nekhbet and Wadjet (Pro¨ jekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D009)

the mummy from the Twenty-fifth Dynasty on; it is frequently worn by Osiris, and therefore probably enhances the assimilation of the deceased to Osiris, but it also confers upon her the protection of Nut.899 The mummy also wears a mummy mask with a green face and a false beard, which might advocate for it appearing as male (and the same might be said about the mask on the mummiform figure that brings up the end of the procession on the east wall of the anteroom). Nevertheless, the entire program of the tomb militates against that gender identification, and it is more likely that the beard is either a manifestation of the usurpation of another royal prerogative or an indication of the deceased assimilated to Osiris.900 To the right and left of the bier, Isis and Nephthys kneel on naos-shaped stands and keen over the deceased. Behind each of the two deities, a solar ape raises its hands in reverence. Despite the peculiarities of the apes’ costumes, their red penises, the long muzzle of the right-hand ape, and the pink face and clump of hair (?) covering the ear of the right-hand ape suggest a Hamadryas baboon, the most common type of ape figured in Egyptian doc-

uments and the one on which the image of Thoth is based.901 In contrast to the unity seen on its west and south walls, the east wall of the burial chamber is composed of two distinct narratives: in a short scene, Osiris receives Ma’at and, in a longer one, a representation drawn from the vignette that comprises Chapter 16902 of the Book of the Dead shows the solar barque (Pl. XVII).903 At the north end of the scene, Ma’at holding two staffs of eternity stands behind a youthful male. He kneels before Osiris and offers a statue of Ma’at in her emblematic form as a seated deity, a feather held in her hand (see Pl. XVII and Fig. 4.23). The youth wears an elaborately feathered kilt and is shown probably wearing a golden skullcap; a line that parallels the line of the edge of the cap across his forehead differentiates this treatment from that of the priestess’ hair (?) at the south end of the east wall of the antechamber, as does the contour of the form as it adheres to the back of their skulls. He assumes the ritual pose, as noted by Kurth, of royal personages kneeling before deities that is found on temples, an example of the

128

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.22. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Burial Room, the South Wall, the Lustration of the ¨ Mummy (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, DO16)

appropriation in Roman-period Egypt of temple imagery in a private context,904 and another example of royal imagery invading the decoration of House-tomb 21. Osiris sits on a mosaic-patterned throne, raised like those of the deities on the north wall on bits of the groundline pattern from the anteroom. Though seated in an Osirid pose holding his crook and flail and shown with his normal green skin of fertility and rebirth, Osiris is eccentrically depicted with bared legs and wearing a feathered kilt, a red, tight, long-sleeved upper garment, and a speckled crown. To the right of this group, and behind Osiris and separated by the direction that he faces, and thus composing a second scene, is the solar barque (see Pl. XVII and Fig. 4.24). It is held aloft by a male figure lacking identifying attributes who assumes the pose of Shu, and, at the prow, it is supported additionally by Ma’at as it moves toward the south end of the tomb. Both deities have preternaturally long arms and hands, and neither, being deities, feels the weight of the barque that they support. The barque, shown in its traditional form with the exception

of its prow, is populated in the front by Thoth, Ma’at, Isis, and Nephthys and – beyond the great configuration of the scarab beetle rolling the sun (here framed by two uraeae wearing the crowns of upper and lower Egypt) – by two male figures also lacking attributes and a falcon deity, presumably Horus, but wearing only the crown of Lower Egypt, who holds the rope of the steering oar. Harpocrates sits on the prow, which flattens to provide him a cloth-draped seat. To the left and right of Shu (?), the three jackal-headed souls of Nekhen (the sacred bau of Nekhen) and the three falcon-headed souls of Pe (the bau of Buto)905 kneel and raise their hands in the henu pose of jubilation906 as they salute the rising sun, Khepri-Re. The right wall upon entering the room907 is given over to a single scene that has as its focal point a unique image of the cosmic goddess Nut, succoring the mummy that lies on her lap created by her outstretched legs (Pl. XVIII and Fig. 4.25). The mummy is treated similarly, with only the slightest variation, to the mummy seen in the lustration scene on the south wall of the room

129

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.23. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Burial Room, Detail of the Left Side of the East Wall, ¨ Offering to Osiris (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, LudwigMaximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D018)

130

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.24. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Burial Room, Detail of the Right Side of the East Wall, ¨ the Solar Boat (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, LudwigMaximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, D017)

(see Pl. XVI and Fig. 4.22). Both are covered with beaded garments, and only the designs on their pectorals and the striations evident on the wig of the mummy supine on the lion-bed differ. Both also have the face, narrow in its profile, that distinguishes the priestess in the anteroom, but this similarity may be fortuitous, since Isis mourning at the head of the lion-bed in the scene on the south wall has a similar profile face.

Nut wears a garment that bares her breast with its prominent nipple, accentuating her nurturing function, and armbands, bracelets, and a pectoral. Definitively identified by the spherical water vessel that crowns her, Nut is nevertheless called Hathor, according to the inscription placed in front of her.908 The vault of the heavens, Nut is also seen in funerary terms as a deity of resurrection, and, though usually depicted

131

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.25. Tuna el-Gebel, House-tomb 21, Burial Room, Detail of the West Wall, Nut Succoring the ¨ Mummy (Projekt “Tuna el-Gebel,” Institut f¨ur Agyptologie und Koptologie, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit¨at M¨unchen, D021)

act as the specific referent for the role Nut assumes here. Above the mummy hovers a falcon, whose function permits it to be read as a ba-bird,911 like the ba-bird above the image of the tomb’s patron on the west wall of the anteroom. Behind Nut, at the south end of the west wall, a male pours a libation from a round vessel onto an invertedbell-shaped altar (like that into which Anubis pours his

anthropomorphically, she is sometimes shown as the divine sky cow,909 providing the visual connection with the bovine deity Hathor that permits the correlation. In this image, Nut assumes Hathor’s nurturing qualities, too, as she supports the mummy on her extended legs and gently places one hand to its forehead. The Second Book of Breathing fashions Nut as the mother of the deceased, who assumes the role of Osiris,910 and that passage may

132

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

tenth through the eighth century.918 The earliest tomb identified by Ahmed Fakhry at Siwa, that of Niperpathot (read by Klaus Peter Kuhlmann as Pr-n = j-p3-Dhwtj – “Thoth has a house”), is dated by him “in all probability” to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty,919 and the temple of Amun, the earliest built architecture on the site, is also dated to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty during the rule of Amasis II (570–526 bce).920 Nevertheless, underscoring the hegemony of Siwa, a local ruler with the Egyptian name Sethirdais (“God Seth has delivered him”) depicted himself on the temple to Amun, heretically and consonantly with Amasis himself, receiving the divine blessings of the oracular deity of the site that is normally reserved for the pharaoh.921 Kuhlmann argues for Siwan independence from Ptolemaic rule, as well,922 but certainly by the third quarter of the first century ce, Siwa had lost its independence and had become part of the Roman Egyptian realm.923 At this time and later, Siwa served as a node on a major caravan route between the province of Libya and the Nile valley,924 which undoubtedly accounts for connections seen in the tombs in these regions. Because of its oracle, Greeks and other foreigners early penetrated Siwa. As early as the mid-sixth century bce, the oracle deep in the Libyan desert was so famous that it was the only non-Greek oracle consulted by the Lydian king Croesus, if the report by Herodotus (I.46) can be trusted.925 By the fifth century bce, the oracle was celebrated throughout the Greek world: Pausanias, who visited the temple in the second century ce, relates (Paus. IX.XVI.1) that he saw a hymn to Ammon, written by the fifth-century epinician poet Pindar, carved on a triangular stele set up next to the altar dedicated by Ptolemy I, and by the time of Pausanias himself, Greek cities had temples and dedications raised to Ammon.926 About one-and-a-half kilometers from the oracle of Siwa, Gebel el-Mawt¯a (“Hill of the Dead”), a “veritable rabbit warren” of hundreds of rock-cut tombs, constitutes the main necropolis at Siwa.927 Many tombs were robbed and reused during the Roman period, and, in the last century, they served as habitations for Siwans forced from their homes during the Italian bombing of the town during the Second World War. Their occupation resulted in the discovery of important new tombs, but it also encouraged their desecration, as Siwans hacked out chunks of painted and inscribed decoration to sell to troops billeted in the town.928 The two most completely painted tombs recorded at Siwa are the Crocodile Tomb and the tomb of Siamun.

libation in the anteroom). In front of Nut, cynocephalic Anubis, wearing the pschent crown, bends forward to pour from a libation vessel into another vessel set on a similar altar. With his left hand, Anubis draws Isis forward, and she is followed by Nephthys, the action moving from north to south (see Pl. XVIII). Employing merely a few scenes, the narratives of the three walls of the burial room encapsulate the journey of the deceased: the lustration scene in which the body of the deceased is transformed into a mummy and prepared for its journey to eternal life; the journey of the sun god (and thus of the deceased) in his barque through the heavens; and the final destination of the deceased held in the lap of the heavens and surrounded by benevolent deities, who provide eternal life. Even though details of their imagery may be unique, the sense of the scenes in the burial room is entirely normal as they respond to those set out in the Egyptian books of the afterlife. THE EGYPTIANIZING TOM BS AT TUNA EL-GEBEL

Despite their anomalies, the visual programs of Housetomb 21 and the other egyptianizing tombs at Tuna elGebel affirm a profound awareness of traditional Egyptian mortuary decoration and of its function to propel the deceased to a beneficent afterlife. A similar combination of traditional imagery and its deviation is also found in the two most completely recorded Graeco-Roman period tombs from the cemetery of Gebel el-Mawt¯a in the Siwa Oasis. THE SIWA OASIS

Siwa is the most remote of the oases from the standpoint of the Nile Valley,912 and, in antiquity, it was considered part of Cyrenaican Libya, rather than part of Egypt.913 The oasis is best known for the oracle of Amun (or, to the Greeks, Zeus Ammon), visited by Alexander the Great where he was pronounced the son of the god.914 It was ruled by sheikhs or chieftains of a noble family,915 and Herodotus (II.32) underscores the independence of Siwa from Egypt, terming the Ammonian ruler basileus (king).916 Tying Siwa inextricably to Egypt is the Libyans’ historical egyptianizing and the trade route that Siwa oversaw. No definitive evidence exists for settlement at Siwa before the Late Period,917 though Libyans had early filtered into Egypt and had ruled parts of the polity from the

133

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

Both underscore the Siwans as acculturated Egyptians, but both are also a product of their time and location. The Crocodile Tomb The Crocodile Tomb derives its modern name from the large picture of a crocodile painted on the wall of the antechamber.929 The tomb, which comprises three rooms,930 was poorly preserved upon its discovery by Fakhry, and it is best known from his description and the few images he published. Dated relatively early in the Graeco-Roman period by its excavator,931 the Crocodile Tomb is the single ‘Egyptian’ tomb in the chora discussed here at length in which no hieroglyphs are reported; and, though the tomb acknowledges scant knowledge of Greek style or subject, neither that absence nor the presence of hieroglyphic text is indicative of date, as tombs from Athribis discussed in the following section demonstrate. The tomb opens from the east.932 On the lateral walls of the entrance corridor leading into the tomb, three figures holding knives were preserved, which Fakhry terms deities and identifies “in all probability” as three of the Four Sons of Horus.933 It is almost certain, however, that they represent daemons protective of the tomb, as they do in the tomb of Siamun at Siwa and that of Psenosiris at Athribis both discussed in this chapter, and as they do in the tombs from Akhmim and Dakhla discussed in Chapter Five. On the short east wall to the right of a visitor entering the room, a female deity wearing a long garment that bares her breast and a vulture headdress with a disc and horns, with two feathers emerging upwards from the disc, is seated facing toward the entrance (Fig. 4.26).934 She holds leafy stalks – of which only faint traces now remain – in her right hand, which is resting on her thigh, and she raises her left hand, a mammiform situla hanging from her wrist, as she pours a libation of water. Her crown is both ambiguous and anomalous, and she may be either Hathor935 or Isis.936 The crowning frieze of the north wall shows pairs of cartouches separated by lines,937 another instance of once royal imagery invading a private tomb. The wall is then divided horizontally into two figured friezes; at the midpoint of the upper frieze, it is cut with a niche. Immediately preceding the niche, the tomb owner, whose seated body is facing into the tomb and raised on a dais, fills the height of the frieze. Behind him and closer to the entrance stands a ram-headed figure, holding a knife in

4.26. Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, the East Wall, Hathor or Isis Pouring a Libation (after Fakhry 1944: 166, fig. 45)

each hand, his skin painted blue. He is identified by Fakhry as Amun,938 presumably because of a similarly colored and equipped figure in the tomb of Siamun at Siwa that stands among the gods. The upright figure in the Crocodile Tomb, however, is significantly shorter and slighter than the seated image of the deceased, so, isocephally notwithstanding, his scale renders it more likely that he is a protective daemon like those in the entrance corridor. Beyond the niche, toward the rear of the tomb, is an image of the tomb owner venerating Osiris. He wears a long white kilt and bracelets, and behind him stands another man, his hands stretched downward, his palms open, who has black curly hair and a beard. Both should stand as the deceased treated in two different modes. Osiris, seated on a stool with a female deity behind him, accepts the adoration of the tomb’s patron. In the lower frieze, below the image of the deceased, are two female

134

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.27. Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, the North Wall, Lower Frieze, the Crocodile (after Fakhry 1944: 166, fig. 46)

deities, their wings outstretched, protecting the sun god who is seated on a flower.939 In the lower frieze, below the figure of the seated tomb owner and the (possible) protective daemon, is the image of the crocodile that gives the tomb its modern name (Fig. 4.27). Fakhry identifies the reptile as Sobek,940 who occasionally appears in full zoomorphic form, and the crocodile’s color, which is the golden of the gods, may substantiate his identification. The deity was worshiped at Shedet – the Greek Crocodilopolis – in the Fayum,941 and Fakhry notes that the connection between Siwa and the Fayum could have prompted the deity’s inclusion.942 Sydney Aufr`ere and his colleagues submit that Sobek may have served a more local locative function, for as lord of the desert, he should be the titular deity of one of the arrival points of caravans coming to Siwa.943 Painted below a niche is a grapevine attacked on either side by a canine leaping to eat its fruit (Fig. 4.28). Fakhry sees the image as hellenizing and the creatures as foxes,22 though they lack the fox’s bushy tail. Although the fable of Aesop would fit the image well if the canines are indeed to be taken as foxes, the creatures appear more jackal-like, and, in its symmetry and execution, the image seems to owe more to the Eastern Mediterranean than to Greece.

4.29. Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, the South Wall, Thoth Reporting to Osiris (after Fakhry 1944: 169, fig. 48)

An image of Horus pouring a libation is preserved on the west face of the north jamb leading to the west burial room, and Fakhry postulates an image of Thoth on the corresponding south side.944 The south wall of the Crocodile Tomb is even more poorly preserved than the north, but an image of Thoth reporting to Osiris seated in a shrine with an offering table before him was identified by Fakhry (Fig. 4.29).945 Back-to-back with Thoth, Fakhry could see the remains of a female deity, whom he identifies “in all probability” as Ma’at, and it is likely that this wall contained the Judgement scene of the weighing of the heart. In the lower register, Isis stands behind a seated Osiris, who faces a woman holding flowers in her left hand, who venerates him.946 The drawing in the Crocodile Tomb is rough, but despite its quality and despite the incompleteness of the tomb’s program a number of observations can be offered

4.28. Siwa Oasis, Crocodile Tomb, the East Wall, Canines and Grapevine (after Fakhry 1944: 167, fig. 47)

135

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

south wall. The walls of the elongated chamber are well plastered and the painting is finely executed, permitting the tomb of Siamun to be counted among the most lavishly and proficiently decorated tombs of the Egyptian chora. Figural decoration covers the east side of the entrance wall, the long east and west walls, and the ceiling of the tomb. The artists relied on a grid pattern to sketch the cartoon in red and then drew the final outline in black955 in the pharaonic-period manner. The decoration is well thought out compositionally, with the long walls being bracketed at either end with figures facing inward toward the remaining decoration. The treatment of the deceased Siamun is also carefully considered: he appears both in a Greek (or, more likely, contemporaneous) fashion and in an Egyptian one, and this duality seems both intentional and well planned.

that connect the tomb to others in the Graeco-Roman chora. First, the tomb owner is depicted in both an ‘Egyptian’ and a ‘Greek’ aspect, as he is in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, the tomb of Siamun, and other tombs in the chora. Second, the preserved seated image of the tomb owner, though confined to a single register, is preternaturally large, a concept of scale that connects the tomb with pharaonic-period tombs and one that is continued in tombs of the Roman-period chora (see Chapter Five). Third, daemons guard the entrance to the tomb as they do in Alexandria and in other tombs in the chora. And, fourth, the Judgement of the Dead, known from the vignette in Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, the single visually readable narrative in the tomb, is one that reappears frequently in tombs of the chora and one that is almost certainly entirely lacking in Alexandrian tombs.947 In addition, much of the imagery is in a purely egyptianizing manner. The painting of the ‘fox and the grapes’ is an anomaly, but anomalies are expected in tombs of the Graeco-Roman period, and, in this way, the Crocodile Tomb fits right in. Fakhry dates the tomb to the “Late Ptolemaic or early Roman period,”948 and though no hieroglyphic inscriptions are preserved, the tomb nevertheless finds similarities to the better preserved and more technically skillful and hieroglyphically lavish tomb of Siamun.

The East Side of the North Wall The wall to the left (east) of the door upon entering the tomb is divided into two registers. Two deities were initially visible in the upper register. The identity of the first, its skin painted black, is lost because of the destruction of its upper body; the second figure is male, and it probably had a lion head, signaling it either as a protective daemon or, perhaps more credibly, as the god Mahes956 acting in that role. As seen in an image on the east wall of the tomb, Mahes can be depicted as lion-headed, wearing a short kilt, and holding a knife in his hand, and his worship is attested at Siwa among other sites.957 The deity aided the sun god in his battle against the serpent monster Apopthis, and thus he is considered both a war god and a guardian of sacred spaces.958 If the image indeed represents the deity,959 it is, in all probability, his latter function that is invoked here at the entrance to the tomb. Nevertheless, knives are also wielded by daemons, and other tombs in the Graeco-Roman chora (as well as the Crocodile Tomb) find animal-headed daemons guarding their entrances. The lower register shows a mummy lying within a shrine-like cabin on a solar boat set on a cart (Fig. 4.30), being transported to the tomb like that of Neshu in the chapel of the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel (see Fig. 1.4). The spokes of the wheels of Siamun’s funerary cart are lathe-turned to resemble papyrus stalks, and the wheels are studded, suggesting a similarity to the scalloped wheels of the funerary cart of Neshu, which may have permitted them – as I have suggested in

The Tomb of Siamun949 The most richly ornamented and by far the best known of the Graeco-Roman-period decorated tombs at Gebel el-Mawt¯a is the tomb of Siamun (“Man of Amun”).950 Fakhry, who cleared and first published the tomb after its discovery in 1940, dates it between 400 and 200 bce,951 but details in the Siamun tomb, especially the mosaiclike pattern, seen in one figure’s garment and elsewhere in the decoration that mirror the pattern in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, might substantiate a later date. Katja Lembke has proposed an early Roman-period date on the basis of other evidence,952 and I agree. Like other tombs in the necropolis of Gebel al-Mawt¯a, based on the cuttings for loculi (though Lembke strongly argues their contemporaneity953 ), the tomb of Siamun was probably reused in a later Roman period. A flight of steps leads down to the entrance of the tomb, which faces north onto a courtyard onto which other tombs also opened.954 The tomb itself comprises a long, narrow, rectangular room, with a much smaller undecorated and unfinished burial chamber entered through its

136

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

the entrance door, the upper two registers carry identical images of the bovine-deity Mehet-Weret,964 the celestial cow who gave birth to the sun god Re and set him as a sun-disc between her horns. Here Mehet-Weret takes the form that she assumes in the New Kingdom: she is completely zoomorphic, kneeling on a reed mat atop a shrine and wearing on her head a crown consisting of a sun-disc (here surmounted by two plumes) and, on her back, a decorated blanket; she lacks only the flail that normally emerges from her back.965 In the Book of the Dead, Chapter 17, Mehet-Weret is called the “Eye of Re,” associating her with Hathor (who receives that epithet in Chapter 186),966 and in this image, she wears an emblem of Hathor hung from a chain around her neck. In the lowest register, below the celestial cows, are the two persons who pull the wheeled cart painted on the entrance wall. Both wear long kilts tied at the waist, and the first wears Egyptian-style sandals. According to Fakhry, the first has white skin and is bearded, whereas the second is beardless and has red skin.967 To the right of these three registers is the cutting for a loculus. The remainder of the wall carries only a single register. The figures are set on a groundline patterned with niching that indicates a palace facade, and the appropriated royal motif is augmented above the northmost figures in the crowning frieze, which is composed of pairs of cartouches separated by double bars, as in the Crocodile Tomb. At the right of the loculus cutting, Siamun strides to the right followed by a sem-priest (Fig. 4.31), whom Fakhry identifies as Siamun’s son, presumably because the elder son often serves this function.968 The sem-priest, whose skin is painted in a secondary white against the ground, is lighter even than that of Siamun and is garbed in a long kilt with a leopard skin over it. In his right hand he holds up a horn- or snake-shaped object that terminates in the head of a ram god, which Fakhry identifies as the Wer-Hekau, one of the instruments for performing the opening of the mouth ceremony.969 Between them is a table that holds further implements for the opening of the mouth ceremony displayed in bird’s-eye view as in Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim (see Chapter Five). Beyond the table, Siamun walks with his hands extended in front of him, palms down, in a pose similar to that of the deceased figure painted on the north wall of the burial room in the Crocodile Tomb, which further associates the two tombs, and, like the figure in the Crocodile Tomb, Siamun, too, wears a long kilt and is shown bearded. His skin is relatively light colored, according with neither a Greek nor an Egyptian traditional color for male flesh,

4.30. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the North Wall, Lower Register, Cart Transporting the Mummy (after Fakhry 1944: 144, fig. 24)

Chapter One – to better grip the desert sand and shale. Behind the cart remain the arms and hands of a male figure, who touches the cart with one hand and holds the other fisted at his chest. He may have been dragging another piece of funerary furniture as does the man following Neshu’s cart in the tomb of Petosiris. Above this man is an image that Fakhry takes as a ba-bird960 and, to the right of the cart, is a tiny figure whom he identifies as the jackal god Wepwawet.961 Three standards with images of Horus, Thoth, and Anubis are set in front of the shrine on the cart,962 which is pulled by two males who are painted on the lowest register of the adjoining east wall.963 The East Wall The northernmost section of the east wall is divided into three registers. At the far left, near the decorated wall of

137

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.31. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the North Part of the East Wall, Siamun and a Sem-Priest (Copyright Katja Lembke)

but one that is consistent with other images of the bearded Siamun. Nekhbet, the vulture goddess, flies above him, thrusting out her left wing above his head, and though she is probably to be taken as a protective mother deity here, she also demonstrates the usurpation of once royal imagery in a private tomb.970 Both Siamun and the sempriest are shown in true profile, permitting this as one of the few scenes – and the only certain scene – in the tomb

in which figures dispense with the Egyptian composite pose. Above the head of the sem-priest, two panels remain, each containing the solar Eye of Re971 and a steering oar. The latter is venerated in Chapter 148 of the Book of the Dead, for it guides the deceased through the sky. Reiterating the Eye of Re, the rudder is capped with the head of Horus-Re, for Re is the male deity whom the

138

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.32. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Left of Center of the East Wall, Deities (Copyright Katja Lembke)

ship, which shows an imbricated pattern, and, around his buttocks, a pattern that recalls the treatment of the kilts in House-tomb 21 and that further connects this tomb with the one at Tuna el-Gebel. Behind him stands a female deity, her name and crown damaged, whom Fakhry takes as Mut, the consort of Amun,974 but who may nevertheless be Isis. Imentet,975 who once bore her denominating falcon headdress,976 stands back-to-back with Mut (or Isis), embracing a mummiform, falcon-headed god (see Fig. 4.32), who is undoubtedly Osiris-Sokar,977 as seen in House-tomb 21 (see Fig. 4.10) and Bissing’s 1897 tomb (see Chapter Five), where he is held by Isis. Beyond the cutting that interrupts the scenes, the ornament in the crowning frieze, which had been composed of cartouches above a line of hieroglyphs, changes to a kheker frieze with a line of stars above.

person reciting the spell of Chapter 148 entreats to provision him for the journey and guide him safely through the sky. It is probable that the images of Mehet-Weret in the preceding scene, as well as being those of the deity, also reference the seven cows named by the deceased in Chapter 148, which provide sustenance in the domain of the god. In front of Siamun, and facing him across a lacuna effected by the cutting of another loculus, are two deities (Fig. 4.32): the first is a ram-headed god, who should be Amun – given the patronage of Siwa and the blue color of his body, a color that Amun may assume in the New Kingdom, if not before972 – but the dagger he carries in his lowered left hand remains irregular, though it conforms to the image in the Crocodile Tomb, and Lembke cautiously terms him a “ram-headed god with a knife.”973 He wears the tailed kilt that denotes king-

139

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.33. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Right of Center of the East Wall, Mahes or Lion-Headed Daemon and Female Deity (?) (Copyright Katja Lembke)

At this point, two more deities stand facing left.978 The first is the male lion-headed daemon or the deity Mahes (Fig. 4.33), who strides forward holding a knife in his lowered left hand. Behind him stands a

female figure who holds up a Hathor-headed, naos-type sistrum;979 inconclusive remains in the damaged area above her head may argue her as a deity rather than a priestess.980

140

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

The last scene on the east wall, effected beyond another cutting, shows Osiris enthroned at the right. Behind him stands a goddess; in front of him and beyond an offering table, Siamun – in his ‘Egyptian’ manifestation, with a long kilt bound below his navel, a pectoral, and bracelets – reverently raises his hands in homage to the god (Pl. XIX).981 An inscription in front of Siamun gives the name of his mother Neferet-her, and another in front of Osiris offers the name of Siamun’s father Per-iu.u.982 Osiris sits on a throne elevated on a plinth decorated above with a repeating pattern of an ankh flanked by was-scepters set on a neb sign, signifying all life and power, and below that with a mosaic-like pattern that also characterizes the decoration in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel. He is encased in a beaded, net garment, and, although much of his figure is missing, part of the crook and the end of the flail, preserved upon excavation, indicate that he is depicted in his usual pose. The goddess behind Osiris resembles the one identified as Mut or Isis; she, too, holds a papyrus-topped scepter in her right hand (no longer preserved) and an ankh in her lowered left and wears a garment that is enlivened with a feathered-wing pattern. Nevertheless, her position behind Osiris’ throne identifies her almost assuredly as Isis.983 Fakhry sees the lacunae between scenes as originally inhabited by false doors,984 and Lembke as coeval loculi,985 and if the placement of the loculi indicate original nonpictorial spaces, this scene of Osiris and Isis, facing as it does toward the entrance to the tomb, would have neatly closed the wall, as other figures do at the ends of the walls. Nevertheless, Lembke’s interpretation of the loculi as contemporaneous with the decoration does not address the vertical irregularity of the loculi on the west wall,986 and Fakhry’s suggestion that the cuttings once housed false doors seems to me a possible explanation for the lacunae, since I can think of no better one. Taking the two knife-bearing figures as gatekeepers, Lembke interprets the scenes on the east wall as depicting the journey described in Chapter 145 of the Book of the Dead,987 “Beginning of Spells for Entering though the Secret Portals of the House of Osiris in the Field of Rushes.” Her interpretation is indeed seductive, but though I find it attractive on a macrolevel, on a microlevel, I find it difficult to sustain. The Spells create a rhythm of dreadfully destructive gatekeepers that the imagery lacks, the sem-priest in the first grouping is out of place in Siamun’s afterlife journey, and these reservations, along with the change of direction (Siamun, nonexistent in the middle scene, should be facing Osiris-Sokar, a deity

of ever-lasting life), act together to render her interpretation conceptual at best. Instead, I would simply read the scenes as paratactic elements, independent of a specific source, assembled to describe the afterlife journey. The West Wall The west wall of the tomb of Siamun is divided into two registers throughout. The scenes in the upper register are interrupted by five more loculi, irregularly cut; the lower frieze is also punctuated by these loculi, but since most of the loculi were cut at least a meter above the level of the floor, those that extend into the lower frieze become less intrusive. As in other tombs in the chora, the west wall is reserved for the scenes with the greatest eschatological content. Here the upper frieze depicts the Judgement of Siamun and its immediate aftermath, and the lower frieze shows Siamun’s final achievement of a blessed afterlife. Enough remains of the first long scene in the upper register nearest the entrance to the tomb to ensure that it depicts the scene that weighs the heart against the feather of truth – the spell that is said upon arriving at the hall of the Two Truths. At the far left of this scene, about in the middle of the west wall, Osiris sits on a low-backed throne inset with a sema tawy sign set within an otherwise reticulated pattern elevated on a mosaiclike patterned plinth, painted in red, blue, and yellow (Pl. XX),988 similar to that of his throne on the east wall. As there, Osiris is wrapped in a garment of bead netting and, though much of his torso is destroyed, it is clear that he holds a crook and flail and perhaps a was-scepter, as well. In front of Osiris is an offering table, whose design and attributes offer another connection to the Crocodile Tomb. Best preserved are the flowers and the stand itself of lotus-column design to which a duck is fastened. Under the table, two jars of wine are set on stands, the righthand one designed as two ducks. At the left side of the Judgement scene the only preserved elements are a bit of Thoth reporting to Osiris and an inscription naming Horus, who must have stood behind Thoth. Of the central scene only the baboon seated on the fulcrum of the scales and an inscription naming Anubis remained when Fakhry first saw the tomb.989 Above the right side of the scales and continuing above the loculus and the scene to its right sat the forty-two deities representing the great tribunal of the Underworld.990 They hear the declaration of innocence of the deceased and, with each deity representing a specific evil that the deceased may have committed, judge the deceased’s right to enter the underworld.991

141

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.34. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the South End of the West Wall, Lower Register, Siamun, His Son as a Sem-priest, and Siamun’s Wife (after Fakhry 1944:144, fig. 23)

Beyond the cutting for another loculus, and at the far left of the preserved upper frieze, Siamun is depicted facing toward the back wall of the room seated on a stool that is then set on a plinth decorated with a palace motif, another indication of the usurpation of once royal imagery.999 He is shown in his Egyptian persona wearing a kilt, a pectoral, and in his right hand – according to Fakhry – holding an ebony staff inlaid with gold.1000 He raises his left hand in the direction of two more loculi at the end of the wall. Though Lembke sees all the loculi as indigenous to the tomb, I should think that originally other figures, now missing in the cut of the loculi, must have finished off this scene. Siamun must be gesturing toward another figure, and, in addition, all other scenes and vignettes configure the friezes as proceeding from the ends of the wall toward a central point: figures at the far ends of all other friezes face inward toward the center of the wall, and it is unlikely that the upper frieze of the west wall is exceptional. The lower frieze on the west wall is bounded by two images of a seated Siamun. The scene, now greatly destroyed, that finishes off the wall at its far south end shows Siamun seated on an elaborate stool facing into the tomb (Fig. 4.34).1001 He wears a long kilt, a pectoral, and bracelets and is coiffed with short tight hair that he bears in other scenes and that other egyptianized figures wear. He holds an ankh in his right hand and, in his left, the sail-sign. In front of him is a table on which are laid out the tools for the opening of the mouth ceremony,

To the right of the scales (and the loculus and, according to Lembke, other destruction that interrupts the scene992 ), Ammit, the devourer of hearts – rendered as a lioness with the head of a crocodile – is seated upright on a box with a knife held in each paw,993 in an image that has parallels elsewhere.994 Behind Ammit, and balancing the seated Osiris at the left of the Judgement scene, Siamun, with his name inscribed, strides forward wearing a long kilt, his arms stretched downward in front of him.995 Farther right, and again to the right of another loculus cutting, is another image of Siamun, also represented in his Egyptian mode; he again wears a long kilt but raises his arms in the orant gesture that signifies adoration. Behind him, at the right end of the wall, a goddess reaches out her arms to guide him.996 The south half of the upper register – the part of the frieze farther from the entrance that continues beyond the loculus behind the seated Osiris – shows a lowered groundline and a different border both above and below the scenes than does the northern half. Immediately beyond the loculus, Re-Harakhty and Nephthys stand facing toward the center of the wall.997 The former is depicted falcon-headed, crowned with a sun-disc, and wearing a blue wig, a pectoral, a multicolored corset, and a tailed kilt; he holds an ankh in his lowered right hand and a was-scepter in his upraised left. Nephthys wears a similar pectoral and a long closely fitted garment embroidered at its upper and lower edges.998 She raises her right hand and holds her left down before her.

142

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

seen in bird’s-eye view as on the north part of the east wall. Facing him across the table, stands a sem-priest, again identified by Fakhry as Siamun’s son,1002 and the figure’s hair – shaved and dressed with the lock of childhood hanging behind his left ear – bears out the filial relationship. He holds out some sort of instrument to Siamun, lost before the tomb’s excavation. Siamun’s wife Rait1003 stands behind the young priest, raising her hands in reverence. The next scene to the right is the ritual embalming scene (Pl. XXI). In its length, it balances the Judgement scene in the north part of the upper register, creating a diagonal relationship between the two. Anubis, standing behind the mummy in semi-zoomorphic form and wearing a kilt, with his exposed skin painted black,1004 oversees the mummy of the deceased, laid out on the traditional lion-bier. The mummy is covered with a net garment, similar to the one the mummy wears in the burial chamber of House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, and wears a mask. Isis kneels at the head of the bier on a support that includes a series of djed pillars set above a mosaic-patterned band, and Nephthys kneels at its foot on a similar support. Behind Nephthys stand the Four Sons of Horus, each with its appropriate head and with captions, though the labels of Qebehsenuef and Duamutef have been reversed.1005 In the vignette to the right, beyond the next cutting, Siamun stands toward the left, raising his hands in reverence toward Isis (Pl. XXII). He wears the white, wide kilt shown in the other images; his head and his face had been destroyed when Fakhry first saw the tomb.1006 Two small vases hang from a table with a lotus-flower base set before him that bears six bottles of wine.1007 Isis, who is set directly below the enthroned Osiris, wears a vulture crown topped with horns and solar disc and her throne sign – a crown that echoes that of Isis in House-tomb 18 at Tuna el-Gebel and (except for the defining element) that of Nephthys on the west wall of the entrance room of House-tomb 21. Behind Isis is the Benu-bird perched on the rock of creation, its wings once gloriously colored,1008 and its head adorned with the two-feathered crest of the gray heron, the bird that formed the basis for the deity from the New Kingdom on.1009 This image is the most revealing; first, the placement of Isis directly below that of the Osiris who renders Judgement connects the two deities; second, because of the difference in the height of the friezes, Isis is the taller even were Osiris to rise from his throne; and, third, this is the only scene in which Isis directly engages the deceased Siamun, and,

4.35. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the North Part of the West Wall, Lower Register, Nut as the Sycamore-Tree Goddess (after Fakhry 1944:141, fig. 21)

if her placement and that of the Benu-bird behind her are significant, they denote that she engages Siamun as a celestial deity offering him a blessed afterlife. Beyond the damaged wall, the vignette to the right of this group depicts the goddess Nut (Fig. 4.35), who assumes the role of the more-expected Hathor in front of a sycamore tree,1010 offering food, water, and incense to Siamun, who presents offerings that include a bouquet of flowers.1011 She wears her tall, flat-lipped vase as her crown, and around it, and enveloping the deity, twine the branches and figlike fruit of the sycamore. Nut raises a libation vessel in her left hand from which flows the water of life, indicated by water signs flanking a chain of ankhs, and with her extended right hand, she offers bread and incense. As the Sycamore-tree Goddess, Nut offers Siamun the water of life (one of the necessities noted in the afterlife texts),1012 but she may also offer him a blessed afterlife among the stars, since Nut, as the personification

143

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

this tradition seems to have been maintained among the populace at Siwa Oasis. Strikingly, the chlamys is the single extant garment in the tomb that can be seen rendered in a Greek manner: the contour of the folds along the boy’s back is articulated as scalloped ridges intended to show volume. That detail and the readily displayed nudity of the child (though acceptable in Egypt) suggest that the artist here, and here alone, is following a Greek model, and Kuhlmann may be correct that here the artist is employing as a model an image on a Greek gravestone.1016 The image of Siamun and his young son may either signify the beginning of Siamun’s journey or its completion as – on Greek gravestones – the living confront the (possibly heroized) dead. The Ceiling The ceiling of the tomb, which represents the solar journey, is preserved well enough to recapture its program and many of its details. It is divided into two sections separated by five broad bands.1017 The section nearest the entrance to the tomb shows a variant on the journey of the sun – Nut in the center of the ceiling flanked by three solar boats to either side. The second, and somewhat greater, part of the ceiling is devoted to a repeating pattern of images of a vulture deity, probably Nekhbet, and a falcon deity, probably Horus in his avian form. Both deities, like Nut, were once connected with kingship – Horus as manifestation of the pharaoh (and the title of one of his five names) and Nekhbet as the deity of the Upper Egyptian state – but here they decorate a private tomb. Nut hovers nude over the first section of the ceiling on a blue ground painted with yellow stars (Fig. 4.37). Her head is placed toward the entrance to the tomb, so that she appears to face the entering visitor. Her breasts and belly are indicated by circles, and below her pubic triangle, the reborn sun emerges as a winged disc, as in the image from the Tomb of Rameses VI, in a vignette from the Book of the Day.1018 Below her feet is a piece of land, colored yellow and strewn with dots, representing sand, and then a text found, in part, according to Fakhry, in the First Hour of the Book of the Day and of the Night, and fully preserved in Chapter 145, 1–3 of the Book of the Dead:

4.36. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the West Wall, Lower Register, North End, Siamun and Young Son (after Fakhry 1944: 138, fig. 19)

of the heavens, is long connected with resurrection and a celestial afterlife.1013 This scene, as other elements in the tomb, suggests the appropriation of once-royal imagery in a private context. At the north end, nearest the entrance wall, the vignette shows Siamun and a young boy (Fig. 4.36) that balances the image of Siamun at the far south end of the wall.1014 Siamun sits in a composite Egyptian pose, exaggerated by his holding a staff in his right hand held fisted against his chest. He faces into the tomb and toward the smaller figure who is undoubtedly another son, who stands before him. In contrast to his similar figure at the south end of the frieze, Siamun has short, black, curly hair and a neatly trimmed black beard.1015 He is barechested, except for a pectoral at his neck, and he wears the same long garment as in the scene directly above and in his persona at the other end of the lower frieze. His young son, who has the same short, curly hair as his father, is nude (his penis shown) but for a chlamys pinned at his left shoulder. The chlamys is a Greek garment; it is the traveling cloak worn by Hermes, and Evelyn B. Harrison has characterized it as the garb of youth because it is the one worn by Athenian ephebes performing military duty. If her observation is correct,

To be said by N on his arrival at the first portal of Osiris: Make way for me, for I know thee, I know thy name, I know the name of the god who guards thee. Lady of Trembling, lofty of battlements, supreme one, lady of

144

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.37. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Ceiling, Nut (Copyright Katja Lembke)

The last boat toward the center of the tomb is the best preserved of those of the east side (Fig. 4.38).1021 In the center is a spinal column supporting a red egg from which an image of a winged scarab emerges.1022 To the right and left, Isis and Nephthys, identified by their crowns, salute (or support) the morning sun. Behind Nephthys stands ibis-headed Thoth, and behind Isis, Horus, crowned with sun-disc and uraeus, stands in his customary position at the steering oars holding onto the rope.1023 On the western side the third boat is the best preserved (Fig. 4.39).1024 Here, too, Horus stands at the rudder, on which two baboons stand and raise their hands in adulation. In the center is the sun-disc, in this case bearing Harpocrates inside, with its rays extending down into the boat. Two female deities to either side raise their farther hand to welcome (or – again – support) the disc of the sun. The goddess at the left is frog-headed; the one at the right has a serpent’s head. These deities, who represent, though eccentrically, constituents of the ogdoad of Hermopolis often appear in scenes that depict the worship of the sun in its barque.1025 This section of the ceiling that shows the passage of the solar boats and the sky deity Nut is separated from the remainder of the design of the ceiling by a series of lines. Beyond them – except for its starry ground against which the deities hover and its gemlike, cloisonn´e treatment – the ceiling is treated antithetically to

breaking and entering, uttering proclamations, warding off storms, rescuing the plundered whether present or far away, is thy name. The name of the Doorkeeper is Terrible.1019

The rest of this part of the ceiling, however, is unconnected with the Book of the Day and Night but speaks to the sun god’s journey through the night. The boats that flank Nut, jewel-like in their execution, are all of the same general shape with their prow and stern terminating in floral shapes, though the specific floral ornament differs from boat to boat.1020 The flowers are constituted by gold-painted lines that are reminiscent of the gold cloisons in Egyptian jewelry and that hold the rich blues and reds that form the petals of the flowers, as the jewelry cloisons hold semiprecious gems or faience or glass paste. The hulls of the boats are painted white with details that indicate the edges of the overlapping wood from which they are constructed and the pegs of the uppermost course. Under each boat is the zigzag pattern that has for millennia indicated water in Egyptian representations. These boats, however, also float among the stars, proceeding toward the entrance to the tomb, and, though the specific inhabitants differ from boat to boat, those that are at all well preserved indicate that each celebrates a sun god in some manifestation, and it is likely that this deity was centralized in each.

145

4.38. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Boat with Djed Pillar (Copyright Katja Lembke)

4.39. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Boat with Harpocrates (Copyright Katja Lembke)

146

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.40. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, Ceiling, Horus and Nekhbet (Copyright Katja Lembke)

the front portion. Instead of the lengthwise division created by the solar boats and Nut, it is divided crosswise into a repeating pattern of alternating images of Nekhbet and the avian Horus (Fig. 4.40). Each of the deities is crowned, Horus with a sun-disc and Nekhbet, irregularly, with an atef crown, and each holds shen signs and feathers, positioned horizontally, in their claws. Aside from her unusual crown, the images of Nekhbet closely follow those uncrowned images that remained on the ceiling blocks of the Temple of Amun at Siwa when it was recorded by Edme-Franc¸ois Jomard in the early nineteenth century,1026 and those images may well have provided the model.

irregular depth of its left and right friezes), and only one on the east – which might imply a haphazard approach – the tomb program is very carefully planned. Though the decoration is now incomplete (I contend that figures would have ended the upper frieze of the south end of the west wall), it seems certain that the direction assumed by the characters in the narratives of the east wall and the irregularity of the top register’s groundline on the west wall divide the long, narrow tomb into two sections, and this division is echoed in the treatment of the ceiling. In addition, the program of the long walls is thoughtfully considered and adheres to the general treatment of walls in pharaonic-period tombs. Following Egyptian convention – as, for example, in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel – the east and the west wall are differentiated from one another, with the east wall devoted, at least in part, to terrestrial activities and the west more consistently to metaphysical concerns.

The Pictorial Structure of the Tomb of Siamun Despite the imagery falling into three registers on the northeast wall, two registers on the west wall (and the

147

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

tent nor is their intent to distinguish between mortals and gods. The apparent discrepancy between the tomb of Siamun and other tombs in the chora may lie in factors discrete to the region. It may be based on Siwa’s location in the northwestern desert, its native Libyan population, the accessibility of its oracle that provided Siwans early and comfortable interaction with their Greek as well as their Egyptian neighbors and with other foreigners, or a combination of a number of these determinants. Yet if the minor Hellenisms are discounted, the depiction of the scenes in the tomb strays less from typical vignettes than do those in other tombs in the Graeco-Roman chora. Siamun, whatever he might claim as his ethnicity, is buried as an Egyptian, at least so far as the narratives on his tomb walls suggest. The tomb decoration with which the tomb of Siamun finds greatest commonality is that found in the egyptianizing tombs at Tuna el-Gebel and Athribis.

Images on the east wall allude to Siamun’s funeral cortege and his opening of the mouth ceremony and establish his veneration of the funerary deities, which culminates, championed by Isis and other deities, in his meeting with Osiris. The narrative of the west wall, with its double register and its poorer preservation, is both more complex and more muddled, but its thrust is clear. The scenes in both registers speak to the world beyond the tomb: in the upper frieze, Siamun survives the Judgement; in the lower he receives the necessary life and breath and finally – with Isis, the Benu-bird, and the Sycamore-tree Goddess Nut – achieves a blessed afterlife among the stars. The ritual embalming scene here should probably be considered as metaphor rather than forced into a temporal pattern, and it appears to be employed, much as it is in Alexandria, as a sign for the blessed afterlife. Though the decoration on both walls flanking the entrance is badly damaged, Fakhry notes two deities on the east side of the entrance wall and suggests Mahes as one of them. It is possible, therefore, that the walls to either side of the entrance carried protective deities or daemons, much as those do in the Crocodile Tomb, in the tomb of Petubastis in Dakhla Oasis, in von Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim (the latter two discussed in the following chapter), and, in Alexandria, in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa and in the Stagni and Tigrane tombs. The tomb of Siamun is also similar to other tombs, both in Alexandria and in the chora, in appropriating royal elements for a private tomb. Nevertheless, in a number of ways, the tomb of Siamun stands apart from other tombs in the chora, because the use of the contemporaneous and Greek elements it admits is generally unparalleled elsewhere. The bearded visage of Siamun combined with his Egyptian garments and pose, the true profile assumed by the sem-priest and Siamun on the east wall (both in Egyptian garb), the light-colored skin of the bearded Siamun and occasionally of other male figures, and the Greek garment of his younger son with its Classically falling folds do not comfortably fit the pattern of either the depiction of the quotidian world or the use of Greek style and content found elsewhere in tombs in the chora. The closest comparison is to the treatment of the woman in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, but even that falls short of the multiple and varied occurrences here. These anomalies are at odds with the dual style defined by L´aszl´o Castiglione,1027 which is discussed in Chapter Five, since they are neither internally consis-

ATHRIBIS

Athribis (the lesser known of the two towns in Egypt with that name) is located on the west bank of the Nile about equidistant between Hermopolis Magna and Thebes in the region of Akhmim. It was known to Egyptians as Hut-repyt and to Greeks as Tripheion, both named for the lion goddess Repyt or the Greek Triphis, who, in the Akhmim region was the consort of Min, whom she visited at his temple across the Nile at Panopolis. A temple to the lion goddess was constructed by Ptolemy IX Soter II (called Physkon) (116–107 and 88–80).1028 Subsequently, Ptolemy X Alexander I (107–88)1029 or, alternatively, his son Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos (called Auletes) (80–58 and 55–51), enlarged the sanctuary of Triphis with a new temple that had an unusual plan.1030 Auletes may also have been responsible for an exceptional rock-cut temple to the Greek god of healing Asclepios, which had an egyptianized facade with two columns with palm capitals and a cavetto cornice.1031 The Asclepion is in the necropolis in which Sir Flinders Petrie originally discovered the tomb of Psenosiris and the Zodiac Tomb.1032 These two tombs from Athribis connect with the more traditional tombs from Tuna el-Gebel and Siwa and provide a counterpoint to other tombs from the region of Akhmim, which are more greatly dependent on Hellenic material and which are treated in the following chapter. The two tombs, as well, serve as cautionary reminders concerning any definitive chronology of the tombs in the chora based either on their inclusion of hieroglyphic texts

148

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

or on the prevalence of Hellenic elements encountered within the tomb.

floor of the tomb for the disposition of the coffin. Hieroglyphs form a register above all the figured scenes on the walls of both the anteroom and the burial room and are inscribed around the niche cut into the west wall of the latter room as well. The tomb is remarkable for its technique of relief decoration, its hieroglyphic program,1037 a number of its narrative scenes, and the zodiacs that decorate the ceilings of each of its room. Narrative scenes that deserve mention include those at the entrance to the tomb, which present daemons: on the north side of the east wall of the tomb two liondaemons and a snake-daemon guard the entrance below a row of judges (Fig. 4.41), while, on the south side of the wall, three more daemons – one ram-headed, another crocodile-headed, and the third, ibis-headed – stand below another row of judges.1038 Each zoocephalic daemon on the south half of the wall holds a knife in its upraised right hand and another in his lowered left, in the position daemons often assume. The fully zoomorphic lion-daemons and the snake daemon are more greatly menacing, as they thrust out both hands, brandishing their knives before them. Both the zoocephalic daemons and the zoomorphic daemons protecting the entrance doorway connect the tomb of Psenosiris to other Roman-period tombs in the chora – the Crocodile Tomb and the tomb of Siamun at Siwa, and the tomb of Petubastis at the Dakhla Oasis and von Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim that are discussed in the following chapter – as well as to tombs in Alexandria. The burial room shows a correspondence between the lateral walls similar to that seen in other tombs of the chora – especially in the anteroom of House-tomb 21 at Tuna el Gebel and the anteroom of von Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim – as well as in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa in Alexandria. Nevertheless, its burial niches embrace scenes rarely depicted in Ptolemaic- or Romanperiod tombs and that connect it to Petrie’s Zodiac Tomb. A niche cut into the center of the south wall, with Wadjet and Nekhbet as two flying vultures on its ceiling, for example, shows the resurrection of Osiris on its rear wall.1039 An unusually plastic rendition of a corpse is laid out on a lion-bed beneath which are canopic jars capped by the heads of the Four Sons of Horus. At the foot of the bier, Horus offers mummy bandages, while at the head of the bier, Anubis holds out his right hand toward the deceased and holds up a cup in his left. The deceased figure, however, instead of lying placidly, twists about: his right hand is raised toward his face, and the remainder of his body is positioned frontally to the viewer with his left

The Tomb of Psenosiris The tomb of the Prince of Athribis, Psenosiris, son of Petosiris called Serapion,1033 is the only Egyptian tomb discussed in this book that offers no overt evidence of cultural interchange, though I shall suggest that one section of its decoration does acknowledge an understanding of Greek eschatological ideology. Its decoration embraces traditional Egyptian style, including two rooms with zodiac ceilings, both of which are in fully Egyptian form. In addition, the decoration in the tomb of Psenosiris takes the form of sunk relief: it is a rare decorated tomb from the Graeco-Roman chora to engage relief, and the suggestion that Psenosiris may have employed sculptors who worked on the temple to the goddess Triphis or that of Ptolemy X Alexander I (or Ptolemy XII Auletes) might be substantiated by the title Psenosiris awards himself as ‘Prince of Athribis’ and ‘servant of the goddess in/of Thmuis.’1034 The date of the tomb, nevertheless, remains uncertain, and Psenosiris’ father’s name, Serapion, provides only a terminus post-quem of the early Ptolemaic period. Though the walls of the tomb are replete with hieroglyphs, orthography has proven unhelpful,1035 and the temples at Athribis, while begun in the Ptolemaic period, were completed by Roman emperors in the first two centuries ce,1036 when the putatively connected sculptors of the tomb would still have been available. The reliance on both sunk relief, an ancient Egyptian technique, and a traditional Egyptian style for the tomb’s decoration – especially of the zodiac, given the plethora of Greek zodiacs in the region (see Chapter Five) – might argue a date for the tomb early in the Ptolemaic period. Yet, first, that reasoning obviates the intent of the ‘Prince of Athribis’ to retain a tradition within which, by his title, he fashions himself, and, second, zodiacs in other tombs at Athribis, if correctly dated, indicate that the Egyptian elements they harbor cannot be used as a temporal index. Thus the date of the tomb must remain open. The tomb is accessed by a vertical shaft cut into the mountain that terminates in a door opening to a tworoom tomb oriented from west to east. Niches are cut into the north, west, and south walls of the burial chamber; within each niche, a second cutting in the form of an anthropoid sarcophagus, which might suggest a relatively early date for the tomb, is cut down to the level of the

149

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.41. Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Lion Daemons at the Entrance (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-25576)

arm bent and extended downward. His head has been destroyed, but it is possible that it wore the wig and false beard of images in the Osiris chapels at Dendera,1040 with which the image is closely aligned; concurrently, it might be an image of the deceased Psenosiris assimilated to that of Osiris. The decoration of the rear wall of the niche on the north wall bears out the interpretation of resurrection as well. The mummified figure lies on the lion-bier, which is flanked by two goddesses (Fig. 4.42). The erect penis of the mummy can just be made out to the left of the destruction wreaked upon the scene, as can the wing of a bird above. The authors identify the scene as the posthumous conception of Horus,1041 but I think that the erect penis more likely denotes the resurrection of the deceased as assimilated to images of the ithyphallic Osiris,1042 and the wing above the figure more likely represents the ba as a royal falcon as in the anteroom and burial room of House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, in the Zodiac Tomb discussed next and elsewhere. The treatment of the ceiling of the niche that repeats the images of Wadjet and Nekhbet of the south niche reinforces the idea of the falcon as a ba both by the use of once-royal imagery and its repetition.

In contrast to the unusual depictions in the north and south niches, the back wall of the niche in the west wall shows an entirely traditional scene of the lustration of the mummy performed by Anubis as Isis and Nephthys kneel on podiums to either side of the bier.1043 The ceilings of both rooms bear zodiacs in low relief. The zodiac in the anteroom shows Nut stretched around the ceiling’s periphery embracing boats that carry the planets, the constellations, and the decans – the signs for the Egyptian ten-day weeks – set within registers contained by her body and arms (Fig. 4.43).1044 The zodiac in the burial room (Fig. 4.44),1045 though it contains many of the same elements as the one in the anteroom, nonetheless finds a different form and follows a different tradition. Nut here too rings the room, though her body bears distinct images of the twelve hours of the night. Shu, his feet at the north, supports her and stands as a major figure within the composition The boats that are the main subject of the friezes in the anteroom are lacking, and the signs for the planets, decanal deities, and the northern constellations stand on the groundline of the friezes, with the sun and the moon nearest the body of the Nut, then the planets, the decans, and finally, at the north of the ceiling, the constellations of the northern sky.1046

150

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.42. Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Anteroom, the Rear Wall of the Niche on the North Wall (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-25593)

Beyond the zodiac ceilings, imagery in the tomb of Psenosiris connects it to other tombs of the GraecoRoman period. The protective daemons have already been mentioned. The anteroom also presents an eccentric Judgement scene with an overly large image of Ammit, like that in the tomb of Siamun at Siwa and in tombs in the following chapter, and on the south wall of the burial chamber the deceased (assimilated to Osiris) is, to quote the excavators, “sitting at an offering table . . . while a son clad in a leopard-skin performs the offering rites,”1047 which also recalls imagery in the tomb of Siamun. The once-royal imagery, too, acts as a sign of the times. The Zodiac Tomb or the Tomb of the Two Brothers The second tomba at Athribis discovered by Petrie, the Zodiac Tomb,1048 is the better known of the two and is best known for the two zodiacs painted on its ceiling. Nevertheless, the decoration of its walls also deserves mention because of its relation to the tomb of Psenosiris. When it was recorded by Petrie, much of the tomb’s decoration had already been damaged, but that of at least

4.43. Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Anteroom, the Zodiac Ceiling (after Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: pl. 38A)

151

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.44. Athribis, Tomb of Psenosiris, Burial Room, the Zodiac Ceiling (after Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: pl. 39)

two walls (as well as that of the ceiling with the zodiacs) is clear. Hieroglyphs identify the figures and their actions, and all the preserved imagery, aside from the zodiacs, is fully in the Egyptian tradition. The tomb is a limited to one room with a burial niche at the north end of its west wall.1049 The walls each carry three friezes, with the upper frieze showing jackals crouched on stands alternating with a three-figure kheker frieze.1050 In the upper frieze of the north wall, frogheaded Heket kneels facing toward the burial niche in the semi-anthropomorphic form she takes on the Temple of Hathor at Dendera.1051 More cogent for our purposes, however, is the scene in the middle frieze at the south end of the west wall (Fig. 4.45)1052 that shows Osiris (or the deceased human) mourned by Isis kneeling at the head of the bier and Nephthys at its foot. What remains of the deceased shows a figure that is not mummiform and one that suggests a position en face to the viewer, much as in a niche on the south wall of the tomb of Psenosiris (and as on the lateral wall of the Zodiac Tomb’s west wall’s niche, as noted later). To the left of the vignette stands Anubis with the two brothers,1053 who provide the tomb with its alternate name and who raise their hands in praise. To the right of the bier stand four mum-

miform jackal-headed figures, each holding out a cup in one hand and an ankh in the other, whom Petrie identifies as hours.1054 In the lowest frieze, to either side of a figure on a lion-bier, which replicates the bed and its occupant in the west niche in the tomb of Psenosiris, are Isis and female figures crowned with discs centered with a star, which Petrie identifies as the hours of the night.1055 On the back wall of the niche on the west wall, Isis and Mehyt (Fig. 4.46, below)1056 mourn the dead laid out on a lion-bier, while the two brothers approach from the right and Anubis crouches atop a naos at the left. The most telling part of the wall decoration, however, lies in the imagery of the side walls of the niche. On the south lateral wall (see Fig. 4.46, above left) – flanked by a mourning female at the left and, at the right, a crouched Anubis (seated like a Judge of the Dead) – Osiris, colored green, lies on a thick mattress in his en face position on a naos-shaped bier He raises his right hand to his head, while he holds his left at his side, similarly, presumably, to the figure on the south end of the west wall (see Fig. 4.45), and, definitely, to the one on the south wall of the burial room in the tomb of Psenosiris. Plants, implying resurrection, grow from the crown of his head

152

4.45. Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, the South End of the West Wall (after Petrie et al. 1908: pl. XL)

4.46. Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, the Niche on the West Wall (after Petrie et al. 1908: pl. XLI)

153

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

4.47. Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, Ceiling, Zodiac A (after Petrie et al. 1908: pl. XXXVI)

disposed within the expected circle, and they are interspersed with solar boats, ba-birds, uraeae, mythological figures, planets, and Egyptian-constructed constellations and surrounded by hieroglyphic texts that give the names of the brothers and “pious wishes for their future happiness.”1060 Though not purely Egyptian like the astronomical ceilings in the tomb of Psenosiris, they are nevertheless far removed from the more conventional Greek zodiacs that characterize most of the ceilings in the tombs discussed in the following chapter.

(the damage to the figure in the tomb of Psenosiris would also permit the figure to have had plants sprouting from his head), and the drawing indicates him as ithyphallic, despite the damage to the greater part of the significant member. The north lateral wall of the niche (see Fig. 4.46, above right) shows a more traditional scene with a mummy lying on a lion-bier, mourned by a kneeling Isis at its head and another goddess, presumably Nephthys, at the foot, the two figures posed like those in the west niche in the burial chamber of Psenosiris. Above the mummy flies a falcon,1057 as seen above the mummy in the burial chamber and the deceased woman in the anteroom of Tuna el-Gebel House-tomb 21 (and possibly in the tomb of Psenosiris), adding a royal note to the image. According to the authors of Egyptian Astronomical Texts, the horoscopes given by the two zodiacs provide dates of 141 and 148 for the births of the patrons,1058 which, if acceptable would give a date in the late-second century ce, or even in the early third, for the tomb. Although these zodiacs contain Graeco-Roman figures (Figs. 4.47 and 4.48)1059 for the zodiacal signs, these signs are not

THE ZODIAC CEILINGS

The ceilings of the tombs of Siamun at Siwa and those at Athribis are in an Egyptian tradition that extends back to the Old Kingdom when the ceiling was imagined as the starry night sky.1061 On ceilings of New Kingdom royal tombs,1062 and later on mummy-case interiors, the heavens were depicted as the goddess Nut as they are in the tombs of Siamun and Psenosiris; in New Kingdom royal tombs, ceilings also showed the heavens bespeckled

154

TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

4.48. Athribis, Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers, Ceiling, Zodiac B (after Petrie et al. 1908: pl. XXXVIII)

with Egyptian constellations of the northern sky,1063 as in the Zodiac Tomb. Yet in pharaonic Egypt, a ceiling devoted to the night sky was restricted to royal tombs, and its implementation in tombs here is yet another example of the disintegration of a once-royal prerogative in the Roman period. The zodiacs in the tombs at Athribis are Egyptian zodiacs. They are not the zodiacs inhabited by the GraecoBabylonian figures inscribed within a circle that conform to our modern use of the term and that characterize the tombs discussed in the following chapter. Egyptian zodiacs (independent of the images of constellations, which act as glosses for the subject of the ceiling) concretized the Egyptian practice of indicating the passage of time by measuring the hours of the night, which were associated with the thirty-six stars (or groups of stars) that rose at ten-day intervals throughout the year. The interval between the heliacal rise (that is, just before sunrise) of one star and that of the next constituted the Egyptian hour. These hours, however, varied in duration over the course of the night and through the seasons as the

night grew shorter1064 and therefore could serve only a symbolic function. Because they proved ineffective for accurately measuring time, ‘Star Clocks’ become limited to funerary contexts in the New Kingdom,1065 and, intersecting perfectly with textual references in the Book of the Dead and the Book of Hours, they indicated the journey through the afterlife insofar as time is loosely constructed. An early Greek-inspired circular zodiac (and perhaps the most famous) comes from the Temple of Hathor at Dendera in Upper Egypt, where it shared the ceiling of the central room of the East Osiris Chapel with an Egyptian celestial map.1066 The Dendera zodiac is crosscultural like the ones in the Zodiac Tomb. It incorporates the Egyptian decans, an Egyptian drawing style, and Egyptian garb for its Graeco-Babylonian signs and their attributes, such as the white crown of upper Egypt worn by Aquarius (who also pours the Egyptian sign for water from his flask) and the atef crown of Sagittarius. Significant for our purposes regarding this zodiac is that its organization (aside from the Greek zodiacal forms themselves) conforms to a generalized maplike impression of

155

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

the regions of the sky – with the north pole in the center, the constellations of the northern sky surrounding it, then a circle of the Greek zodiacal signs, a further nonconcentric circle of the constellation of the southern sky, and then the decans removed to the farthest circle from the center. The Dendera zodiac attempts to record the heavens with an exactitude not found in earlier Egyptian sky maps1067 and substantiates this intent for the fully Greek zodiacs seen on tomb ceilings discussed in the following chapter.

Petrie’s tomb, they offer little that indicates any deeper acquaintance with the world of their Greek neighbors. The tombs at Athribis, nevertheless, serve a special function within the corpus of Graeco-Roman tombs. Aside from their intrinsic importance as ancient monuments, the significance of the tomb of Psenosiris and the Zodiac Tomb lies in their demonstration that chronology cannot be sought in typological data: neither the inclusion of long hieroglyphic passages seen in both tombs, nor the perfectly understood Egyptian zodiacs in the tomb of Psenosiris, nor the intercultural aspect of the zodiacs of Petrie’s Zodiac Tomb can be brought to bear as a chronological marker. The Zodiac Tomb, if the late date proposed by Neugebauer and Parker is correct,1068 indicates that a strong Egyptian tradition persisted in the chora side-by-side with the incursion of Greek cultural material. It also strongly argues that the incursion of Greek cultural content, or its absence, in any Egyptian tomb is a questionable chronological marker, further complicating the dating of the tombs at Siwa and others in the Egyptian chora. Similarly, the proximity of the tombs at Athribis to those at al-Salamuni with their fully Greek-inspired zodiacs, discussed in the following chapter, indicates an intentional choice in the mode of decoration of Egyptian tombs that is ideationally, rather than temporally, based.

THE ‘TRADITIONAL’ TOM BS IN THE GRAECO-ROM AN CHORA

The tombs in the chora discussed in this chapter are redolent of the amalgam that insinuates itself into the history of Egypt and that especially marks the Graeco-Roman period. Though they all include minor elements that can be traced to a knowledge of Greek aesthetic principles, with the possible exception of the images in the upper story of House-tomb 20, their narratives and scenes are purely Egyptian. While these tombs may recognize the contributions of Greeks to the formal representation of the visual world, with the possible exceptions of the daemonic figures that guard the entrances to tombs and certain quasi-Graeco-Babylonian figures in the zodiacs of

156

five

Bricolage and Greek-Collage in the Tombs of the Egyptian Chora

T

he tension galvanized by the social and economic status imposed on Egyptians invades considerations of the afterlife. At a time when texts provide chilling accounts of the afterlife journey and when a lack of confidence in the unconditional efficacy of conventional imagery for its successful negotiation seemingly arises, new visual possibilities offered by Egypt’s intersection with the Hellenic world appear as a source especially inviting for mining. Egyptian eschatological imagery assumes a disquieting countenance, but simultaneously it demonstrates a new vibrancy as the afterlife journey is invested with more urgency than in preceding millennia. Traditional Egyptian style and iconography still govern the tomb program to a great degree and traditional Egyptian eschatological thought still predominates, but tombs in the Dakhla Oasis and at Akhmim demonstrate that Egyptian mortuary religion relaxes to admit meaningful aspects of Greek style, Greek thought, and Greek science.

The tombs of Petosiris and of Petubastis at elMuzawwaqa in the Dakhla Oasis and tombs at alSalamuni at Akhmim show commonalities of representation. Though separated by an extent of the western desert, they are connected by a trade route, yet despite this system of communication, the consonances in tomb decoration at the two cemeteries nevertheless suggest a mutual understanding of the new possibilities for expression contributed by the new political, social, and intellectual interaction with the Greek and Roman world.

investigation at the cemetery site at Bir el-Shaghala has uncovered at least two highly decorated tombs, which have yet to be fully published.1069 Another cemetery, el-Muzawwaqa, served the Roman city of Trimithis (modern Amheida). El-Muzawwaqa means ‘the decorated hill,’1070 and it defines a series of ridges into which more than 200 tombs, primarily of Roman-period date, are cut. Most of the tombs are now plundered or destroyed,1071 but the painted tombs of Petubastis and Petosiris, cut into the southern slope of the mountain adjacent to one another, are among the most richly decorated tombs of the Graeco-Roman period, and it is they that permit the modern name of the cemetery.1072 The tombs of Petubastis1073 and Petosiris are closely related in subject matter, if not in style or in quality of execution. Each received a comprehensive publication in J¨urgen Osing’s contribution to the festschrift that he and colleagues edited for Ahmed Fakhry1074 – who had discovered the tombs – in which Otto Neugebauer, Richard

DAKHLA OASIS

Dakhla is the smallest of the oases of the western desert, but among the richest and most densely populated, especially in the Roman period, because of the plentiful supply of water that reemerged after its seeming depletion in the Old Kingdom. Near the most populous modern town in the oasis, Mut el-Kharab (ancient Mothis), recent

157

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

A. Parker, and David Pingree added further notes on the Greek zodiac ceilings of both tombs.1075 Yet despite their brilliant publication, these tombs deserve further study, because they stand among the most important tombs from Roman-period Egypt. Long hieroglyphic inscriptions in both tombs suggest that their visual programs were closely overseen by priests, and both tombs demonstrate the expanded vision that results when two onceparallel systems intersect, providing for their patrons the succor and protection afforded by both ancient Egyptian and contemporaneous Graeco-Roman imagery and ideation. Both tombs are oriented from south to north, with their entrances on the south side. The tomb of Petubastis consists of a single room, whereas that of Petosiris has two. The paintings on their walls belong thematically to the funerary and religious realm of ancient Egypt, and they are executed in Egyptian style. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Osing, figures do not adhere to the traditional Egyptian canon of proportions, and their heavy black outline also sets them apart.1076 Osing dates both tombs to the Roman period on the basis of their style and orthography. He gives a first century ce date for the tomb of Petubastis, based on two Demotic graffiti on the north wall of the chamber, and suggests a date probably somewhat later for the tomb of Petosiris, since its decoration is more complex.1077 I would reverse the chronological relationship of the tombs, because it seems to me that the designer of the tomb of Petubastis used the more complexly realized tomb of Petosiris as its model, simplifying the scenes, their iconographical details, and their execution. The two tombs, however, have so many similarities that their relative dates are less consequential than their commonalities. Of greater importance yet is what they add to our knowledge of Roman-period tombs in the Egyptian chora.

May Sokar escort your ba! May you pour forth water on the earth of Busiris and the nome of Abydos! May you enter into heaven together with the gods, escorted by Sokar-Osiris daily! May you rejuvenate yourself among the divine bas! May your ba breathe among the infinite number of the formerly dead!1079

The walls of his single-room tomb are divided into registers with the south entrance wall and the north wall each carrying two registers and the lateral east and west walls each containing three. In the zone above the upper register on each wall, an undulating vine of grapes encircles the room, more suggestive of a Greek mode of decoration than any Egyptian approach. A shallow, long niche that leaves a shelf for the disposition of the dead is cut into the middle of both the east and west walls. These niches are unpainted (with the exception of a portrait bust in one), but are contemporary with the cutting of the tomb, since the decoration of the walls is conceived to accommodate them. Visually, each wall is treated independently. At each corner of the room, the friezes are bounded by a vertical black or red line that encloses them at left and right, and they are separated from the friezes on the adjacent wall by a leafless tree or twig painted in each corner of the tomb. The decoration of the tomb of Petubastis retains both the geographical orientation and the vertical hierarchical order traditional to Egyptian tombs, as seen, for example, in the chapel of the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel. The entrance to the tomb, cut into its south wall, is guarded by daemons, which, as in other tombs in the chora, suggest the probability of Greek influence. The lateral faces of the door jambs are decorated with rampant snakes,1080 which appear more decorative than menacing, but at either side of the door, on the interior south wall, other daemons more energetically protect the entrance. In the upper register, to the east of the entrance (see Pl. XXIII and Fig. 5.1), an ape-headed daemon extends his bow to shoot an arrow toward the doorway. In front of him is a protective wadjet eye, and a small figure of the sphinx-like Tutu (or, in the Roman period, Tithoes1081 ), an apotropaic deity, stands on a pedestal. In the lower register, a jackal-headed daemon flourishes a knife in either hand, and a Bes-daemon slides his weight onto his right leg, in a manner that suggests Greek stylistic knowledge, while he brandishes a knife in his upraised hand.

The Tomb of Petubastis Petubastis served as priest of Thoth at St-w3h, a designation that may have encompassed the entire western area of the oasis in which ‘the decorated hill’ is located.1078 A text on the ceiling of his tomb acknowledges his office and aspirations for his immortality: Oh devotee of the god Thoth, lord of St-w3h, Petubastis, son of Peter¯es. May you be great, and strong, inviolable! May you approach Osiris!

158

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.1. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the South Wall, Daemons Guarding the Entrance (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18025)

To the right of Bes, a second wadjet eye also protects the entrance. Guarding the entrance in the upper register to the west of the door is another configuration of Bes and a jackal-headed daemon (Pl. XXIV and see Fig. 5.1). This jackal-headed daemon is even more threatening than his counterpart: he opens his mouth, baring his teeth and a lolling tongue, and he holds one of his knives aloft ready to strike. In front of him, as on the east side of the south wall, a wadjet eye faces the doorway. The Bes-daemon, his legs and torso uncanonically, for Bes, in profile, also appears more threatening than his counterpart: though his lower body faces away from the entrance, he raises both knives ready to strike. Between the two daemons is a heraldic sign composed of protective wadjet eyes above a nefer sign. In the lower register Khonsu, irregularly formed with the hindpart of a falcon attached to his torso, thrusts down a spear or harpoon, perhaps slaying a small animal lost in

the abrasion of the wall. Behind him stands a Janus-faced image of a child,1082 his skin colored green, holding a snake in either hand. Above the child, to either side of him, are two wadjet eyes, and at the right of the frieze is an image of either Wadjet herself or an Agathodaimon.1083 The south wall separates itself from the other walls in the tomb: the paratactic arrangement of its daemonic guardians stresses their function rather than their engagement in a narrative – an arrangement that is not encountered elsewhere in the tomb and one that firmly underscores their protective responsibility. All other walls in the tomb carry narratives that engage the journey of Petubastis to a blessed afterlife. Although the walls show some overlap in the spatiality of the scenes and their temporality in the afterlife cycle, the narratives generally assume a chronology that begins on the east wall, continues to the north wall, and ends on the west wall, which – in traditional manner – contains the greatest amount of metaphysical content. Below the band of

159

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.2. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the East Wall (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18022)

seemingly Greek-inspired grapevine, the three figured friezes of east and west walls show a middle register wider than the others to accommodate the burial niches. On the north wall, which confronts the visitor entering the chamber, the middle and upper register are collapsed into a single frieze to focus attention on the Judgement scene that forms its single narrative. The east and north walls, like those in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, read from bottom to top – from the terrestrial to the celestial or the quotidian to the metaphysical – whereas the west wall is entirely concentrated on the metaphysical aspects of the afterlife journey. The lower and middle friezes of the east wall treat the funerary procession of Petubastis and his introduction to Osiris (Pl. XXV and Fig. 5.2); the upper frieze is devoted to the gods. The lower register addresses the funeral with two narrative sequences, both of which concern the funerary rites of Petubastis. At the south end, and moving toward the back of the tomb, are abstracts from his funerary procession and, at the north end, are lustration scenes. A mummy lying on a lion-bed is encased in a shrine placed on a cart drawn by four men (Fig. 5.3). Directly in front of the cart walk two priests, one of whom pours a libation as the second extends a censor, the sign for ‘to offer,’ with one hand and holds three twigs in the other. In front

of the men who draw the cart stands Petubastis (see Fig. 5.2), his hands raised in reverence. He is crowned with an unguent cone pierced possibly by a simplified papyrus stalk (or lotus bloom) that he occasionally affects throughout the tomb.1084 In front of him stand the Four Sons of Horus, each holding linen bandages, and a man carrying a chest on his shoulder. In the next vignette, Anubis holds up the mummy case containing the mummy of Petubastis, while Petubastis sits on a stool in his tomb (in its frequently represented pyramidion-topped form),1085 receiving a libation from a priest and from the tree goddess. The middle register, which flanks the burial niche, relates the afterlife journey of Petubastis. The scene closest to the entrance to the tomb shows the priest led before Osiris by Anubis (see Fig. 5.3). Behind Petubastis, Ma’at and Thoth complete the vignette. The iconographic treatment of the deities makes their identities pellucid, but they are also named in their accompanying hieroglyphic text.1086 Behind Thoth is the niche for the laying out of the deceased. On the north wall of the niche, a male portrait bust is drawn in Graeco-Roman style (see Pl. XXV and Fig. 5.4). The figure is posed frontally, with the face turned slightly to his left. His skin is painted yellow ochre enlivened with fine short red lines to indicate corporeality like figures in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna

160

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.3. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the East Wall, Right End Detail, the Funerary Cart of Petubastis and His Appearance before Osiris (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18032)

laid out directly beneath the sign. The fetish is venerated by deities set to the left and right. At the left, also damaged, is Re-Harakhty; behind him is Isis, and then Anubis and a crocodile- or dog-headed deity. To the right of the fetish stand Thoth, Nephthys, and another deity, his skin painted green, who is mostly destroyed. Behind that god squat thirteen deities (see Fig. 5.3), drawn to a larger scale following the rule of isocephaly, each with a papyrus-topped scepter on its knees. At the far north end, almost entirely destroyed, are antithetical scenes of deities venerating Osiris.1090 The north wall, the one that immediately greets the viewer entering the tomb, is treated as such. Its lower frieze repeats the funeral of Petubastis, while its wide upper frieze treats his judgement (see Pl. XXV and Fig. 5.5). A small niche in the upper frieze centers the wall,1091 furnishing the wall with a semblance of symmetry. On

el-Gebel. He wears a grayish-green garment with black stripes (clavi)1087 that hangs straight down over his right shoulder, but lines indicate that the fabric over the left shoulder is pulled across his chest to meet it and cover his breast,1088 like the garment on the bust on the ceiling of Room I in the tomb of Petosiris, which is discussed next in this chapter. On the surface of the wall, a ba-bird populates each spandral of the burial niche. At the north end of the frieze, beyond the burial niche, Anubis stands in Osirid form, wearing the composite crown. The upper register is reserved for the gods (see Fig. 5.2). A poorly preserved Abydos fetish, which probably represents the primordial hill that rose out of the waters of creation and that became associated with Osiris, as the deity of rebirth,1089 is centered above the burial niche and here ensures the rebirth of the deceased Petubastis

161

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

the back wall of the niche, a delicately drawn vine laden with grapes and leaves surrounds an image of the sun god emerging from the blue lotus (Fig. 5.6),1092 heralding the rebirth of the deceased. Painted directly below the niche, guarding him, Anubis crouches in full jackal form. The lower frieze of the north wall is similar to the lowest frieze on the east wall, though its direction is from left to right and the vignettes are separated from one another by a black line (see Fig. 5.5 and Pl. XXV). Here three men pull the funerary cart that bears the mummy of Petubastis, which also carries the two libation bearers. Immediately in front of the funerary cart walks a single priest bearing incense and another libation vase. In the next vignette, Petubastis is seated in his tomb faced by a man who pours a libation, and behind the man is a tree on which a phoenix perches. With his back to the libation bearer and the tree, Anubis holds up the mummy case of Petubastis while, in front of him, Petubastis venerates the fetish of Abydos. The phoenix-bearing tree and Anubis supporting the mummy case are centered directly below the niche, repeating the theme of rebirth epitomized in the image that the niche contains. In the final vignette, at the right end of the frieze, Petubastis again sits in his

5.4. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the East Wall, the Portrait in the Niche (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F18037)

5.5. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the North Wall, the Funeral of Petubastis and the Judgement Scene (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18024)

162

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

male figure, holding out his hands in the gesture of reception, who kneels on a mound just beyond the pan of the scale held by Horus.1094 Above and to the left of the tree, of which a single stroke painted red and a green leaf remain, a ba-bird repeats the gesture of the small figure below. At the far right of the frieze, to the right of the destroyed tree, Horus (or Re-Harakhty) sits enthroned, wearing a sun-disc fronted by a uraeus as a crown. To the left of the centralized niche and illustrating Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, Osiris – inscribed the “first of the west” – sits enthroned while Ammit, Thoth, Anubis, and a significantly smaller Petubastis, raising his arms in the gesture of rejoicing, stand in front of him. This upper frieze, which admits Petubastis to continue his eschatological journey, dominates the tomb. The west wall, then, is given over to the afterlife journey (Fig. 5.7). Its lower frieze shows a series of disconnected vignettes. At the far left, Petubastis, wearing his unguent cone and a menit and holding a twig in his hand with his legs mummiform, raises his hands toward a female deity crowned with the sign of the west, whom Osing identifies as Hathor.1095 The menit worn by the deceased priest, which also associates him with Hathor, further serves as an example of heretofore divine imagery appropriated by the mortal dead in the Roman period. Behind Petubastis stands a winged falcon-headed deity, and behind Hathor, a shorter falcon-headed daemon with a knife in each hand. The next vignette depicts Petubastis, holding the sail-sign connoting breath (as does Siamun in his tomb at Siwa and Amun in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel), while, in front of him, another male pours a libation. To the right, beyond this scene, another male harvests grain (an extremely rare ‘quotidian’ scene in a Graeco-Roman tomb), which Osing connects with Chapter 110 in the Book of the Dead,1096 a spell for “going forth by day . . . existing in the Field of Offerings . . . becoming a blessed one there, reaping (there), eating there, drinking there, copulating there, doing everything that is done upon earth.”1097 The next vignette shows an Upper Egyptian shrine, fronted by a uraeus and sheltering a mummy laid on a lion-bed, with the mummy’s ba fluttering above it. An offering table is set to the right of the shrine, and, beyond the offering table, Petubastis venerates the glorious boat of Re, drawn toward him by a jackal. Within the barque, Re is depicted as falcon-headed, holding a was-scepter, and crouched within a circle ringed by stars. Male figures wearing long kilts and holding long boat hooks or poles stand at the boat’s bow and stern; the one at the stern

5.6. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the Niche on the North Wall, the Sun God Emerging from the Blue Lotus (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17974)

tomb. He is flanked by the tree-goddess in front of him who offers a libation, and a kneeling deity behind him, whom Osing identifies as Meshent (or Meskhenet),1093 who, as in House-tomb 21, assists with the rebirth of the deceased. Then, nearest the corner and seemingly as an afterthought because it is both compressed and drawn to a lesser scale, Anubis lustrates the mummy as its ba-bird hovers above. The upper (and, by its depth, the main) frieze contains the narrative of the Judgement of the Dead set to either side of the niche. To the right and directly above the fetish of Abydos, Anubis and Horus control the scale that weighs the feather of Ma’at against the heart of the deceased. These figures are considerably smaller than those to the left of the niche to accommodate eight judges of the dead, wearing the insignia of Ma’at on their heads, who sit on groundlines above the scene. Another four are set on a groundline above Petubastis to the left of the niche. Their disposition to either side of the niche suggests that despite the disparate scale of the main participants in the scenes that flank the niche, the two scenes should be read as one. Beyond the scene of the weighing of the heart, Osing suggests a scene, now almost entirely destroyed, of a tree goddess, revered by the small, nude,

163

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.7. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the West Wall, Afterlife Scenes (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18020)

wears the crown of Upper Egypt, the one at the bow, the crown of Lower Egypt, accurately reflecting the geographical orientation of the tomb. The north end of the frieze is populated by five deities – a mummiform Osiris, with Isis, Nephthys, Anubis, and Horus behind him – processing toward the back wall, presenting the only case in which a wall is not closed off with a figure facing inward. As on the east wall, the middle frieze of the west wall is cut by the burial niche, and, as on the east wall, the niche is overseen by ba-birds in the spandrals. In the frieze to the left of the niche, Petubastis pours a libation to a mummiform figure. To the right, at the north end of the tomb, he stands in adoration before Osiris, who sits enthroned behind an offering table. The figure of Petubastis is raised above the groundline, appearing to stand in a three-dimensional space, which is the unintended consequence of ensuring that Petubastis’ gaze upon the deity remains unimpeded by the high offering table. The upper register of the west wall carries a series of scenes connected only by their metaphysical intentions and their reliance on books of the afterlife. At the far south end, two boats move to the right transporting

the djed pillar and the phoenix, scenes that Osing connects with Chapter 100 and Chapter 129 of the Book of the Dead.1098 In front of each boat, a male pours a libation, with the one at the far left wearing Petubastis’ lotus (?) -pierced unguent cone. To the right of the righthand libation pourer, four figures holding linen bandages walk toward Anubis, who supports the mummy (or the mummy case). The second deity and the last in the file wear swty crowns; the second to last wears the feather of Ma’at. The next vignette shows a falcon-headed daemon with a knife in each hand facing Petubastis across a high, narrow edifice topped with a kheker frieze. Osing connects this scene with Chapter 145 of The Book of the Dead,1099 which describes the gates (and their gatekeepers) that have to be traversed on the way to the Field of Rushes, but daemons are ubiquitous in GraecoRoman tombs, and Chapter 144 of the Book of the Dead, as well as sections of the Book of Gates, and the Amduat, provide parallels as well.1100 The next vignette shows ba-birds flanking a djed pillar, the left one holding a sail-sign. Finally, at the far north end of the frieze, a male advances to the left holding a pole across his shoulders from which two vessels hang bringing water for the dead.1101

164

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

Though roughly drawn and at times idiosyncratically portrayed, the images on the walls of the tomb are conceived in Egyptian style. Aside from the ‘portrait’ of Petubatis in the east niche and the grapevine in the crowning frieze and the one encircling the niche on the north wall, the Classical inclusions on the walls of the tomb are conceptual, rather than stylistic. Not so, the ceiling. For the ceiling of the tomb of Petubastis is treated as the starry heavens that center on a fully Greek-inspired zodiac (Fig. 5.8a and b).1102 With its reliance on a Classical prototype, the ceiling sets itself apart from traditional Egyptian tombs that image the night sky (including those in the previous chapter) and aligns itself with the tomb of Petosiris at el-Muzawwaqa and with tombs from alSalamuni, discussed later in this chapter. The zodiacal signs revolve counterclockwise around a bust portrait of a male, presumably Petubastis, now badly damaged, oriented with the crown of his head toward the south, so the visitor entering the tomb is confronted by the figure’s face in a similar way in which the visitor to Siamun’s tomb confronts Nut. Female figures, which Neugebauer and Parker suggest are intended to represent the cardinal points1103 and which are associated with papyrus boats, support the circle of the zodiac, and birds of prey fly in the four corners of the ceiling.1104 Neugebauer and Parker connect this zodiac to one in a tomb at Akhmim (Salamuni Tomb 3A),1105 discussed later in this chapter.

5.8a. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the Zodiac on the Ceiling (after Osing, et al. 1982: pl. 37)

the three walls of each niche in the tomb of Petosiris, as well as the facade of the bed they create, are painted with compositions that dignify the form of the niche. Yet though the two tombs are painted by different hands or workshops, the organization of the tomb of 5.8b. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, a Detail of the Ceiling Zodiac (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18018)

The Tomb of Petosiris The plan, interior fittings, and mortuary program of the tomb of Petosiris are more complex than those of the tomb of Petubastis. Like the latter, the tomb of Petosiris also opens through its south wall, but – unlike the latter – it is composed of two small rooms (Fig. 5.9); the second chamber, which is cut at an angle to the first, is accessed from a doorway in the middle of the east wall of Room I. Both chambers were used as burial rooms, since each is cut with long neat niches that form benches for the laying out of the dead. One niche is centered on the north (back) wall of Room I; two more are cut in Room II – one into the north wall and one at the south end of the east wall. These niches differ from those cut in the tomb of Petubastis; they are quadrilateral in section and higher, and, though only slightly deeper, they seem to form a bed for the deceased rather than a shelf. Additionally, and perhaps most important for their visual difference,

165

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

As on the east side of the entrance wall in the tomb of Petubastis, Tutu (or Tithoes) is pictured in the lower frieze of the east side of the entrance wall of Room I of the tomb of Petosiris (Pl. XXVII and Fig. 5.10). In the latter tomb, however, the composite creature dispenses with any protective role because, instead of facing toward the opening, it strides in the direction of the adjoining wall, as it bears statues of Thoth and Horus, who share a plinth, toward the east wall. Nevertheless, despite the direction of the striding Tutu, the scene is divided from the narrative of the east wall by a papyrus column (which, except for its ochre color, resembles a papyrus-column amulet1106 ) that supports Horus in falcon form.1107 This formal separation conforms to the contrast between the content of the two walls. The upper register of the east side of the south entrance wall is dissimilarly bounded by thick bands at all sides, rendering it a distinct panel entirely separated from the contiguous wall. It shows two females (almost assuredly intended as Isis and Nephthys) kneeling in a shrine to either side of a vertical object on which the sun god in the form of a falcon perches. Osing connects the scene with Chapter 16 of the Book of the Dead that provides a vignette in which Isis and Nephthys venerate a form of the god.1108 Because of the doorway to the second room, the two scenes at the south end of the east wall are also treated as panels, with bands bounding them at the left as well as above and below. The upper scene is bilaterally symmetrical, whereas the lower proceeds from north to south, that is, toward the entrance to the tomb. The lower panel of the south section of the east wall is devoted to a contracted but canonical version of the Judgement scene (Pl. XXVII and Fig. 5.11). It finds parallels in substance and emphasis, if not in style, with the similar scene on the north wall of the tomb of Petubastis that forms the focal point of that tomb. Osiris sits enthroned holding, in addition to the flail and crook, an ankh and a was-scepter before him. In the fashion of all mummiform figures in the tomb, his feet remain unwrapped and, in this case, his arms as well. He is exceedingly well turned out in an elaborate atef crown, a dashingly decorated mummiform garment, and a pectoral counterbalanced by a gold-colored menit. In front of Osiris, seated on a shrine-like base, Ammit – who is depicted as completely leonine, having lost the composite form that has characterized her since the early Nineteenth Dynasty – crowned with the two feathers of

5.9. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Plan (after Osing et al. 1982: pl. 63b [Drawn by D. Arnold])

Petosiris is similar to that of Petubastis: although all the walls in the tomb of Petosiris are divided into two moreor-less equal registers, each wall – with few exceptions – is envisioned as an independent unit and is distinguished as such by vertical bands. Even more strongly connecting the two tombs are the Greek zodiacs that enliven their ceilings. Room I Each wall in Room I of the tomb of Petosiris is treated differently from the others (Pl. XXVI). The two friezes of the longer west section of the south (entrance) wall form a continuation of the friezes of the west wall, whereas, in contrast, the slightly shorter east section of the south wall carries iconic figures that stand independently from the narratives that populate the east wall. Furthermore, because it is punctuated by the doorway to the second room, the east frieze is divided approximately at its center into a large panel at the north and two friezes at its south end. Finally, the north wall, which is devoted almost entirely to the niche for the body of the deceased, is treated entirely separately. As in the tomb of Petubastis, some indication exists of a spacial hierarchy of the friezes, with the narratives of the lower friezes being somewhat less celestial than those of the upper. Also as in the tomb of Petubastis, the west wall is reserved for the celestial journey, so it seems appropriate to begin with the east side of Room I.

166

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.10. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the South Wall (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18003)

Ma’at as she is in the tomb of Petubastis, spits into a fiery cauldron to quell the flames, indicating that the judgement rendered on the deceased is positive: he has escaped the flaming cauldron. Behind Ammit, Thoth advances holding a palette and the notched date-palm branch on which, in pharaonic times, he recorded the number of years allotted the reign of the king,1109 and which, in this scene, represents the eternal life of the deceased. Behind him, drawn to a smaller scale, is the expected scene of the weighing of the heart of the deceased overseen by Horus and Anubis and Thoth – in red-bottomed baboon form, as on the south wall of the burial room of House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel – who crouches on a platform raised from the central support of the scale. At the far left of the scene, a ba-bird stands on a podium raising his hands in the sign for rejoicing.1110 As in the Judgement scene in the tomb of Petubastis, consistent scale is unimportant: the figures at the balance are far smaller than Thoth, Ammit, and Osiris. The scene shows other anomalies: first, the stand of the scale is shaped like the symbol of the lungs and windpipe that comprise the sema hieroglyph, meaning unification

(normally binding the signs for Upper and Lower Egypt), which is out of place in a tomb of a private person, but consistent with the appropriation of royal imagery by common persons in the Roman period;1111 and, second, instead of the heart weighed against the feather of Ma’at, each pan of the scale holds a heart: the deceased’s heart is weighed against another heart, while another hangs from the scale beneath Thoth’s feet. Furthermore, at the far left of the panel, in one of the most ingenious conceits in the tomb, a second ‘register’ is provided by a goundline, which is cantilevered and supported by an angle brace, and on which Ma’at escorts the deceased Petosiris. In the center of the upper register of the poorly preserved south section of the east wall (see Fig. 5.11), a male deity stands to the left supporting the heavens.1112 He is surrounded by eight ‘ba-birds,’ at least two of which have the heads of jackals; the other preserved heads are human with small beards, as is seemingly consistent throughout the tomb. At either side, the groundlines for the ba-birds that form an upper ‘register’ are cantilevered, and as in the scene below, each is supported by an angle brace. Osing identifies this scene as indicating the sun’s journey

167

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.11. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the South Section of the East Wall, the Judgement of Petosiris and a Deity and Ba-Birds (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17998)

during the day, which he connects with the west wall, which shows the sun’s journey at night.1113 At the north end of the east wall, beyond the doorway to the second room, is the best known image from the tomb. It shows the tomb owner, Petosiris (Pl. XXVIII and Fig. 5.12), whose depiction spans both registers, and it is the only image in the tomb to break the two-register

configuration. The scene is bounded by a brown band, and only the blue strip of sky above, lined with yellow stars, connects this scene to the one on the back wall of the room. At the left, close to the corner of the room, Petosiris, garbed in a purple pallium and pink tunic with two black clavi1114 and black sandals, stands with his weight resting

168

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.12. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the North End of the East Wall, Petosiris (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17995)

on his left leg; his non-weight-bearing leg is meant to trail behind him. His right hand that reaches out from the pallium might hold a floral garland;1115 his left holds out a scroll.1116 At the right of the scene and drawn to a much smaller scale, standing behind an offering table, a priest garbed in an ankle-length garment, his head shaven, holds out an offering of bread to Petosiris in his left hand

while, in his lowered right, he holds either a sistrum or a libation vessel.1117 On the offering table in front of him – seen from a bird’s-eye view – a liquid offering spills onto the earth for the underworld deities or for the deceased. Behind the priest and behind a grape-laden vine, a Nile god approaches carrying bread and a libation vessel on a tray. Above Petosiris’ head, at the left, a beardless ba-bird,

169

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

the one real and the other metaphysical, with the stylistic differentiation marking a deliberate separation between gods and men. It is a style of presentation seen in Graeco-Roman tombs and on grave stelae, shrouds, and coffins.1122 Petosiris stands in a Classical chiastic pose and is garbed in Classical garments. His garment is painted in a classicizing style, with the drapery falling and pulling according to dicta laid down in the late-Archaic period in Greece, and the mass of both the figure and its drapery is shown by darker and lighter values of the basic hue. As in the tomb of his homonym at Tuna el-Gebel, short strokes are used to denote shading and create the volume of the form. Like the Dakhla Petosiris, the priest at his left also stands with his weight poised on a single leg. His torso and head are posed in three-quarter view, and the fabric of his garment, too, obeys the laws of Classical drapery and is treated with short lines to show the volume of the figure beneath. The head of the ba-bird is similarly treated in a classicizing manner both in the drawing of the features and in its three-quarter view. The deities, however, adhere to Egyptian convention with their flat color and evenly weighted stances, following Castiglione’s observation. Yet despite this new stylistic differentiation between gods and man, the patron’s size, which permits him to span two registers and which is far greater than that of the other figures in the tomb, nevertheless preserves the memory of a traditional Egyptian format in which the deceased patron is the largest figure on the tomb. In contrast to the east wall, the west wall is continuous, and both registers are designed with cohesive scenes. In addition, unlike the clearly defined demarcation between the east half of the south wall and the east wall marked by the black bar and the papyrus column, both registers on the west half of the south entrance wall are treated as friezes initiating (or terminating) those of the west wall. The lower registers of the two adjacent walls are better preserved than the upper and, within the syntax of postpharaonic tomb design, more ordinary. The scene shows a procession of deities moving from the entrance of the tomb toward its back wall (Fig. 5.13 and see Fig. 5.10). Beginning just to the right of the entrance to the tomb, six deities walk forward, holding in one hand a linen bandage and in the other a cup containing natron for the embalming of the deceased. This scene is connected to the next by Anubis – also holding mummy bandages and natron – who leads the procession and turns back as if to urge it forward. In front of Anubis are the mummiform Four Sons of Horus and a female deity, the treatment

its face in three-quarter view, settles on a groundline (possibly supported by an angle brace like the others). To the right of Petosiris, also on a ‘groundline,’ but one that appears to take the form of the roof of an edifice, standards of a falcon, an ibis, and a jackal gaze across at the ba-bird; a fourth animal, probably another jackal, must have brought up the rear of the procession, but it has been lost in the damaged plaster.1118 At the left edge of the panel, a column of hieroglyphs on a yellow ground is outlined in black and angled at the bottom to allow for the diagonal of Petosiris’ right foot. At the right, between Petosiris and the vine and forming the ‘edifice’ for the standards, is another hieroglyphic inscription. Together they read1119 : O Osiris Petosiris! May you be great, powerful, and mighty! May you step up to Osiris! May your ba follow Sokar, May you follow Osiris every day! May you yourself float away and return to the necropolis . . . ! Your ka shall depart to the heaven toward the gods and goddesses who dwell there! May you receive a crown in the daytime of Day 25 and on the morning of the Day 26! May your corpse attain Osiris! May you soar on the wing as an ibis, May you yourself alight as a falcon alights, Without any obstruction for your ba in the underworld forever!

Helen Whitehouse connects the choice of animals depicted above the scene – the falcon, ibis, and jackal – to the imagery in the hymn and accords it an allusion to the burial procession or the Feast of Sokar, as elsewhere in tomb decoration, and also in late versions of the Book of the Dead.1120 This image of Petosiris is the most frequently reproduced image from the tomb, and one of the most frequently reproduced images from any tomb of GraecoRoman Egypt, since it serves as a standard-bearer for Greek influence on Roman-period Egyptian tombs. It can also be brought to bear to elucidate the ‘dualstyle’ defined by L´aszl´o Castiglione more than fifty years ago,1121 though he did not know this image when he wrote his seminal article. Castiglione observed that when the deceased person is depicted in Graeco-Roman style and set among Egyptian deities portrayed in an egyptianizing manner, the intention is to denote two realms,

170

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.13. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the West Wall, Images of the Afterlife (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18001)

of whose head indicates that she is in the guise of the Eye of Re (Fig. 5.14). She pays homage to the celestial cow Mehet-Weret, crowned with a solar disc and feathers, who stands upon a naos-shaped base that shelters the mummy; a falcon with a flail that is more normally associated with Mehet-Weret – perhaps as a sign for ‘the west’ – perches on the mummy’s chest. Behind this configuration, though actually painted on the north wall, is Ptah in an Upper-Egyptian-shaped shrine, whose sloping roof is configured as a rampant, sun-disc-crowned cobra, which is supported by two striped columns with papyrus capitals. Behind the shrine, a vertical bar that closes off the scene indicates that Ptah is connected to this scene rather than to the one on the facade of the niche behind him. Ptah’s skin is the green of regeneration, and, in addition to his normal was-scepter, he holds a crook and a flail also connecting him to Osiris.

The deities that bear the embalming materials on the west wall are, from left to right, lion headed, baboon headed, falcon headed, bull headed, ibis headed, and human headed (wearing a short false beard), but no attributes encourage their identification. The female deity holds a sekhem-scepter in her upraised left hand, identifying her function as officiant at the ceremony; in her lowered right is an object, held horizontally, that Osing thinks might be a torch.1123 Osing1124 connects this scene with Chapter 162 of the Book of the Dead, which is a spell directed to a great lion “to be said over the figure of a Heavenly Cow,”1125 and the spell, which mentions flame and heat, might account for Osing’s identification of the object in the deity’s hand. In contrast to the treatment in the tomb of Petubastis (and to the other friezes in the room), the upper frieze on the west wall of the chamber moves from right to

171

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

The boat the deities draw forward is the normal sunbarque with its papyrus-finialed prow and stern. The ram-headed manifestation of the evening sun god stands in the center holding a cobra whose head rears up before him and whose sinuous body acts as a canopy for the god, a depiction that most likely shows either a misunderstanding or a reinterpretation of the shrine of the sun god negotiating the underworld, which is shaped like the cobra here.1130 At the stern, holding the rudder rope, as in the tomb of Siamun and elsewhere, is falcon-headed Horus, and standing in the prow are two mummiform figures – the foremost wearing the crown of Upper Egypt, the second the crown of Lower Egypt.1131 Behind the sun-barque, two daemons – the first a ramheaded male, the second a female – hold a double rope tied to the stern of the boat in their left hands and, in their right, brandish knives. Behind these daemons, Thoth stands on a plinth atop a crouching Hittite-like-faced lion, which perhaps references the “Bull with roaring voice,” an aspect of Osiris.1132 Behind Thoth is frontalfaced Bes and, behind him – painted on the north wall to the left of the niche – is a red-bottomed baboon. The two latter figures brandish knifes as they assume a protective role.1133 The scene depicts the barque of the evening sun descending into the dark Netherworld ruled by the hours of the night. By the Thirtieth Dynasty private persons were decorating sarcophagi with scenes from the Amduat, and the text continued to be quoted in papyri of the Roman period.1134 The bust of the Moon (shown as Selene), interrupting the zodiac on the ceiling directly over the image of the sun god in the barque (see Fig. 5.13) and seemingly gazing down upon him, emphasizes this transitional moment in the afterlife journey. The north wall of Room I, opposite the entrance to the tomb, is given over almost entirely to a niche that forms the funerary bed, which is almost two meters long and about sixty centimeters deep (see Pl. XXVI and Fig. 5.15). The back wall of the niche shows the usual scene of Anubis ministering to the mummy while Nephthys, at the foot of the bed, and Isis, at its head, look on and mourn for the deceased. Both female deities wear an unusual garment that covers them from ankle to neck and that falls in a wide sleeve across their upper arms. The lateral walls of the niche each also carry a female figure, wearing a garment so tightly fitted that it outlines her iliac curve (as does that of the female in the frieze below) (see Pl. XXVIII). Both hold out mummy bands and cups of natron. Jackal-headed Anubis stands near the

5.14. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, West Wall, Lower Register, a Detail of the Eye of Re, Mehet-Weret, and the Mummy (Copyright G¨unther H¨olbl)

left, that is, toward the entrance of the tomb see (see Fig. 5.13). The narrative that begins on the west wall and terminates on the south describes the solar boat drawn by deities, who constitute a procession headed by Petosiris and Ma’at on the entrance wall. The figure of the deceased is almost entirely lost, but Osing identifies a disconnected fragment depicting a male as an image of Petosiris that partially completes the figure.1126 Behind Ma’at, six goddesses draw the boat, which is pictured set upon a stand with signs indicating it is meant as water, a normal treatment at least from the early Eighteenth Dynasty on.1127 The six goddesses are extracted from the twelve goddesses of the hours of the night known from the Book of Gates and the Amduat,1128 who guide the sun-barque (and, by extension, the barque of the deceased) through the dark hours of the night. The crowns of the first three goddesses are destroyed, and those of the last two are unreadable, but the fourth deity is crowned with a sun-disc with, at its center, a star, which is the sign for the goddess of the eleventh hour – “The star, repulser of rebels.”1129 In the tomb of Petosiris, the goddesses not only guide but drag the barque of the sun god through the night.

172

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.15. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the North Wall, the Lustration of the Mummy and Protective Figures (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17999)

foot of the lion-bed – whose yellow color and indication of ribs lend a naturalistic feline appearance to the bier – holding a small cup of natron in his upraised hand. Canopic jars capped with the heads of the Four Sons of Horus stand under the lion-bed, and a sharp-beaked bird of prey, which Osing identifies as a harrier,1135 a diurnal hawk, flits above the mummy holding a stem of papyrus in his claws. On the very short wall that remains on the north wall to the right of the niche (see Fig. 5.15 and also Pl. XXVIII), falcon-headed Horus, facing toward the niche

and wearing the double crown and with a rampant fish in front of him,1136 tramples a tortoise and a snake (which he holds by a cord) in his role as a protector deity. In the upper register of the short wall to the left of the niche, the red-bottomed baboon daemon (already mentioned in the description of the west wall) faces outward, joining the other daemons on the west wall of the tomb, while simultaneously protecting the burial niche. The scene on the facade of the funerary bed also ensures protection for the deceased. It centers on a kneeling male, winged like a sun-disc or like female deities

173

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.16a. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the Zodiac Ceiling (after Osing et al. 1982: pl. 39)

(Ma’at, Isis, Nephthys) elsewhere, kneeling and holding aloft in each outstretched hand a feather of Ma’at. Osing tentatively identifies him as Shu,1137 but though his skin is colored the gold of the gods, he incorporates none of Shu’s characteristics. In front of him, a bearded man with long hair and pink skin, his body pierced by arrows, sinks to the ground, extending his left hand in a defensive gesture. Behind the winged figure and drawn to a much smaller scale than the other two figures, a goddess, crowned with lotus,1138 stands amid wheat and vines holding a tray with bread, flowers, and a libation vessel. It is likely that the winged man is intended as a guardian figure both of the body of the deceased lying in the niche above and of the female standing amid the wheat with her platter of offerings. As in the tomb of Petubastis, the ceiling of Room I in the tomb of Petosiris carries a zodiac (Fig. 5.16), though in this case both more complicated and less decorative – adding even more figures but lacking the segmental divisions of the circle and ornamental pattern of black and white stars that characterize the zodiac of Petubastis – and certainly painted by a different hand and based on a

different pattern book. In further contrast to the zodiac in the tomb of Petubastis, the signs are arranged clockwise, and the Moon – placed over the scene of the solar barque on the west wall – separates Taurus from Aries (see Figs. 5.16a and b). The scene covers the entire ceiling including the ceiling of the niche on the north wall (see Fig. 5.15). Frontally posed, nude, winged female figures, their arms raised overhead, hold up the circle of the zodiac, which is composed of a composite beast with the head of a crocodile at one end and that of a snake at the other that meet just above the bust of Selene, and that Whitehouse has suggested might symbolize the opposed aspects of eternity.1139 Otto Neugebauer and Richard Parker query whether the female figures might be a conflation of goddesses of the cardinal points (which are depicted as female, but neither nude nor winged) and winds (which are winged, but not depicted as female).1140 Outside the northwest and southwest arcs of the circle, too, are two bull (or horned cow) protomes; on the niche ceiling a bird of prey with outstretched wings has been fitted in; and inscribed rosettes are scattered in the remaining interstices outside the circle.

174

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

of Lower Egypt and faces back toward the first room. As with the images that are appropriate to the orientation of the tomb on Room I’s west wall, the considered placement of the two deities indicating northern and southern Egypt also indicates the artist’s awareness of relationship of the monument to the cardinal points, as encountered in pharaonic Egyptian tombs. Room II The entrance to the second room in the tomb of Petosiris is on its long west wall. The room is slightly longer, narrower, and less rectangular than the first. Its cutting at about a 30-degree angle to Room I forced an extension of the north jamb of the doorway (and a resulting offset to the north end of the room’s west wall) to ensure that the two rooms did not intersect (see Fig. 5.9). Room II is cut with two niches. One extends the entire length of the north wall, and the other occupies the south end of the east wall. The niche in the north wall is almost precisely the same length and depth as the niche in Room I, whereas the one in the east wall is slightly shorter and narrower. As in Room I, the walls of the chamber are divided into two registers, and they are also painted with many of the same scenes as the first room, though few of the individual motifs or figures truly replicate those of the first chamber. Unlike the first room, however, because the two niches and the doorway interrupt the friezes on all but the south wall, the images of Room II do not permit extended narratives, and the registers are, for the most part, composed as symmetrical panels. The visual organization of Room II appears less well considered than that of Room I. Confronting the visitor entering the room is the east wall, which is visually divided in half at a point directly opposite the entranceway. Immediately to the right of the viewer’s line of direct sight, the wall is cut with the niche that provides the two registers; to the left of the visitor’s line of sight, the wall is also divided into two friezes, but they bear neither an ideational nor a spacial relation to the two registers encountered in the niche and its platform. It is instead the north and the south walls, because of their symmetrical icon-like treatment, that act as the focal points of the room’s decoration, though they do not respond to one another thematically either. Nor is the vertical spacial arrangement of terrestrial to celestial implied in Room I apparent in Room II. In Room II, scenes appear to be disconnected from one another, and their subjects seem dictated by the space available within each section. Only

5.16b. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the Zodiac Ceiling, Detail of the Central Figures (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18055)

In the center of the circle formed by the zodiacal signs are four human busts – two bearded males, a female, and possibly the head of a Janus-figure – the head of a bull, and possibly a jackal. David Pingree interprets the bull’s head and the possible jackal as representations of the northern constellations and the busts as representing the planets, but there is little on which to base these identifications, and J. R. Harris1141 considers without foundation Pingree’s interpretation of the entire zodiac in Mithraic terms on which the identification as planets is based.1142 All figures – both anthropomorphic humans and deities and the animals of the zodiacal signs – are treated in a classicizing manner: the faces of humans and deities are seen frontally or in slight three-quarter view, the human figures are garbed in contemporaneous garments, and the corporeality of all the figures is indicated with a deeper hue. In these ways these figures connect to the image of the patron of the tomb and remove themselves from the flat treatment of the egyptianizing figures painted on the tomb’s walls. Between Rooms I and II, the lateral faces of the jambs each bear a rampant snake (or Agathodaimon), its body coiled around a papyrus stalk. The one on the south jamb wears the crown of Upper Egypt and faces toward Room II1143 ; the one on the north jamb wears the crown

175

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.17. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the South Side of the East Wall, Lustration of the Mummy and Protective Figures (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17961)

the burial niches are treated in a consistent manner: the back wall of each shows the lustration of the mummy, and the facade of each niche depicts an apotropaic scene as does the facade of the niche in Room I. The upper register of the right (south) half of the east wall, as approached by a visitor entering the room, incorporates the east niche (Fig. 5.17). The back wall of the niche shows the scene of the lustration of the mummy, and its central part nearly replicates that of the scene in the niche in Room I (see Fig. 5.15); the greatest

difference is that Isis and Nephthys kneel on naos-shaped stands instead of rectangular boxes and that they wear their normal garments. The scene in Room II is elongated, however, incorporating the two flanking females bearing linen bandages and cups of natron that are painted on the side walls of the niche in Room I. Replacing them on each of the side walls of the niche in Room II is a male figure, who raises his hands in adoration. Behind the male on the left wall is a tiet knot, and behind the one on the right wall is a djed pillar. The short wall at

176

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.18. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the North Side of the East Wall, Petosiris Led before Osiris and Deities Offering to Osiris (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17959)

female deities inhabiting the side wall of the north niche. In the lower register, Thoth and Anubis flank a standing Osiris, who wears similarly gaudy garb as in the Room I Judgement scene and to whom Anubis offers bread and either natron or incense.1145 At the left end of the scene, Isis (who wears the disc and horns of Hathor) and Nephthys (who carries six loaves of bread) pour offerings onto spouted tables from where the liquid flows into the earth as it does adjacent to the large image of Petosiris in Room I. Here, however, it is clear that it flows from the vessels that they hold. The short south wall of Room II carries two seemingly symmetrical scenes. Its upper register shows two male babirds (wearing perfume cones stuck through with a lotus blossom on their heads, as do all the bas in Room II, in contrast to the bare heads of those in Room I), representing the ba of Petosiris1146 revering a vulture, probably

the south end of the niche carries protective deities – Wadjet (or an Agathodaimon) and Taueret – much as do the short walls of the niche in the Room I. The lower register that forms the facade of the bench of the niche continues the protective program: a redbottomed baboon, crowned with a solar disc and armed with bow and arrow, dispatches an enemy with long hair and a short beard, who sinks to the ground. Behind the fallen figure, a male figure raise his hands in reverence before a gate within which a gatekeeper holding up a knife kneels and, behind the baboon, a solar barque supports the bust of a falcon. In the north section of the east wall’s upper register, Anubis leads Petosiris into the presence of Osiris, who again resplendently arrayed in a net garment is seated on his throne (Fig. 5.18). Behind the throne, at the left end of the wall, stand Horus, Isis, and Nephthys,1144 with the

177

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.19. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the South Wall, the Judgement Scene and Ba-Birds Revering a Vulture (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17969)

Nekhbet. The deity (or scavenger) is seen frontally with outspread wings, wearing an atef crown, and holding in each claw a feather of Ma’at (Fig. 5.19).1147 The lower register, in a scene as axially symmetrical as the subject permits, shows the Judgement of the deceased in a reversed and slightly more simplified version than in the similar scene in Room I (see Fig. 5.11). The heart is weighed by Horus at one pan of the scale and Anubis at the other (each pan again filled, as in Room I and in the tomb of Petubastis with a heart sign, though, here, two more float in the field below) presided over by Thoth, in baboon form, crouched on the fulcrum. At the far left, Osiris seated on a throne with the Four Sons of Horus before him, awaits ibis-headed Thoth, who records the verdict. Raised on a naos-like stand and centered directly

below the frontal vulture, Ammit (in leonine form and wearing a Ma’at-feather headdress as in Room I) becomes the tallest figure in the scene and the scene’s focal point. It is a less decisive scene than in Room I: it lacks the flaming cauldron, but neither does Ammit quench the flames. Whether for variety, based on a different model, or intentionally, the Judgement scenes in Room I and Room II diverge from one another in almost every detail: in the two scenes, only the irregularity of the heart weighed against another heart remains identical. Aside from the direction of the narratives having been reversed, the elements that compose them differ. Osiris in Room II is posed in the more traditional Osirid position; he carries only the traditional crook and flail

178

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.20. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the North Wall, the Lustration of the Mummy and a Protective Figure (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-18065)

and wears a net-shroud-like garment in contrast to the loop-decorated garment of Osiris in Room I, and his crown is differently drawn. In Room I, Horus and Anubis stand back-to-back creating a symmetrical composition with the scale, whereas in Room II they both process toward Osiris; and Thoth in Room II writes upon a board instead of on a notched palm branch and bends forward from the waist instead of assuming the statuesque upright posture that he carries in Room I. Most significantly, in Room II, Ammit lacks the fiery cauldron into which she spits to quench the flames, and thus she still radiates ferocity: with open mouth and extended tongue, she assumes a menacing presence. Centered in the scene, taller and of greater breadth than any other figure in the scene, her heightened presence breeds anxiety; the story is less sanguine for, in this case, a verdict has not yet been offered. The short north wall of Room II is cut with a burial niche, but it nevertheless responds to its facing wall more concretely than any other wall in the room. The lower

register forms the facade of the bench, whereas the upper one forms the back wall of the niche itself, but both are treated symmetrically like the scenes on the corresponding south wall. Like the back wall of the niche on the north wall in Room I, the back wall of the niche shows the lustration of the mummy (Fig. 5.20). As usual, Anubis stands behind the mummy, which is laid out on a lion-bed that retains the naturalistic leonine form seen in Room I (see Fig. 5.15) and in the niche on the east wall of Room II (see Fig. 5.17), and, in a variation of these scenes, Isis and Nephthys, crowned with sun-discs, flank the scene. They stand with arms and wings outstretched in a protective gesture enveloping the central scene – as in the Tigrane Tomb, but more convincingly – and extend the feather of Ma’at in each hand. The facade of the bench below also carries a scene similar to that on the facade on the bench in Room I: a winged male holds out a feather in either hand; in front of him an enemy flees, and behind him (in the place of

179

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.21. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the South End of the West Wall, the Ba of Petosiris Receiving a Libation from Isis, and the Fruits of the Afterlife (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-19763)

Room I’s vegetation goddess) is a bound prisoner. This composition, however, is not nearly as effective as that in Room I: the position of the winged male lacks the stability (and thus the iconic quality) of the one in Room I; the fleeing enemy’s gesture is less dramatic than that of the one in Room I and the drawing is more tentative; and the bound prisoner is ill-drawn and scarcely deserves the space allotted it. Though the central winged figure also ‘embraces’ the lion-bed above and forms a satisfying composition with the winged female deities, the image lacks the authority of both its Room I counterpart and the lustration scene above it. The west wall of Room II is punctuated by the doorway to Room I, with the south part of the resulting wall longer than the very abbreviated north section and also

longer than the short north and south walls. Nevertheless, despite the wall’s generous length, both the upper and lower friezes are treated as symmetrical scenes. As in Room I and as in the tomb of Petubastis, the west wall shows the most celestial vision of the afterlife of all the scenes in the room, but the distinction is less apparent than in the two other cases. The upper register of the south part of west the wall centers on the ba of Petosiris standing to the right of a cauldron and receiving a libation from Isis (Fig. 5.21 and Pl. XXIX). Behind the ba-bird is a tiet knot and a djed pillar, wearing an atef crown with a uraeus, and behind Isis is Khepri, the morning sun. Instead of pushing the sun-disc before him – in a brilliantly considered depiction, which is repeated on the short north end of the

180

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

the feather of Ma’at. Both are raised on naos-shaped stands and should be taken as guardian or apotropaic figures, according to Osing,1150 positioned at the doorway into the room, though, like the figure of Tithoes at the entrance to Room I, the falcon faces inward away from the doorway. Details of the images in the tomb of Petosiris are idiosyncratic. The looped decoration of Osiris’ garment in a number of the scenes and the garments of other figures, the weighing of a heart against a heart, and Horus trampling a tortoise, as well as others including, of course, the large classicizing figure of the patron, place the decoration of the tomb in post-pharaonic Egypt. Nevertheless, traditional narratives are realized and exploited, and, in its entirety, the eschatological program remains both readable and efficacious. As in Room I, the entire ceiling of the second room caries a zodiac (Fig. 5.23 and Pls. XXX and XXXI), though it is split in half with egyptianizing non-zodiacal figures separating Aries from Libra and Virgo from Pisces –1151 Khepri in a solar boat adored by two ranks of four baboons between Aries and Libra at the west and daemonic figures between Virgo and Pisces at the east. In the center are two busts, similar to those in Room I, and a frontal figure of the child Horus holding aloft two snakes while standing on two crocodiles as he does on magical cippi (see Pl. XXX). The latter figure, which adds apotropaic power to the central image, might be compared to the gorgoneion peering through the dome in the Tigrane Tomb in Alexandria as it protects the tomb from above. Busts of other figures, some of which can be paralleled on other zodiac ceilings,1152 are inserted above the zodiacal signs, and, as in Room I, winged goddesses support the band that encloses the zodiac. In style – of the zodiacal figures and especially that of the busts and the figures supporting the zodiac – however, this image is even more convincingly Classical than that of the zodiac in Room I, with the figures even more strongly modeled to assert their corporeality (Fig. 5.24 and see Pl. XXXI). Yet this disparity in style and the inclusion of the egyptianized figures in the zodiac of Room II, coeval with that of Room I, reiterates that the Classical ‘purity’ that a zodiac assumes cannot serve as a temporal marker. Despite their dissimilarities, however, both zodiacs in the tomb of Petosiris and the one in the tomb of Petubastis connect the tombs of the Dakhla oasis with those at Akhmim, where the greatest number of tombs with Greek-inspired zodiac ceilings has been preserved.

5.22. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the North End of the West Wall, Khepri and Protective Figures (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17967)

west wall (see Fig. 5.22) – Khepri pushes the crescent moon forward as he drags the solar disc along with his back legs. This configuration, moreover, is set on the sign for gold (nebu), which also has solar connotations. At the far left of the panel, a jackal crouches on a high naos-like stand.1148 In the lower register, a vine, wheat, lotuses, and two trees – one of which is a date palm – all replete with birds, are flanked by Hapy,1149 at the left, and a vegetation goddess, at the right, both of whom bear offerings. It is likely, given the context sketched above, that the scene denotes the bounty of the fields of the afterlife. The upper register of the much shorter north end of the west wall, serves, in part, as the side wall of the north niche. It repeats the jackal-topped naos (which neatly articulates the side wall of the niche) and the Khepri configuration but substitutes for Isis her sister Nephthys, performing a libation for the ba-bird whose smaller size necessitates it perching on a box (Fig. 5.22). The lower register, which is even shorter because of the bed of the niche, shows Tithoes – similar to the one on the south wall of Room I, but wearing a double crown and trampling a snake – confronting a falcon who holds

181

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.23. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the Zodiac Ceiling (after Osing et al. 1982: pl. 41)

AKHM IM (PANOPOLIS)

Opposite Athribis and hugging the east bank of the Nile, Akhmim (occasionally Akhmin), the Egyptian city of Khent-Min, hellenized by Herodotus to Khemmis, was the eponymous city of the Egyptian ithyphallic deity Min and the capital of the ninth nome of Upper Egypt. After their conquest of Egypt, Greeks renamed the city Panopolis, equating Min with their ithyphallic minor deity Pan.1153 Herodotus (II.91) knew Khemmis as a city that celebrated the Greek Perseus, building a temple and establishing games in honor of the hero, who, it was said, traced his lineage back to the town.1154 The city is best known among Classicists, however, as the birthplace of Nonnos, the fifth century ce poet who composed the Dionysiaka, a poem in forty-eight books, and who also rendered the Gospel of John in verse.1155 Egyptologists identify the city with a temple built by the eighteenthdynasty pharaoh Ay,1156 who may have been born in Khemmis and who restored other temples after the close of the Amarna period.1157 Early European travelers recognized the site’s importance throughout Egyptian

5.24. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, Detail of One of the Winged Figures Supporting the Zodiac (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo F-17948)

182

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

elements. Similarly to the refashioning of Anfushy Tomb II in Alexandria and the decoration in other tombs at Anfushy, the lower walls and ceiling decoration of these tombs at al-Salamuni incorporate a Classical model (and, in the case of their zodiac ceilings, Classical content), whereas the main frieze assumes Egyptian style and (in the case of the Salamuni tombs) bears Egyptian content. The syntax is the same as in the Anfushy examples, but the effect is very different. In the Salamuni tombs, the Egyptian subjects that inhabit the figured friezes call much greater attention to the dissonance between the constituent parts of the vertical arrangement than does the nonfigurative treatment at Anfushy. Among the tombs that form this group are Bissing’s tomb from 1913,1166 Salamuni 8,1167 Kaplan’s Tombs VI and VIII,1168 and most importantly, Bissing’s tomb from 1897.1169

history, identifying its Graeco-Roman remains in the great ‘fields of ruins’ scattered with huge blocks of former buildings. The Akhmim region – which, in addition to the site of the city of Panopolis and that of Athribis, includes the tombs near the modern village of al-Salamuni – though archaeologically rich from the prehistoric period through the Late Antique, has not been systematically studied. The modern town of Akhmim overlies the ancient one, and, aside from the evidence of former temples recorded in the ‘field of ruins,’1158 the city itself remains virtually unexplored. To the northeast of the city, the cliffs are honeycombed with tombs dating from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period. The region boasts an extensive bibliography of visits of early travelers, which has been reviewed by Klaus Peter Kuhlmann in his published survey of the site,1159 but though almost a dozen of the later tombs – including those at Athribis discussed in Chapter Four – like those of Petubastis and Petosiris at el-Muzawwaqa have zodiac ceilings and though others contain remarkable imagery, few of the Ptolemaic or Roman-period tombs have been systematically recorded.

Bissing’s Tomb from 1913 Bissing’s 1913 tomb is known primarily from his description in the two articles he published more than thirty years after his visit, in which he notes a tomb with a zodiac ceiling centering on Isis-Sothis. On the basis of the published plan1170 and Bissing’s description of its ceiling, Neugebauer and Parker consider that Bissing’s 1913 tomb may accord with their tomb numbered Salamuni 3A,1171 and Irene Kaplan publishes an image taken by Kuhlmann of a painted wall that agrees with Bissing’s description.1172 The tomb has three rooms: an anteroom, a room with a kline niche, and a burial room cut with two niches. Bissing’s description is very muddled, not surprisingly given the length of time between his visit and his publications, and the publications themselves show inconsistencies between them. What seems clear is that the tomb contained two zodiacal ceilings, one of which showed Isis-Sothis riding her dog in its central circle,1173 and that it also incorporated a third ceiling (either of a room or of a niche) with a linear motif1174 that may be might be imagined as a ribbed vault like the ceiling of the Alexandrian tomb from Tigrane Pasha Street. Also clear is that the room with the kline niche was treated further with Classical motifs: the walls to either side of the kline were decorated with a series of panels, like the orthostats of tombs at Anfushy in Alexandria, and above the panels and the kline were painted green garlands pinned to the wall from which hung red tassels.1175 One (or both) of the other rooms, however, was painted in purely Egyptian style, though it too reveals varicolored orthostats

The Tombs at al-Salamuni The best-preserved Roman tombs now known from the region are from the cemetery at al-Salamuni – cut at the foot of a hill that contains an extensive earlier cemetery (Cemetery C) – from which only one tomb has been relatively well published. Friedrich Wilhelm von Bissing first visited the necropolis in 1897 and again in 1913, recording tombs but leaving them solely in note form until two world wars had rewritten the map of Europe and much of the Eastern Mediterranean.1160 At the end of the 1970s, while working at el-Hawawish, Naguib Kanawati saw Bissing’s 1897 tomb and included three images of its walls in his book on Sohag.1161 Kuhlmann registered all the known tombs in his survey,1162 and Irene Kaplan describes a number of the tombs in her book.1163 Though many of the tombs show scenes purely Egyptian in style and subject, the tombs of alSalamuni have nevertheless produced the greatest number of Greek zodiac ceilings,1164 and those zodiacs known by the mid-twentieth century are documented in Neugebauer and Parker’s volume III of Egyptian Astronomical Texts.1165 The ‘zodiac tombs’ at al-Salamuni fall into a group whose vertical syntax admits both Greek and Egyptian

183

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

5.25. Akhmim, Salamuni 8, Room I, Orthostates, Figured Frieze, and Zodiac Ceiling (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo [K. P. Kuhlmann photo])

5.26. Akhmim, Salamuni 8, Room I, Ceiling, Isis-Sothis and the Zodiac (after Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: pl. 55B [as Salamuni 8A])

in its lowest frieze,1176 and it must have carried one of the Greek zodiacs on its ceiling. The egyptianizing motifs include the Judgement scene with black skeletal figures, according to Bissing,1177 and a huge image of Ammit, as in other Graeco-Roman egyptianizing tombs.1178 As unsatisfying as the description of the tomb may be, it nevertheless serves to permit Bissing’s 1913 tomb – organized as it is with its Greek zodiac ceilings (and its possibly ribbed-dome ceiling) and its Greek-inspired painted orthostats that contrast with the Egyptian subjects painted in Egyptian style inhabiting its main frieze – to be considered an Egyptian companion-piece to the Greek tombs at Anfushy. This treatment of a main frieze conceived in Egyptian style and the ceiling and the lower frieze imagined in a Classical manner is a hallmark of the tombs at Akhmim.

registers with the lower one deeper than the upper. The lower register – like that of Bissing’s 1913 tomb – is painted with orthostats, here alternating light and dark areas with reddish veins and rectangular boxes with a red circles (Fig. 5.25). The former imitate marble and the latter mimic opus sectile. In the upper frieze opposite the entrance wall, a frontal figure of Osiris stands between Isis and Nephthys. To the left of this group continue icon-like scenes, which each show a male and a female deity holding a fetish with a human head. The left one, painted on the adjoining wall, depicts Osiris in the form of a djed pillar.1180 Solidly painted vertical and horizontal boxes mimic cartouches. The ceiling, however, depicts a zodiac centered on Isis-Sothis seated on her dog (Fig. 5.26)1181 as in Bissing’s 1913 tomb and in his tomb from 1897 discussed below. Evidence of any subsequent rooms or rooms is provided only by the report of a zodiac ceiling in the second room, which preserves a number of the twelve zodiacal signs in a segmented circle at its perimeter and a central area divided into two segments with a depiction of “Harpocrates in a sun-disc on a lotus flanked by six divinities in a bark,”1182 though very difficult to make out, in the lower of the two.

Salamuni Tomb 8 Salamuni Tomb 8,1179 for example, follows the same syntax as Bissing’s tomb from 1913 and the tombs at Anfushy. No plan exists for this tomb, but it had at least two rooms. The wall of the first room is divided into two uneven

184

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

Kaplan’s Tomb VI Also adhering to the same syntax, Kaplan’s Tomb VI1183 is located in the upper gallery of the north part of the necropolis near the tombs of the Old Kingdom. It consists of an anteroom and a burial chamber with a niche on its back wall. On either side of the door on the far wall of the anteroom that leads to the burial chamber, a male figure faces toward the doorway. Each figure, which Kaplan identifies as a priest,1184 wears a pectoral and a long, white garment tied at the waist, and each holds a cup with incense and a libation vessel. Above them are hieroglyphs.1185 The left long wall shows a file of knife-bearing daemons with ankhs in their lowered left hands processing toward the back of the room. The right long wall probably showed the same file, but only remaining is one knife-wielding lion daemon.1186 On the room’s ceiling is a zodiac supported by four female figures seated at the corners. As other zodiacs discussed in this chapter, it shows the Greek zodiacal signs in their usual place at the perimeter of the circle, and, as in the inner room of Salamuni Tomb 8, Harpocrates is depicted in the center.1187 In the burial room, below the niche, is the depiction of a mummy lying on a lion-bed. Under the bed are the expected canopic jars, and in the niche itself is a falcon, flying with a djed in its talons,1188 which, as elsewhere, may represent the ba of the deceased. Unfortunately no other decoration is recorded.

5.27. Akhmim, Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, Orthostats and Figured Zone with the Deceased and Deities (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo [K. P. Kuhlmann photo])

patron and his pose find similarities with the large figure of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis and, even more closely, with the oversized figure of the patron in Bissing’s tomb from 1897. In fact, his image might well have been taken from the same model as the last. Different from the other two images of the tomb patron, however, is that this figure is drawn to scale with the other figures in the frieze and, thus, visually incorporated among them. To his left, and with her back to him, is a standing goddess with the head of a cow crowned with a sun-disc; she holds a pair of scales behind her in her lowered hand and turns toward the adjoining wall where Osiris stands facing her across a high-footed altar with Isis behind him. In contrast to the classicizing figure of the patron, all other figures and narratives provide egptianizing style and content, as do the hieroglyphic inscriptions.1192

Kaplan’s Tomb VIII Also bearing the syntax of the preceding tombs and those at Anfushy, Kaplan’s Tomb VIII is also connected with tombs that show the deceased in fully classicizing style, such as the tomb of Petosiris at el-Muzawwaqa and Bissing’s tomb of 1897. Kuhlmann and Kaplan associate this tomb with the one mentioned by Neugebauer and Parker as recorded by Nestor L’Hˆote and then lost to view.1189 The tomb has two poorly preserved Greek zodiac ceilings, one with a human head at its center.1190 The chamber is cut with a niche for laying out the dead, and the walls are divided into two friezes: the lower one shows painted orthostats like the other tombs in this group, and the upper contains figured scenes. In the upper register, nearest the door, is an image of the deceased (Fig. 5.27). He is garbed in a pallium and tunic with two clavi and posed frontally. He holds a teardrop-shaped object, which might be a situla, in his lowered right hand and, in his left, a branch or a flower; to his right is a large vessel.1191 The garb of the

Bissing’s Tomb from 1897 The tomb in this group most rewarding study,1193 Bissing’s tomb from 1897, almost certainly adopts the same syntax as the preceding tombs, though the painted orthostats are difficult to discern. The lower part of the tomb was not visible to either Bissing or Kuhlmann, but faint vertical lines below the figured frieze in the burial room in the image published by Kanawati appear to indicate their presence (see Fig. 5.29). The tomb’s much greater importance lies, however, in its imagery, which integrates not only Graeco-Roman style, but also Graeco-Roman iconography and, I shall suggest, Greek

185

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

of its west wall Isis and Nephthys venerating a fetish of Osiris, which is composed of a djed sign capped by a male head and an Atum-like feathered crown (Fig. 5.29). The fetish is similar in concept to the djed-pillar in House 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, though vastly distant from it in style and dissimilar in headgear. Behind the left-hand goddess are stacked three of the four canopic jars with the heads of the Four Sons of Horus. In the frieze above, figures – one of which appears to hold a sistrum – process to the right. The lower register of the burial room’s north wall shows Isis protecting the enthroned Osiris, and, below the niche on the east wall, Anubis administering to the deceased flanked by Isis and Nephthys. On the east wall, in another scene, a winged Isis again protects the enthroned Osiris.1198 In addition, according to Bissing,1199 the deceased was represented in a long garment and with a beardless face in veneration in front of various deities. Hieroglyphs, which request an eternal life through Osiris, indicated to Bissing that the painters still understood the signs;1200 though most ‘hieroglyphs’ in the anteroom are represented by painted boxes, one box that indeed includes signs can be seen in the upper frieze of the west wall of the burial room (see Fig. 5.29). Beneath the niche on the east wall of the burial room is a lustration scene: Anubis stands behind the lionbed, which is flanked by Isis and Nephthys, who hold a fringed, black cloth over him. To the left and right of this central scene, male figures wearing kilts and corsets, and generally crowned with solar discs and bearing cups of natron, stride forward; the only one fully recognizable is Horus, second from the right, who wears the double crown, though the last one at the right should be Thoth based on the notched palm-branch he thrusts forward. At the far right, a figure, who must be the deceased patron, dressed in a long white garment, stands before enthroned Osiris.1201 The paintings of the anteroom are both better preserved and more extensively communicated by both Bissing (and others) than those of the burial room. The room’s ceiling decoration is preserved though poorly documented; apparent only is that it is enlivened with a zodiac that centers on Isis-Sothis riding her dog like the one in Salamuni 8 (see Fig. 5.26), completed with the segmented circle containing the twelve zodiacal signs and the four females who mark the cardinal points (Fig. 5.30).1202 The zodiac assumes the Greek style of other zodiacs from the Akhmim region (except for those in the Athribis tombs of Penosiris and the Zodiac Tomb of the

5.28. Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, Plan (after Bissing 1946–1947: 2, fig. 2)

and Egyptian eschatological religion as well. Bissing’s 1897 tomb is also, by far, the most enigmatic tomb, as well as, fortunately, the most completely recorded painted tomb at Akhmim. Though discovered by Bissing in 1897, the tomb was published by him only fifty years later1194 and by now has been severely damaged. Photographs, however, confirm Bissing’s description,1195 as well as the tomb’s desecration, and determine that the tomb stands as one of the most ‘egyptianizing’ as well as the most confounding of the Akhmim tombs.1196 The plan of Bissing’s 1897 tomb indicates two rooms, one behind the other but off-axis to one another (Fig. 5.28). Each room carries painted decoration. The farther room is larger than the first; cut with a niche in the back wall and each of the side walls in which many human bones were discovered,1197 it served as the burial chamber. The tomb is oriented roughly west to east, with its entrance on its west wall. The burial room is less completely preserved than the anteroom. It depicts in its lower frieze on the north side

186

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.29. Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, the Burial Room Looking West into the Anteroom (after Kanawati 1990: pl. 41)

Brothers) and those from the Dakhla Oasis, but it remains in contrast to the greatest part of the other decoration in the tomb, which is egyptianizing. The images on the walls of the anteroom of the tomb are the ones best recorded, and for their discussion, it is most useful to use Bissing’s letter designations to illuminate the sequence (see Fig. 5.28). With the exception of a large ‘portrait’ of the deceased man on wall D-E, and another short narrative on the west end of wall E-F, the paintings on the walls of the room are in egyptianizing style. Similarly, with the exception of the large image of the tomb owner, the images are disposed in two registers. To the left of the doorway upon entering the tomb (wall A-H), Anubis stands in the upper register facing the entrance holding out a large disc (see Fig. 5.29); in

front of him, closer to the doorway, is Min with his feather crown.1203 In the register below, protective daemons, knifes in hand, stride toward the entrance. The off-center placement of the entrance to the burial chamber permits the image of the deceased on the east wall D-E to inhabit a spot directly opposite the entrance to the tomb and ensures that it is the first image seen by the visitor entering the tomb (Pl. XXXII). Spanning the two registers, the disproportionate size that establishes the figure as the tomb owner – as does the one in the tomb of Petosiris at el-Muzawwaqa – follows an almost threemillennium-old Egyptian tradition, but all other aspects of the figure recall its Classical model: the deceased man stands frontally with his weight shifted onto one foot in the pose developed in sculpture in Greece in the fifth

187

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

ends the scene in the corner of the wall. In the upper register is a third image of the deceased. In the upper frieze, the deceased – tall, clean-shaven, and wearing a short wig and a similarly long, fringed, white garment as in his image below – stands in profile with his hands raised in veneration in front of a fetish terminating in the crown of Amun, which is set in front of a structure capped also with the crown of Amun with recumbent rams crowned with solar discs to either side. Flanking the stand of the effigy, two shorter, egyptianized figures face one another. The right-hand one is falconheaded and wears a kilt and corset; the left-hand figure also wears a kilt, but his upper body is destroyed. Though the two panels cannot be confused, the one with the large image of the deceased from the Akhmim tomb bears a remarkable similarity to the panel with the large figure of Petosiris from the Dakhla Oasis. Aside from the size of the figure of the deceased and his classicizing treatment – both in garb and in pose – the two images include a figure of a priest, greatly reduced in size, at an offering table, and a landscape element – a vine in the tomb of Petosiris and a tree in that of Bissing’s tomb from 1897. Though it should not be argued that they are based on the same model, they both convey the same narrative and are based on the same belief in the accouterments necessary for a beneficent afterlife. As in the tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla, Castiglione’s interpretation of the discrepancy in style inhabited by the large figure of the deceased at Akhmim is strengthened by the treatment of figures on the adjacent walls, which show almost entirely egyptianizing figures acting in traditional Egyptian narratives. Yet in this instance, despite Castiglione’s interpretation (which is nevertheless undoubtedly correct), it can also be postulated that the large figure of the deceased is a stock figure, because – beyond the classicizing male figures already adduced and another noted by Kuhlmann at Akhmim1210 – a figure almost precisely identical in pose, garment, and style of beard and hair appears in the geographically and religiously far distant synagogue at Dura Europus in Syria representing Moses as he parts the Red Sea.1211 Individualizing the Akhmim figure, however, is the situla it awkwardly carries in its lowered right hand – its awkwardness explained, as the figure of Moses reveals, because the figure’s arm was not intended initially as weight bearing. Though throughout Egyptian history the situla takes a number of forms and serves a number of functions,1212 by the Roman period it is firmly associated with Isis,1213

5.30. Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, Wall D-E and the Ceiling with Isis-Sothis and the Zodiac (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo [K. P. Kuhlmann Photo])

century bce; he is curly-haired and short-bearded in the Greek manner, and he wears a chiton with two vertical purple stripes1204 and a himation pulled about his torso, which – employing the stylistic vocabulary of Greece – falls in easy folds from his left arm. He holds a rotulus (scroll) and a laurel branch – the sign of victory1205 – in his upraised left hand and a mammiform situla in his lowered right.1206 To the right of the large figure of the tomb’s patron (his left), the wall is divided into two registers. In the lower register and thus drawn to a smaller scale, another figure of the deceased, also in a differentiated stance and wearing a long, fringed garment, stands to the left of an Egyptian offering table, which is up-ended in an Egyptian manner so that the objects it carries are displayed to the viewer.1207 To the right of the offering table, a bald, male figure wearing a traditional kilt, though with a fringed edge, holds a libation vessel in his lowered left hand and a palm branch – another sign for victory in the Roman world1208 – in his upraised right.1209 Behind him is a small chapel, which is drawn as if cut off by the leafy tree that

188

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

5.31. Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb of 1897, Wall E-F, the Deceased Led before Osiris and Daemons (German Archaeological Institute, Cairo [Klaus Peter Kuhlmann Photo])

and its placement in the right hand of the tomb owner associates him with Isis, too. And by extension, since the tomb owner’s beard and hair exempt him as a priest of Isis, the situla identifies him, as well, as a member of her cult and as an initiate into her mysteries. This interpretation of the owner as an initiate is borne out, I think, by the other scenes in the room. The adjacent wall (E-F), for example, shows an unusual configuration of Osiris and Isis and Nephthys (see Pl. XXXII and Fig. 5.31). Whereas, traditionally, Isis and Nephthys stand behind the enthroned Osiris as adjuncts, in the scene in Bissing’s 1897 tomb, the female deities act as intercessors between the deceased and the deity. They position themselves to either side of Osiris and, with their arms outstretched toward him, appear to petition him on behalf of the deceased who approaches the throne. Perhaps even more cogently, in the scene immediately below, the deceased is greeted by Isis, who holds the image of Osiris-Sokar – the resurrected form of Osiris1214 – in her outstretched hands. Other than wall D-E, the lateral walls of the tomb are the best preserved, and it is their imagery that underscores

the Isiac imagery of the tomb established by the classicizing images of the deceased and by Isis-Sothis centering the zodiac on the room’s ceiling. The upper register of the north wall A-B shows a remarkable version of the Judgement of the Dead set out in Chapter 30 of the Book of the Dead. It begins closest to the entrance to the tomb, with Ma’at guiding the deceased (painted on wall A-H back-to-back with Anubis) – dressed in the fringed, white, calf-length garment that distinguishes him in the narrative friezes – toward the Judgement (see Fig. 5.29). Above are the judges of the dead. The scene is closed off at the other (east) end of the wall by Horus seated on a checkered throne facing toward the entrance to the tomb, with Ma’at standing behind him.1215 Horus replaces the expected figure of Osiris as the presiding judge, emphasizing and restating the celestial connotations of the ceiling’s zodiac and of Isis-Sothis within it. In front of him is a huge blue lotus on which stand the four canopic deities as they are normally positioned before Osiris. Beyond that configuration strides Thoth, wearing the atef crown,1216 who has come to report to Horus.

189

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

The scene behind Thoth, which depicts the weighing of the heart, is unique (Pl. XXXIII). Ammit, monstrously huge as in the tombs of Siamun, Psenosiris, Petosiris at Dakhla (in Room II), and Bissing’s 1913 tomb, sits upright on a naos-shaped stand, looking past Thoth toward Horus and licking her lips. In front of her at her feet, a small, frontal, silhouette figure stands uncomfortably, and another small silhouette figure enjoys submersion in a large vessel drawn in outline but colored red inside. Beyond the Devourer group, toward the entrance to the tomb, is the Judgement scene itself. The beam, surmounted by Thoth, is supported by the upraised hands of Horus and Anubis; the two deities turn their heads to face one another and rest their free hands on the pan of the scale. The left pan contains the expected figure of the goddess Ma’at, but the other splays out a small human figure painted, like the others, in silhouette.1217 Beneath the scale stands another small, frontal, human skeleton.1218 Bissing describes the silhouette figures as skeletons (and the articulation of their pelvic area and the fineness of their appendages bear out his identification) and interprets them as shadows,1219 which they may well be, but these figures are more numerous and more actively engaged both with the viewer and with the narrative than are the silhouette figures in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel. One stands stolidly beneath the beam of the scale frontally gazing out at the viewer; a second, whose irregularly placed feet and asymmetrically drawn arms indicate a restless shift of weight from foot to foot, stands frontally beneath the mane of Ammit; and the third (and others, if the lines emerging from the vessel are indicative of legs or arms) bounces about in the vessel, which must be intended as a cauldron. Bissing1220 interprets the red interior of the vessel as the lake of fire;1221 more specifically, Emma Brunner-Traut1222 sees the scene depicting the “condemned boiled in a cauldron while the Devourer awaits its meal with relish,” and she supports her interpretation with a fragmentary shroud she illustrates,1223 which depicts a large figure eating one silhouette figure while two others at its feet supplicate it. I return to the image on this shroud presently in relation to another image of the tomb, which I think it better illuminates, and here focus on the cauldron. The concept of the cauldron can be most securely tied to a passage from Section Five of the Book of Caverns, most completely known from Nineteenth-Dynasty monuments – the Osireion of Seti I at Abydos, inscribed

there under Merneptah, and the tomb of Rameses VI1224 – and from the Book of the Earth, also found in the tomb of Rameses VI and elsewhere.1225 The spells enumerated in the former book preserve the fullest description of the Egyptian alternative to a blessed afterlife found in any Egyptian eschatological book, and, three times, Section Five of the Book of Caverns describes figures or body parts (enemies, shadows, bas, decapitated figures, hearts, heads) consigned to cauldrons in the ‘Place of Annihilation.’1226 The Book of the Earth augments these images: deities hold up cauldrons into which the blood of enemies flows,1227 and in other cauldrons, heads and other body parts are boiled.1228 Books of the afterlife were well known in the Roman-period chora as evidenced by their pictorial references in Roman tombs, and the designer of the Akhmim tomb must have had these textual images in mind when he pictured the Devourer considering her next meal. Nevertheless, it is significant that Ammit as an active figure is a product of the Roman period,1229 seen at el-Muzawwaqa in Room I of the tomb of Petosiris as merciful and here (and in the other tombs with disproportionately large images of Ammit) as unrelenting. As in the books of the afterlife, the deceased for whom the tomb is made is not, of course, the anticipated repast; the depiction is intended as a warning or an alternative for others. The image at Akhmim describes one moment of tension in the otherwise almost entirely affirmatory journey of the deceased to a blessed afterlife, and that tension stands as one of the visual reflections of the troubled times endured by the patron of the tomb. In the lower register of wall A-B below the image of Ma’at and the enthroned Horus, Isis, crowned with a red disc,1230 holds up the mummy of Osiris, while the deceased venerates the deities. Behind the deceased, daemons with the heads of a lion, a bull, a serpent, and a crocodile, each holding a knife, stand facing toward the tomb entrance in front of naos-shaped gates.1231 They form the end of the procession that begins on the wall A-H that flanks the entrance to the tomb, which shows jackal- and falcon-headed daemons (see Fig. 5.29).1232 The imagery on the south wall (E-F) corresponds to and complements that of the north, in a way that recalls the processing figures in House-tomb 21. The figures in the upper register at the east end of the wall – Osiris seated on a checkered throne supplicated by Isis and Nephthys – have already been mentioned (see Fig. 5.31 and Pl. XXXII); they respond to the group of Ma’at and

190

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

the enthroned Horus on the opposite wall.1233 Behind the female deity facing Osiris, Anubis leads the deceased forward. At the west end of the south wall (at F), another representation of the deceased faces right and raises his hands in front of the four canopic deities. Above these figures are the judges of the dead.1234 In the lower register of the south wall E-F, at the end of the wall farthest from the entrance and nearest the burial room, as already mentioned, Isis holds the effigy of Osiris-Sokar in front of her, which responds to the image of Isis holding up the mummy of Osiris in the corresponding frieze on the north wall (see Fig. 5.31 and Pl. XXXII). Before them, the deceased raises his hands in praise. Then, with their backs to the deceased, another procession of knife-wielding daemons stands menacingly in front of their gates as on the opposite wall. In front of this procession of daemons stands the deceased with upraised arms (Pl. XXXIV). The vignette on wall E-F beyond the gatekeepers and the deceased supplicant, closest to the entrance to the tomb, however, is unparalleled, so far as I know, in Egyptian tombs or elsewhere. It shows an interaction between a dark-skinned, animal-headed figure and a light-skinned human (see Pl. XXXIV). Two scholars have addressed this image. The first, written before my published interpretation, is Kaplan,1235 who, in her catalog, terms it “erotic” and “apotropaic”; the second is David Klotz, who addressed the image after my interpretation in the festchrift for Michel Malaise,1236 and who disagrees with my interpretation in every aspect. He presents extensive textual comparanda to interpret the scene as Anubis engaged in erotic activity, but his reading of the image is highly flawed and his conclusion unworthy of both the extraordinary scene and its eschatological context.1237 Though sexual interaction is actively recognized – both textually and visually – in Egypt since earliest times, these acts regularly occur within a religious context, either referencing cosmological episodes or invoking fecundity. The participants are normally deities, and, though their acts vary greatly, their contextual meaning is clear. Scenes of sexual intercourse that involve human actors rarely occur before the Graeco-Roman period, when they appear relatively frequently but also – as, I would argue, in Bissing’s 1897 tomb – within the context of ritual.1238 Karol My´sliwiec provocatively mentions without further detail “drawings in tombs” and elsewhere depicting

“[s]exual relations between a man and a woman,” which he identifies as either obscene or satirical in nature.1239 In fact, the only erotic images with human subjects, aside from those on ostraca, that predate the Ptolemaic period with certainty occur on the Turin papyrus (Turin pap. 55001) dated to the late New Kingdom or early Third Intermediate Period.1240 Whatever intent these images in the papyrus carry,1241 they show extraordinarily inventive and acrobatic couplings among humans that rival anything painted by Greek or Roman artists,1242 and which, of course, owe them no debt, since the Turin images predate those from Greece and Rome by more than a halfmillennium. Greek and Roman sexual couplings can be as enthusiastic as those on the Turin papyrus, but so far as I know, both Greeks and Romans focused on depicting consensual sexual acts among humans. Rape – violent penetration – was rarely, if ever, shown. The vignette to the right of the gate-guarding daemons in the lower frieze of wall E–F certainly shows a violent encounter between a daemon and a human figure (see Pl. XXXIV). The daemon’s dull-brown-colored flesh corresponds to the coloration of other daemons in the tomb, which are painted varying shades of brown. This daemon is depicted nude except for the nemes headdress and pectoral worn by other, albeit garbed, daemons in the tomb. His genitals are not evident, though it is possible that a small arrowhead-shaped line preserved against his left thigh is the tip of his penis. The human’s gender is more difficult to determine. Neither skin color nor dress nor physique provides a definitive sign: in the tomb, figures of both genders – female deities as well as the deceased male – assume the same light golden-brown color as the victim. The human wears a short white garment and what appears to be a white short cloak tied at its neck, which would suit a male, yet its body – though lacking any indication of breasts, but which seems to have full hips – and its long hair are suggestive of a female. In this case, gender may have been intentionally left ambiguous in order to fashion the victim as an allinclusive image, an approach that would conform with the treatment of the skeletal figures in the Judgement scene. The daemon pushes the human figure backward with his left hand and thrusts it further off balance by grasping its right foot with his right hand, as he leans forward to kneel on the altar. Though the image is badly damaged, based on the gray, intestine-like coil that he seems to suck into his mouth, the daemon appears to be

191

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

eviscerating his victim, a form of torture documented during the Late-Roman period by Diocletian’s supposed torture of St. Erasmus known from The Golden Legend.1243 Torture (though not evisceration) is a theme that invades almost all Egyptian books of the afterlife in their descriptions of the perilous journey, as they describe the trials the deceased has to overcome and the daemons that try to destroy him1244 : they stand ready to rip out his heart, behead him, slash him with knives, cut him to pieces, and devour him,1245 much as the daemon does on the shroud illustrated by Brunner-Traut,1246 and as daemons do from the Coffin Texts onward.1247 The intent in Bissing’s 1897 tomb is much the same as depicting the shadows of deceased mortals boiled in the cauldron: the image speaks to mortal death, though not necessarily that of the deceased patron of the tomb. Different, however, is the stylistic idiom. The victim is rendered in Hellenic style, its garments are seemingly Hellenic, and the evisceration (if that, indeed, is what is occurring) takes place on a Greek altar. The altar is indicated as Greek by the cursory volute and palmette at the right of the structure, from which a votive offering or libation vessel appears to have fallen: the overturned cup can be seen below the altar. Other objects appear as if painted on the side of the altar, but, seen in Egyptian bird’s-eye view, they replicate the objects ‘on’ the offering table in the scene adjacent to the deceased tomb owner on wall D-E (see Pl. XXXII), as well as elsewhere, and that is certainly the intention here. In Greece, altars are a locus of sacrifice – either of animals or humans – and thus they serve also to mark a place of death. In Euripides’ Andromache (lines 1100– 1160), Neoptolemos seeks sanctuary at Apollo’s altar at Delphi, and on this altar, he is murdered.1248 In Euripides’ lost Telephos, Telephos threatens to kill the infant Orestes as he kneels on an altar in the sanctuary of the Lycian Apollo,1249 and Cassandra is slain upon an altar in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon (1264–1298).1250 Seated on an altar, Priam mourns the fall of Troy and the dead Astyanax, and he is killed there by Neoptolemos;1251 and, on an altar, Orestes substitutes his stepfather Aigisthos for the sacrificial calf (Eur. Electra, 774–843).1252 Yet slaying a human being on an altar in Greece subverts the norm. An altar locates a sacred space, and the murder of Aigisthos and Cassandra and Neoptolemos and Priam on an altar is intended to describe an especially despicable act. Siting the violence perpetrated by the daemon upon a Greek altar, given the altar’s connotations in Hellenic terms, further establishes the heinousness of the deed.

I suggest that the so-called erotic image, like the silhouette figures and the drooling image of Ammit the Devourer in the Judgement scene, acts – as do the images of the damned in the various Egyptian books of the afterlife1253 – as contrapuntal to the narrative of salvation, in this case indicating in bicultural terms the fate of the noninitiated. With one foot in each cultural camp, the violent vignette references, at once, the Egyptian conception of the perils of the afterlife journey and the Greek conception of an ignoble death. Yet because the (possibly) eviscerated human is treated in classicizing style and wears what might be taken as contemporaneous dress – both elements, as in the Alexandrian tomb from Tigrane Pasha Street, that reference the terrestrial world – I propose that the scene on the altar speaks to mortal death rather than (as do the skeletal figures at the scale and in the cauldron) the second death of the unquiet ‘soul.’ In the same frieze on wall E-F that shows this horrific act at one end, at the other end, the deceased – having passed through the gates of the underworld – raises his hands in praise to Isis, who holds the falcon-headed Osiris-Sokar in front of her: the deceased here has conquered death. The agony of mortal death, then, can be overcome by those who worship Isis or have been accepted into her mysteries, and the large classicizing image of the deceased tomb owner on the adjoining wall D–E, with his laurel branch and mammiform situla, confirms this interpretation. In his Metamorphoses (XI.6; 270–271), Apuleius has Isis address the zoomorphic Lucius, and say, in Griffiths’ translation,1254 “you shall live indeed a happy man, and when you have completed the span of your lifetime . . . you shall dwell in the Elysian fields.”1255 Apuleius provides the Greek version of the beneficence of Isis, but her bounty had long been known to Egyptians, and in Bissing’s tomb from 1897, her beneficence is realized. GREEK ELEM ENTS IN THE EGYPTIANIZING TOM BS OF AKHM IM AND DAKHLA

The image of Isis-Sothis centering the zodiac in the Akhmim tombs adds another layer to the Isiac eschatological imagery, as it evokes the celestial realm, recalling Isis as the “mistress of the heavens, of the earth, and of the underworld.”1256 As Plutarch says in Ad Osiris et Isis (359D; Chapter 21), “Sothis is the soul of Isis.” The star Sirius, called Spdt (Sopdet) by Egyptians and by Greeks Sothis, is visualized as a female and sometimes as the Egyptian goddess Satis – or Satet – among other

192

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

manifestations.1257 The deity is arguably attested in Egypt as early as Dynasty One in a text that describes Sothis as the “Bringer of the New Year and the Innundation.”1258 In the Pyramid Texts, in which Sothis transports the pharaoh to the celestial realm,1259 she may be associated with Isis by means of a play on words,1260 and later Egyptian ritual texts preserve the connection between the two.1261 References to the star’s heliacal rising and its association with the beginning of the midsummer innundation are probably also alluded to in the Pyramid Texts.1262 The addition of the dog to the iconography of IsisSothis, seen on the ceiling of Bissing’s 1897 tomb and other tombs from Akhmim, is a Greek contribution, however, since it is Greeks who associated the dog days of summer with the morning rise of Sirius.1263 Indeed, the earliest example of Isis seated side-saddle on a dog derives not from Egypt, but from Rome. It is first seen in a pedimental sculptural group on the Temple of Isis in the Campus Martius in Rome rebuilt by Caligula (37–41 ce) and known in Egypt from coins of Vespasian struck in 71 ce at Alexandria.1264 Nor is the image of the deity limited to Roman-period Egypt and Rome. In concert with her image in Rome, the depiction of Isis mounted side-saddle on a dog is also known from other objects that lack zodiacal or Egyptian contexts. It is found, for example, on a steatite fragment of a patera that shows Isis as a frontal deity, wearing a wig and a kalathos and seated on a dog with two erotes below,1265 on a frieze from the Iseum at Savaria in Hungary that includes – among other deities – Isis, holding aloft a sistrum, seated on a large dog,1266 and in a bronze statuette that has Isis with a basileion crown seated on the dog.1267 All these images of Isis-Sothis show the dogs’ heads turned back to gaze at Isis, much as they do on the ceiling of the tombs at Akhmim1268 and the Alexandrian coins of Vespasian; they all appear to have been derived from the same model. Thus, the Egyptian Sopdet, the star-deity that heralds the innundation of the Nile, has been reconfigured to the Graeco-Roman deity of the heavens, Isis-Sothis, and at Akhmim she returns to Egypt to center Greek zodiacs in Egyptian tombs. Gis`ele Clerc1269 has suggested that the appearance of Isis-Sothis in the Akhmim tombs might be connected with a new Sothic era beginning in 139 ce, but as Clerc herself points out, Isis-Sothis appears for the first time in Egypt on Alexandrian coinage struck in years thirteen and sixteen of the reign of Trajan1270 – that is, at least

twenty-five years before 139 – and the motif continues to appear on Roman coins and elsewhere in Egypt through about 400 ce.1271 The tombs at Akhmim have not been closely dated, but it is nevertheless highly unlikely that the tombs that show Isis-Sothis all date to the same year. The connection of the patron image with that of Moses from Dura Europus, which is dated 244 ce, suggests that Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim, at any rate, should at least postdate the middle of the second century, and it may well be much later, since it should not be too greatly removed from the Dura Europus date. For a number of reasons, then, it is improbable that the inclusion of Isis-Sothis on the Akhmim ceilings refers to a specific calendrical event. Rutilius Lupus, who wrote in the early first century ce, honored Isis-Sothis as “the great Isis, the mother of the gods, Sothis, regent of the stars, mistress of the heavens, of the earth, and of the underworld,”1272 and it is probable that this sentiment underlies her appearance on her early temple in Rome and elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, despite the universality, both geographically and metaphysically, of Isis-Sothis, it is most plausible that the image of Isis-Sothis centering the zodiacs in the Akhmim tombs has been appropriated to reference a celestial and eschatological manifestation of the deity, marking the heavens as Nut once did. Similarly to Isis-Sothis, zodiacs on the ceilings of the Roman-period tombs at the Dakhla Oasis and at Akhmim also straddle two cultural traditions. On the one hand, they retain an Egyptian eschatological necessity in their aspect of indicating the passage of time, relating themselves to images of the decans that populated Egyptian sky maps; on the other, they appropriate the form of the Greek zodiac that precisely maps the celestial sphere through which the journey has to pass. The Greek zodiac is the one with which we are familiar, incorporating twelve constellations, first identified by Babylonians, and later renamed (or translated) by Greeks and then by Romans.1273 It faithfully describes a band of stars, extending about eight degrees to either side of the ecliptic – the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, within which also fall the orbits of the other planets and the moon. The daily rotation of the earth around its axis causes the apparent east to west movement of the stars,1274 including those structured by the zodiacal constellations, as they appear to rise and set in parallel semicircles around the earth’s axis extended into space. Because the earth is tilted

193

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

on its axis, the apparent path of the sun does not run parallel to the path of the stars across the sky but, instead, cuts across this path, which can be mapped by observing the stars first seen at twilight. These are the star groups of the ecliptic, which form a broad band at an angle to the line of the horizon. The orbit of the earth around the sun, which provides our seasons, causes the constellational groups in the ecliptic to be visible only part of the year, and Babylonians and then Greeks and Romans used the first sighting of the constellation’s star in the eastern sky to mark the beginning of the month. Greeks used the sun’s apparent passage across this band of stars to measure the solar year, with each constellation marking out approximately one-twelfth of the year, or one month, and the Romans borrowed the method from them.1275 As early as the second century bce, astronomical papyri appear in Egypt written in both Greek and Demotic,1276 and many of the most eminent astronomers studied the heavens from Alexandria. In the second century bce, Hypsicles of Alexandria, for example, wrote On the Rising of the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac, in which he attempted arithmetically to determine – given the differences in the length of days throughout the year – the time it takes each zodiacal sign to rise above the horizon at a single location.1277 Despite its appearance in the tombs of Petosiris and Petubastis at Dakhla, the greatest number of Greek zodiac ceilings emerge from tombs at Akhmim,1278 and thus the image’s proliferation may have been inspired by the zodiac carved on the ceiling of the temple of Min at Panopolis. The temple’s zodiac is no longer preserved, but eighteenth- and nineteenth-century travelers describe a block carved with Greek zodiacal signs set in a twelvesegmented circle.1279 Yet even were the inspiration the zodiac in the Temple of Min (and this explanation does not take into account the zodiacs in the tombs at Dakhla Oasis) the question remains: Why substitute the Greek zodiac for the Egyptian celestial map in the tombs at Akhmim and Dakhla? In connection with this question it is worth considering the Egyptian calendar, which served Egypt for millennia. The administrative calendar was one of 365 days, divided into twelve thirty-day months of three ten-day decans each, with five intercalary days added to the end of the year. But since Egyptians failed to adjust for the extra quarter of a day in the solar year (which we account for with our leap year), by the Ptolemaic period (if not

before) it became evident that the administrative calendar was seriously displaced from the seasonal year governed by the rising of the Nile. Though a year of 365 days is close to the true solar year, the inadequacy of the Egyptian calendar was apparent even during a person’s lifetime.1280 Only every 1,461 Egyptian years did the administrative and seasonal New Year coincide, so only every 1,461 years did the civil New Year coincide with the Nile inundation;1281 this is the Sothic cycle. Calendar reform, preserved in the Canopus Decree of 338 bce,1282 was attempted under Ptolemy III Euergetes, who inserted a leap year in the civil calendar, but the additional day accorded by the leap year was finally realized only after Egypt’s conquest by Rome.1283 In 46 bce, Julius Caesar as both Pontifex Maximus and dictator, realizing a similar problem with the Roman calendar and with the aid of the astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria (Pliny NH 18.57.211), had replaced the old Roman lunar calendar with a solar one of 365 days with an extra day added every four years. A version of this calendar was finally instituted in Egypt, probably in 26 bce.1284 The more accurate calendar must have provided a correction both notable and efficacious, and it is probable that it paved the way for the adoption of the Greek zodiac, which had already been represented in a nascent form in the temple of Dendera,1285 and which – as the Roman calendar better predicted the New Year – provided a more precise description of the heavens than did the Egyptian star map. Though the navigation of the entire eschatological journey was fraught with peril, the twelve hours of the night were especially dangerous, as the names of their protectors indicate: the protector of Hour One, for example, was the Splitter of the Heads of Re’s Enemies; Hour Three, the Slicer of Souls; and Hour Ten, the Beheader of Rebels. Egyptians needed not only a description of the hours of the night, but the most accurate map of the night sky as their guide, and I suggest that they dispensed with the looser representation of the heavens to welcome the more accurate navigational map provided by the Greeks to facilitate their path to a blessed afterlife. Greek elements in tombs of the chora indicate a remarkably sophisticated understanding of Classical imagery and its meaning. Concurrently, the commonality in the use of specific aspects of afterlife imagery suggests fluid interaction among the various regions of the chora. The intellectual application of both Greek

194

BRICOLAGE AND GREEK-COLLAGE IN THE TOM BS OF THE EGYPTIAN CHORA

style and Greek ideas testifies, at once, to social intercourse between Egyptians and Greeks – well attested onomatologically – and to the deep understanding of Greek motifs that permits not only their application but also their refashioning to suit the requirements of a very

different religious system. Simultaneously, the seeming adoption of Greek Isis worship – or even initiation into the Isiac mysteries, itself, as implied in Bissing’s tomb from 1897 – suggests an acceptance of Greek eschatological concepts by Egyptians in the chora.

195

six

Intersection and Interconnection in the Visualization of the Afterlife in Tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt

T

he decorative programs in the tombs of graeco-roman egypt reveal a visualization of the afterlife that responds to the political and social realities within which they were created. From their earliest beginnings, the monumental tombs of Alexandria testify that not only are they products of the Greek world that structures the religious beliefs of their occupants, but that they are inexorably bound to the Egyptian soil into which they are cut. The tombs in the chora similarly react to the presence of their contemporary world, whether they admit Greek myth in an attempt to reorder the social hierarchy or focus on traditional Egyptian subjects mitigated by the complexities of the world into which their patrons were born and within which they died.

Beginning as early as the late-fourth century bce with the Greek stylistic elements that invade and qualify the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel and with the rockcut communal tombs in Alexandria that rely on loculi for the burial of the deceased, a beneficial interchange ensues that animates Graeco-Roman period tombs throughout Egypt. This interchange energizes the content of the visual programs of the tombs and extends their metaphysical possibilities as they act to negotiate the afterlife of their occupants. Distance created by the inherited afterlife traditions differentiates the use of Egyptian signs and symbols in hellenized Alexandria from that of the egyptianized chora. Though the belief systems seemingly have much in common and though they focus on the same goal, the means of reaching the objective differ, and the centuries – or, in the case of Egypt, the millennia – of received belief differentiate the two. In short, the signs and symbols found in tombs in the Egyptian chora are part of a long tradition, and, while possibly simplified or rearranged, they have their bases in the belief system from which they stem. Egyptian tombs in the chora may admit both Greek style

and content, yet they remain as closely aligned as their temporal distance permits to traditional Egyptian style and narratives that ensure their occupants’ journey to the afterlife. In contrast, the Egyptian signs and symbols employed in Alexandria are applied as a gloss on a very different belief system that otherwise lacked or rejected a repertoire of visual images to express it. Whereas the use of traditional imagery remains relatively rich in the chora, in Alexandria, Egyptian images are much more greatly limited: the mummy attended by Anubis and surrounded by deities is the scene most frequently represented. Aside from this scene, however, narrative context is missing; in Alexandrian tombs, more normally, individual Egyptian deities are arranged paratactically to create a semblance of Egypt. Nevertheless, in Alexandria and in the Egyptian chora the function of all visual elements is used to common purposes – to more successfully negotiate the journey to the afterlife and, often, to socially position the inhabitants of the tomb in a way that elevates them to, or above, the juridical status that they hold within the social hierarchy imposed in Graeco-Roman Egypt.

196

INTERSECTION AND INTERCONNECTION IN THE VISUALIZATION

As well as the Egyptian lineage encountered in their visual language, egyptianized tombs in the chora also separate themselves from tombs in Alexandria by their written language: whereas no tomb currently known in Alexandria contains actual hieroglyphs, almost all tombs in the chora with egyptianizing subject matter accommodate hieroglyphic inscriptions that identify figures or relate their actions1286 or engage longer texts. Yet despite the inherent differences in the religious traditions of the two major ethnic groups in GraecoRoman Egypt, the similarities in intent between their tomb programs remain remarkable. Although each group may have relied on different means to ensure their ultimate goal, the contiguity of peoples inhabiting GraecoRoman Egypt permitted not only an exchange of visual material but also encouraged a reciprocity of ideas and ideals.

elites, and the pharaonic crowns painted on some of the ‘plaques’ in Anfushy II even more strongly associate the deceased interred within with the royal house. Similarly, the appropriation of another royal prerogative, the broken lintel that defines Egyptian temple-facade doorways, and its application to doorways in Alexandrian tombs (such as at Anfushy II) and to loculus-closing slabs and in other situations, also elevates the status of the deceased. Other signs, such as the sphinxes in the tomb at Moustapha Pasha, the emperor figures and the Apis bulls in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa, and the situla-bearing figures with their pharaonic headdresses and false beards and the Apis bulls in the Tigrane Tomb also carry signs that originate within the Egyptian royal realm.1287 In Alexandria, however, it is difficult to untangle the impetus toward the incorporation of Egypt (and all it stood for eschatologically) into the fabric of the tomb from the integration of Egyptian royal symbols: Alexandrians may well have reasonably equated the second with the first. In the chora, however, with the definitive involvement of Egyptian clergy in mortuary decoration, it can confidently be stated that the Egyptian royal symbols that penetrate the tombs carried social significance. In the chora, it is to a great extent more likely that the appropriation of once-royal or temple imagery finds intentionality, since the hieroglyphic captions or inscriptions, which are lacking in Alexandrian tombs, indicate the tomb programs’ intervention by Egyptian priests. The temple-like facade of the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna elGebel with its broken lintel, the kheker frieze – once limited to temples – seen in both the chapel and pronaos of the tomb, and the appearance in the tomb’s chapel of the serekh that was initially used to enclose the Horus name of the pharaoh are early indications of once-royal or sacral motifs penetrating the imagery of tombs of private persons in the chora. So too are the extracts from the Amduat seen in the chapel of Petosiris’ tomb at Tuna el-Gebel and later seen in the tomb of Petosiris in the Dakhla Oasis. Once-royal signs are commonly interjected into tombs in the chora. Architectural elements, once restricted to royal or sacral buildings, are common, such as the use of the kheker frieze in the Zodiac Tomb of the Brothers at Athribis and the palace-facade niching painted in the tomb of Siamun at Siwa and in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel. Signs, such as the cartouches that construct the painted crowning frieze in the Crocodile Tomb and the tomb of Siamun at the Siwa Oasis, the sema hieroglyph as a scale support in the tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla, and

SOCIAL POSITIONING

Both Greek and Egyptian tombs employ imagery to enhance the social status of their occupants. Tombs at Tuna el-Gebel with their rich and unexpected Greekmyth narratives use decoration to elevate the social position of the patron or the patron’s family, and the concurrent use of once-royal imagery extends this impulse toward the social positioning of the dead throughout Graeco-Roman Egypt. The latter impetus almost certainly does not merely lie in the ‘democratization’ of imagery encountered in Egypt since the Middle Kingdom; given the stringent social and economic exigencies inherent in Graeco-Roman Egypt, this use of imagery can only be an intentional quest to promote or achieve status, similar to that of the Greek inhabitants of Tuna elGebel who employ Greek myth to magnify their social state. This egyptianizing visual vocabulary includes not only royal signs and symbols but also palace ornament and imagery once limited to Egyptian temples, another province of the pharaoh. Nevertheless, though tombs in both Alexandria and the Graeco-Roman chora appropriate imagery and ornament once limited to Egyptian royalty, the elements each appropriates are distinctly different. In Anfushy tombs II and V and Ras el Tin 8 from Pharos Island and in the S¯aqiya Tomb from Alexandria’s western necropolis, the inclusion of faience-tile decoration that originates in Egyptian-palace wall design and continues into the Ptolemaic period in Alexandrian palace design positions the inhabitants of the tomb as

197

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

Bissing’s Tomb of 1897 to the image of Moses from Dura Europus appears to obviate a direct relationship between the two media, the patron images in the chora – that of Petosiris at Dakhla and especially the one in Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim – certainly retain a sculptural presence. Both Classical and Egyptian sculptural types vied for attention in the landscape of Graeco-Roman Egypt and, as the patron statues from the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa are clearly derived from Egyptian sculptural models, those in the chora could ultimately have had a sculptural basis, though pattern books are most likely for the immediate dissemination of their type. The image of the female patron in Tuna el-Gebel’s House-tomb 21, however, while demonstrating some Classical turns of phrase, stands apart from both these categories of images. Integrated into the narrative of the frieze, the images of the possibly Classically draped woman do not follow the usual scheme for the patron portrait seen elsewhere, either in the tombs of the chora or in the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa. Only her frontal pose (and the possibility of contemporary clothing) connects her to the images from Dakhla and Akhmim. Her treatment more closely accords with that of Siamun at Siwa, Petosiris in his tomb from Tuna el-Gebel, and perhaps the figure in Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, whose incorporation within the narratives indicate a knowledge of a Greek aesthetic, while not entirely embracing it. The ‘portraits’ of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, Siamun, possibly the figure in Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, and the woman honored in House-tomb 21 are more likely a product of their times than a statement bearing social or eschatological content. In contrast, in the tombs of Petosiris at Dakhla and Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim (as well as on objects from the chora found in mortuary context),1291 the tomb’s patron is depicted in contemporary Graeco-Roman garb, posed in and painted in a manner discrete to the Classical world and unconnected with the narrative or figures that surround him. A Greek tomb patron painted in this mode of representation is also found in House-tomb 13 at Tuna el-Gebel (the tomb of Aurelios P¯etes¯e) described by Perdrizet1292 as an orator draped in a toga, his head bound by a ribbon whose ends flutter, holding a scroll in his left hand. Still, though the style of the patron in the tombs of Petosiris at Dakhla and von Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim is markedly Greek, the garb of these figures reflects the contemporaneous formal garments of the period and might be dismissed as irrelevant on these grounds. Yet, like Aurelios P¯etes¯e, these figures also hold scrolls, and though Whitehouse suspects that the scroll in

the sema-tawy for the altar on the upper frieze of the east wall in House-tomb 21 and on the throne of Osiris in the tomb of Siamun are among further indications of onceroyal prerogatives enhancing a non-royal tomb. Similar is Petubatis’ borrowing of the divine menit. The protective deities Wadjet and Nekhbet in the tomb of Psenosiris at Athribis, the image of Nekhbet who flies above the head of Siamun, and the goddess Nut who succors him are further indications of royal imagery used cavalierly but with purpose. So are the ba-bird that assumes the form of the royal falcon in Tuna el-Gebel House-tombs 20 and 21, in the Zodiac Two Brothers tomb at Athribis (and possibly in the tomb of Psenosiris and Kaplan’s Tomb VI at Akhmim), and the ritual pose of the youth, once only assumed by pharaohs, who offers a statue of Ma’at to Osiris in House-tomb 21. Zodiacs on the ceilings of tombs at Athribis, Dakhla, and Akhmim – both the Egyptian and Greek interpretations – are also indicative of a once-royal privilege invading private tombs. Whitehouse noted the privatization of astrological ceilings for ceilings in the tombs at Dakhla,1288 and this appropriation of a royal (and sacrosanct) prerogative can be extended to all the tomb ceilings, including the highly traditional one in the tomb of Siamun, that represent a map of the heavens.1289 THE IM AGE OF THE PATRON

The treatment of the patron ‘portrait’ in the few tombs in which it occurs also marks a point of intersection between the Classical world and that of Egypt. In Alexandria and the chora both, the image of the patron attests to a reciprocity that permits the figures to assume attributes from the other culture while still maintaining essential characteristics of their own. In the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa in Alexandria, the patron statues stand in Egyptian formalistic stances and wear Egyptian garb, though they find their genesis in Roman tomb statues and though they incorporate the veristic ideal of Roman portraiture. They add Egyptian elements to the figure, while maintaining the individuality of facial features that marks earlier and contemporaneous Roman portraiture. Conversely, ‘portraits’ of patrons in the chora assume both Classical garb and a classicizing pose, while maintaining an ancient Egyptian ideal in both scale and lack of specificity in the depiction of the tomb owner. Whitehouse has seen the model for the image in the chora as deriving from Hellenistic and Roman sculpture.1290 Whereas the similarity of the patron image in

198

INTERSECTION AND INTERCONNECTION IN THE VISUALIZATION

the hand of Petosiris might be a funerary letter of recommendation,1293 it seems more likely that the scrolls of these Greek-styled figures refer rather to scrolls held by – or collected in a basket adjacent to – intellectual or public figures in Roman sculptural representations1294 and that in the tomb paintings they are employed to heighten the status of the deceased. Nevertheless, despite their Classical treatment, these figures of the tomb patron from Dakhla and Akhmim are surrounded by Egyptian imagery addressing the afterlife journey – imagery imagined in traditionally Egyptian terms in both subject and style. This separation of gods and men, or the quotidian from the metaphysical, noted by Castiglione,1295 is one visually expressed, albeit through the use of scale, in Greek reliefs from at least the fifth century bce. One has only to recall the East frieze of the Parthenon whose seated gods, were they to stand up, would tower above the mortal participants.1296 More cogently, since in this case the law of isocephaly could be enjoined, a votive relief as early as the late-fifth century bce from the Attic sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron shows a standing Artemis far larger than her processing human worshipers,1297 and later Greek votive reliefs routinely follow this prescription. Yet even if the garb is Greek and the style of representation is Greek, and even if the concept of the separation of gods and men can be traced to a Greek concept, traditional Egyptian precepts are nevertheless interwoven into the fabric of the image, just as Roman portrait heads cap the otherwise Egyptian-inspired patron statues from Kom el-Shoqafa. The similarity of the pose of the figure in the Akhmim tomb with that of Moses in the synagogue mural at Dura Europus indicates the author’s reliance on a generic model for the patron, which further suggests that the designers of the Egyptian tomb have retained the Egyptian millennia-old idea of a generalized, rather than a veristic, portrait for the image of the tomb owner. This same feature is seen in contemporaneous coffin ‘portraits,’ in which the features are generic,1298 and where an infant’s coffin can bear the face of an older boy.1299 In Egypt, the process of mummification is intended to transform the deceased (the reason the faces of many mummy masks and portraits are gilded the color of the gods), and thus verism is not the object of the representation. Therefore, despite their Classical appearance, these Egyptian images of the patron at Dakhla and Akhmim separate themselves by their generic form of representation from the portrait busts and statues in contemporaneous Roman tombs elsewhere in the Mediterranean and from the stat-

ues of the patrons in the Alexandrian Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa. Another egyptianizing aspect of these ‘portraits’ is their scale: the patron’s size in the Akhmim tomb and that of Petosiris in his tomb at Dakhla Oasis, which permit the figures to span two registers and which are far greater than that of the other figures in the tomb, preserve the memory of an age-old Egyptian format, seen as early as the Old Kingdom, that presents the deceased as the largest figure in the tomb, spanning multiple registers, even as he interacts with the other figures seen at a greatly diminished scale. Though Greek gods may be depicted at a scale far greater than their mortal worshipers, it is rare that a Greek or Roman mortal human is shown larger than the other figures in a scene.1300 As in the construction of the patron statues at Kom elShoqafa, in the chora, a culturally specific, foreign vocabulary is seamlessly interwoven with that of the native tongue rather than accepted wholesale, and this codesharing creates a new and nuanced vision of the afterlife. Marked by their tunic and scroll, the patrons in the tombs at Akhmim and Dakhla may have self-presented as aspiring to the status of Roman elites, but in death they nevertheless opted for the proven, efficacious Egyptian way of negotiating the afterlife. In contrast, the heads of the patron statues in the tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa, though incorporated into figures garbed in Egyptian dress and maintaining traditional Egyptian posture, nevertheless retain the ideal of the veristic portraiture that characterizes Roman grave portrait statues and reliefs. DAEM ONIC PROTECTION OF THE TOM B

In Greece, as early as the sixth century, sphinxes acted as finials on tombstones, safeguarding the grave from desecration, and though sphinxes remained a potent guardian, sirens were later added to the Greek protective repertoire, and the use of both creatures continued into the Classical period and beyond. Alexandrian tombs retain the Greek concept of these tomb guardians but, almost without exception, imbue them with Egyptian efficacy: the sphinxes that guard the entrance to the burial room in Moustapha Pasha Tomb 1 assume an Egyptian form and are coiffed with the Egyptian nemes; Greek Agathadaimons guard the outer entrance to the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa, but two figures of Anubis in Roman martial garb protect the entrance from within, as they do on the piers of the Stagni tomb; Agathodaimons also guard the entrance to the burial chamber of the tomb from Tigrane

199

VISUALIZING THE AFTERLIFE IN THE TOM BS OF GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

Pasha Street and an apotropaic Gorgoneion peers through the fictive oculus of the painted dome, but figures of Anubis, sphinxes wearing nemes headcloths, and other egyptianizing signs protect the individual niches. The Sieglin Tomb from Gabbari in Alexandria’s necropolis1301 substantiates the preference for egyptianizing figures protecting Alexandrian tombs. The back and lateral walls of the niche contain Egyptian figures including Osiris flanked by Isis and Nephthys, and the piers that frame the niche further exploit the Egyptian repertoire with a striding Apis bull, a crouching griffin, and a recumbent Apis. Remarkably, however, the Egyptian figures that decorate the piers represent repainting over classicizing griffins, Nikai, and eagles that had originally completed the tomb program. Greek decorative figures were superceded by Egyptian-flavored ones on the piers of the Sieglin Tomb, presumably because they were considered to incorporate more potent protection for the deceased interred within the tomb. In Egypt, protection of the tomb by a jackal is encountered as early as the period of Naqada III (ca. 3300– 3100 bce) in the role later held by Khentiamentiu and then Anubis,1302 and daemonic figures as protectors are also found well before the Roman period, especially on coffins protecting the body within the box. Yet the daemons painted on the walls of Roman-period tombs in the chora are not the daemons normally seen – those that guard the Gates, for example – in earlier monuments. Though it cannot be directly traced to the presence of Greeks in Egypt, this system, which certainly proliferates in the Roman period, complies much more closely with Greek practices regarding the sanctity of the tomb, in which monsters – sphinxes and sirens – act as guardians and inscriptions specifically abjure the tomb’s desecration, than with previous Egyptian practice. Though the apotropaic scenes painted on the facades of the niches in the tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla, for example, may be in an older tradition of daemonic protection of the body, I propose that daemons at the entrance to a tomb are a phenomenon that does not arise from an Egyptian context. Traditionally, visitors are welcomed into Egyptian tombs, much as they are into the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel and as they walk with the offerings bearers in the tomb of Petekakem. The menacing, daemonic guardian at the tomb’s entrance appears as a new phenomenon in Egyptian tombs in the early first millennium ce, as seen most eloquently on the inner entrance walls of the Crocodile Tomb and the tomb of Siamun at Siwa, the tomb of Petubasis at the Dakhla

Oasis, the tomb of Psenosiris at Athribis, and von Bissing’s 1897 tomb at Akhmim.1303 These entrance-guarding daemons recall the sphinxes and sirens early guarding Greek tombs, which are the forerunners of the sphinxes at the entrance to the burial chamber in the Tomb 1 at Moustapha Pasha, the Agathodaimons and the two forms of Anubis guarding the entrance to the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa, the martial images of Anubis on the piers of the Stagni Tomb, and the Agathodaimons at the entrance to the Tigrane Tomb. To these entranceguarding daemons might cautiously be added the image of Horus, who stamps upon the crocodiles and thrusts out a snake in either hand, commandeering the center of the ceiling of Room II in the tomb of Petosiris in the Dakhla Oasis, whose placement recalls the protective Gorgoneion from the Alexandrian Tigrane Tomb. Nevertheless, even if this concern for protection may be traced to Greece, the form the daemons guarding the egyptianizing tombs in the chora assume is not Greek, but Egyptian. It is the concept, not the imagery, that is borrowed by Egyptians for the protection of their tombs in a troubled time. THE EFFICACY OF AFTERLIFE IM AGERY IN GRAECO-ROM AN EGYPT

By the Roman period, all three religious groups in Egypt – Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews – indicate a strong belief in the possibility of a blessed afterlife. Though these beliefs may overlap in essential characteristics, the view of each group finds its ultimate basis within its own religious system, and each community demonstrates this belief in a manner fitting its historical tradition. Intersection with Greek thought permits Jews residing in Egypt a new consideration of a celestial afterlife, and Greek myth, which is rare in Greek tombs in Graeco-Roman Egypt with the exception of the anomalous ones at Tuna el-Gebel, becomes – at least in one case on a Jewish tombstone – the medium for this expression. Generally, however, though Jews may admit elements mined from the Greek eschatological vocabulary to enlarge the scope of their own afterlife beliefs, according with their predominantly retained non-imagistic heritage, they appropriate from this vocabulary mainly textual imagery. Nevertheless, the prevailing Jewish aniconic approach leaves little visually to bequeath to either Greeks or Egyptians. Greeks and Egyptians, as image-embracing societies and as has been demonstrated throughout the foregoing chapters, are purposefully receptive to intervention from one another.

200

INTERSECTION AND INTERCONNECTION IN THE VISUALIZATION

Despite the consonances of imagery that occur in Alexandrian tombs and those of the Egyptian chora, and aside from the essential differences in eschatological thought between these two major ethnic constituencies of Graeco-Roman Egypt, a notable difference remains between Greeks and Egyptians. That difference resides in the conception of their tombs walls. I had previously suggested that Greeks lacked the visual vocabulary necessary to translate their eschatological ideals – early on embraced in their textual vocabulary – into a visual means, and that may well be an accurate assessment. Yet since Greeks do entertain narratives that speak to the afterlife and engage images of the underworld on their painted vases – experienced for a quarter of a millennium or more – another reason may be the cause: the permeability of the tomb wall may have served as a deterrent to imagining these narratives in tombs. Traditionally, Egyptians view tomb walls as porous; the afterlife journey that exists in a space well beyond the tomb is early painted on its walls. In the Graeco-Roman period, beginning with the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, tomb walls display the main moments in the journey to the afterlife and, in most cases, take that journey into the celestial sphere. If, in fact, Alexandrian Greeks view the doors that most often decorate their loculus-closing slabs as an entry to the Underworld (and, the closed door, consequently, as a barrier to the Underworld), then, despite the two loculus slabs that reference the Underworld and the Elysian

Fields – notable exceptions that might prove the rule – this seeming lack of visual vocabulary may rather be a disinclination to breach that barrier. Egyptian style and content may provide enough of a code-shared, yet ultimately foreign terminology, to encourage a culture thoroughly invested in visuality a means to picture an eschatological moment that its own vocabulary proved too dangerous to admit. Egyptians, who had both an eschatological tradition and a means of rendering it visually that had profited them for millennia, embrace aspects of the Classical world – both in style and content – in order to even better negotiate their journey to a beneficent afterlife. Yet because of the efficacy of their proven visual lexicon, Egyptians are able to be more selective than Alexandrians in their acquisitions. Consequently, their tombs reflect fewer foreign choices and integrate these choices more closely into their native narrative fabric than do tombs in Alexandria. In multifarious ways, the contiguity of cultures permitted a reciprocity of concepts as well as of material artifacts. This interaction benefited the already vast Egyptian eschatological visual vocabulary at a time of uncertainty when their political dominance had plummeted, as it similarly augmented the range of available metaphors for Alexandrian Greeks in a period when visualizing their eschatological requirements had escalated. The convergence of cultures proved mutually beneficent to all of its constituencies.

201

Notes

1. Venit 2002. 2. In addition to the publication of individual tombs (for bibliography, see discussion of each tomb), see also the survey of Kuhlmann (1983) that includes mention and photographs of the tombs at Akhmim, the published M.A. thesis of Kaplan (1999) that also surveys and illustrates many of the tombs mentioned here, and Lembke (2010a) who treats tombs at Tuna el-Gebel and includes a number of tombs in her overview of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Lembke 2004a). 3. Primarily by Lembke insofar as the tomb of Siamun at Siwa; see, e.g. Lembke 2004b and Lembke 2015; see also the bibliography in footnotes to the specific tombs and below. See also Venit 2010c and 2012b. 4. F. Dunand in Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 191. 5. For example, though Jews had a higher social status than Egyptians, they were not Greeks. Nevertheless, under Ptolemy VI Philometor, at least two Jews, Onias and Dositheos, served as generals, and other Jews occupied the highest offices of the state (Fraser 1972, vol. I: 83–84, 688). In the period of Roman rule, Philo’s brother Alexander held the office of alabarch, one of the highest offices in Alexandria, and, under Nero, Alexander’s son Tiberius Julius Alexander became the ‘Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt’ and as prefect deployed Roman legions against the Jews in Alexandria, resulting in the massacre of 66 ce. 6. See Hodos 2010: 11–12 (and passim) for a general discussion of the current perspective on identity and ethnicity. 7. See Van de Mieroop 2011: 264–270, esp. 270. 8. Van de Mieropp 2011: 271–274. 9. Venit 1984; Venit 1985a; Venit 1985b; Venit 1988. 10. See, e.g., Bagnall 1988; Bagnall and Frier 1994; Bagnall 1997a; Bagnall 1997b. 11. See, e.g., Clarysse 1985; Clarysse 1995. 12. See, e.g., Goudriaan 1988; Goudriaan 1992. 13. See, e.g., Østerg˚ard 1992. 14. See, e.g., Bianchi 1992; Bianchi 1996; Bianchi 2007. 15. See, e.g., Bothmer 1996. 16. Venit 2002. 17. Riggs 2005. 18. Stephens 2003. 19. Dieleman 2005.

20. See also Antonaccio 2010: 44–45, who cites Irad Malkin’s Middle-Ground theory (“mutual negotiation”) rather than opting for hybridity. 21. On Egyptians as an underclass, see, e.g., Delia 1991: 43–44. 22. See, e.g., Wallace-Hadrill (2008), who employs bilingual to indicate the survival of distinct cultures rather than their fusion. 23. For introductions to ‘code-switching,’ ‘intentional interference,’ and bilingualism in a social context see Adams et al. 2002: 1–8 and 10–20 and passim and Papaconstantinou 2010: 8–9. For a nuanced view of linguistic bilingualism (focusing primarily on that of Egyptians) in Graeco-Roman Egypt, see Fewster 2002. See also Tovar 2010a and Tovar 2010b. 24. On the Rosetta Stone see, e.g., Parkinson 1999: esp. 25–33. 25. See, e.g., Baines 1983; Lesko 2001. For exceptional literacy during the New Kingdom at Deir el-Medina, see Lesko 2001: 298. 26. See, e.g., Tovar 2010b: 28–35. 27. Code-switching, in its simplest form, is the ability and the actuality of two bilingual persons conducting a conversation in which both languages occur. For a more nuanced definition of linguistic code-switching and its rationale, see, e.g., Swain 2002: 147–148 (definition) and 146–167. 28. I have mentioned only in passing the fully decorated tombs emerging from the Bir el-Shaghala cemetery at Mut in the Dakhla Oasis (see Bashendi 2012 and 2013), since they are just now receiving publication. 29. Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. III: 45–46 with slight change in punctuation. 30. Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. III: 45. I leave to others the discussion of the great number of hieroglyphic inscriptions. 31. Bernand 1969: 29; the epigram is on 495–498, as no. 125. 32. See Chapter Four for the tomb of Siamun at Siwa Oasis, which Ahmed Fakhry (Fakhry 1944: 134) has dated as early as possibly 400 bce, but this early date is impossible to substantiate. For further discussion of the date of the tomb of Siamun, see Chapter Four. 33. See, e.g., Froidefond 1971: 15–68. The author is perhaps the first to speak of Alexandrian Egyptomania (ibid. 15). 34. See, e.g., Bell 1991. 35. See, e.g., Bietak 2005: 83–90, with previous literature.

203

NOTES TO PAGES 6–7

36. See, e.g., Kemp, Merrillees, and Edel 1980; Bevan 2003: 57–73; Panagiotopoulos 2004. 37. See also Diod 1.67.1. 38. For a summary of the Naukratis excavations and the problems inherent in a definitive assessment of the site see M¨oller 2000: 89–119. For seventh-century pottery, see a Transitional Corinthian (ca. 640–625 bce) bowl, Boston 09.210 (Boardman 1980: 121, fig. 138). Cook (1937: 228, note 7) and Boardman (1980: 121 and 274, note 39) question the Naukratite provenance, but this provenance seems assured. The fragment was a gift to the museum from a private donor (hence the 1909 rather than an 1886 or 1888 accession number); Oxford, a Corinthian kotyle from Naukratis (Payne 1931: 25, note 6); London BM 1924.12–1.1179 (Payne 1931: 279, no. 191.1). See M¨oller 2000: 217, for further bibliography and comment. 39. Oldfather 1933. See also Hornblower 2002: 63. 40. A small fragment of a Middle Geometric oinochoe from the East Greek city of Miletus, dated between 850 and 745 bce, was excavated at the garrison of Memphis: Philadelphia 29.71.181 (Clairmont 1955: 100, no. 8, pl. 20, fig. 6), dated by J. N. Coldstream, the date recorded on the museum inventory card, April 8, 1982. 41. Philadelphia 29.71.190, a bowl from Memphis (Boardman 1980: 135, fig. 157; Clairmont, 1955: 105, no. 59, as a Naukratite chalice); Cairo JE 51969, from Saqqarah South, a particularly fine piriform scale aryballos. 42. Cambridge GR 5.1975 from cache 2 at Saqqarah, dated by R. V. Nicholls. See Nicholls 1975: 6. This is undoubtedly the griffin protome mentioned by Boardman 1980: 135. 43. See, e.g., Venit 1985b: 188, note 2. For late-seventh-century vases from Chios found at Naukratis see M¨oller 2000: 132; for Samian ‘Hera cups,’ dating to the late-seventh century, see M¨oller 2000: 144–145. For late-seventh-century Early Corinthian see M¨oller 2000: 217–218; for late-seventhcentury Attic, M¨oller 2000: 222–223. 44. See Venit 1985b: 189, note 1. 45. See Venit 1985b: 189, note 3. Mendes, in the eastern Delta, has also yielded one late-seventh-century fragment (Mendes 7MPX22, a fragment of a Middle Wild Goat II amphora); see Venit 1982: 27 and pl. 22, fig. 2. 46. See, e.g., Diodorus Siculus (1.98.5–9) explaining how two East Greek sculptors made a statue in “an Egyptian manner”; see also Iverson 1957: 134–147; Guralnick 1982: 173–182. ´ 47. For Samos see, e.g., Jantzen 1972: 5–37 and pls. 1–36; J. Sliwa 1983: 379–392; for Miletus, see H¨olbl 1999 (and notes on 345 for bibliography for Egyptian finds in other cities of the west coast of Anatolia) and H¨olbl 2014 (also with a broader scope than just Miletus). For further Egyptian finds from western Asia Minor (and their bibliography), see Franken 2013. For other Greek sites see Brown 1975; for other objects that by their style or iconography suggest interconnections (some without firm provenance) see Mandel 2004. 48. See Webb 1978: 9–10. 49. IG II2 337, dated 333/2, permits the establishment of a sanctuary in the Piraeus by the Kitians “just as the Egyptians have founded a shrine to Isis.” Judeich 1931: 454 conjectures

50. 51. 52. 53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58. 59.

60. 61. 62. 63.

64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

204

that the cult goes back to the end of the fifth century, citing Aristophanes, Birds 1296 (in which Lycurgus is called an ibis) and the scholiast to that line. Bricault 2004: 548 disputes this date, saying that the inscription does not mention a temple to Isis, and that the earliest certain evidence for the diffusion of the cult before 270 bce is an inscription from Eretria dated to the end of the fourth/beginning of the third century, but Bommas (2004: 142) accepts the fourth-century date for the Piraeus cult and adds the sites of Halicarnassos and Kyme. Hornblower 2002: 259. See F. Dunand 1973: 66–67. Lefebvre 1923–1924. Minnen 2004: 162; or Shmunu (see Shenouda 1976: 389). For the pharaonic-period history of the region, see Lembke 2010a: 230. Though their names are not attested until the Late Period, the ogdoad may be posited to date as early as the Old Kingdom according to Hornung (1982: 221). See also Zivie-Coche in Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 49–50. Amun and Amunet appear, unconnected with the ogdoad, in the PT 206 of Unis (see J. P. Allen 2005: 55). Chapter 59, The Book of the Dead; see T. G. Allen 1974: 55, the “Spell for the breathing air and having water available in the god’s domain, to be said by Osiris N . . . I have guarded this egg of the Great Honker.” Armour 2001: 126. In a solar boat painted on the ceiling of the tomb of Siamun at Siwa Oasis (Fakhry 1944: fig. 35; see here Chapter Four and Figure 4.39) two female deities – one with the head of a frog and one with the head of a serpent – support the sun-disc; see also Fakhry 1942, vol. I: 72 for an image in a western desert temple. Zivie-Coche (in Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 50), who cites the text from the tomb of Petosiris, trans. by Sauneron and Yoyotte 1959: 61. Bleeker 1973: 112, 114. See Griffiths (1960: 82–83), who cites the Turin Magical Papyrus (24, 10, etc.), and for this aspect, and other aspects of Thoth, see Bleeker 1973: 106–157. For identification of Hermes with Thoth and for Hermes Trismegistus see Fraser 1972, vol. II: 353–354, note 150. Gabra 1941: ix, note 1. Shenouda 1976: 389. On the concept of pilgrimage, see Bernand 1988: 49–59; Rutherford 2005: 131–149; for “pilgrimage in passing,” quoted by Rutherford 2005: 135, see the seminal work by Yoyotte 1960: 19–74. For pharaonic-period dates, see Shaw 2000, passim. Minnen 2004: 162. The columns of its pronaos had a diameter of about 3.5 m. Spencer 1989: 13. Arnold 1999: 111; Spencer 1989: 13; Murnane 1983: 200. Minnen 2004: 162. A portico of twelve columns was intact ´ when visited by Napoleon’s artists (Description de l’Egypte 1809–1828, vol. IV: pls. 50–52), but in 1826 Mohamed Ali, vizier of Egypt, permitted the columns to be burnt for lime to build factories (Minnen 2004: 162).

NOTES TO PAGES 7–10

69. Murnane 1983: 200. 70. Inscription 81, which is discussed at length later. 71. Correspondence from Olaf Kaper (March 20, 2009): “The name Neshu is more accurate than Sishu. The latter may have been the pronounced version of the name, the former the etymological one. The etymology Neshu is written out only a few times in the tomb. Djedthothiufankh is also a more etymological/analytic version of the name, and I would prefer that, although Djedthothefankh is perfectly clear as well. So, there are no compelling reasons to use one or the other; but especially Egyptologists would use the new versions.” 72. Translation Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. III: 45. 73. Translation Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. III: 45–46. 74. Lefebvre (1923–1924, vol. I: 12) sees Petosiris’ death ca. 285 bce; Bissing, (1923: cols. 2–4) suggests a slightly earlier date (before 305 bce) on the bases of the Persian metalware depicted in the reliefs and the lack of Petosiris’ name in an inscription Bissing credits to the reign of Ptolemy I; see also Bissing 1933: 183–186. Picard (1931: 201–204) summarizes early views of the date of the tomb as Persian period, proposed by French scholars, to argue it as containing Greek elements, and he (227) opts for a date ca. 300. Menu (1994: 311–327 and 1998: 247–262) argues that Petosiris was a priest during Alexander’s conquest of Egypt and, though she adduces other inscriptions to date the priesthoods of Petosiris’ father and elder brother, her analysis does not change the tomb’s approximate date in any essential way. For other attempts at a close dating of the tomb see Baines (2004: 45 and 45, note 34), citing Susanne Nakaten (slightly later than 320) and Dieter Kessler (end of the reign of Ptolemy I, which Baines sees as problematic). 75. Translation Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. III: 46. 76. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: vi. 77. Cherpion et al. 2007; a new edition with more accurate color plates is forthcoming. 78. See Arnold 1999: 112, fig. 65 for a reconstruction drawing of the facade and the plan of the temple built by Nectanebo ´ I and known from a drawing in Description de l’Egypte 1809– 1828, vol. IV, pl. 51. The pronaos (the term used by Arnold, for the temple, as well as by Lefebvre for the tomb of Petosiris) of the tomb of Petosiris lacks the interior colonnade of a true Egyptian pronaos. 79. Perdrizet (1941: 51–52) notes a wall, similar to the one that formed the court east of the temple of Thoth, on the east and south sides of the tomb, but this interpretation was discounted by Pierre Jouguet (ibid. 51, note 1). 80. Measuring 7.15 m from north to south and 6.25 m from east to west (Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 119). 81. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 14. 82. See Sabottka 1983a. It preserves painted reliefs of processions of votaries on the inside walls of its inner room; among these is a scene of a bull being led forward, a bunch of lotuses tied about his neck (see Gabra 1954: pl. 1 [below]). 83. See Kessler 1986: col. 802; Minas-Nerpel 2012/13: 66. 84. Kessler 1986: col. 802; Minas-Nerpel 2012/13: 66 and note 5 for further bibliography on his title. Gabra (1941: 14) dates the tomb later than that of Petosiris on the basis of the entrance

85.

86.

87. 88. 89. 90.

91. 92.

93.

94.

95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101.

205

stair flanked by two ramps, which, he says, evoke Ptolemaic style, and he identifies the woman as a priestess or a magician based on the vials and other objects found with the mummy; but see Minas-Nerpel (ibid., note 6) for further bibliography on the not-yet-solidified date of the tomb. See Arnold (1999: 278), who provides examples of later temples: see, e.g., the Augustan temple at Kalabshah (243, fig. 103), the Tiberian temple to Hathor at Dendera (248, fig. 209), and the Claudian temple to Khnum at Esna (251, fig. 213). Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 17 and vol. III, pl. II. The descent seems to have been accomplished by a rope, attached to a hole in the paving and foot-holds cut into the north and east walls of the shaft. Wells in Alexandrian tombs also use notches for access, in their case for cleaning. For the organization of the inscriptional program see Menu 1996: 348 and 350. Dodson and Ikram 2008: 77. Dodson and Ikram 2008: 82. For scenes of the afterlife on west walls see Dodson and Ikram (2008: 84), who note, however, that funerary ritual is also frequent on the west wall. See Dodson and Ikram 2008: 82. For comparanda of sorts, see Rameses II (on a wall in the el Derr Temple in Nubia) in royal garb under the sacred Ischedtree. Behind him stands Thoth in ibis-headed aspect noting the regnal year of the pharaoh on a year’s lease fastened to a regnal jubilee chapel, and in front of him is Ptah, one of the deities to whom the temple is dedicated. See also the image with Nut on a Ptolemaic-period limestone offering table from Akhmim, British Museum EA 1215 (Taylor 2010: 177, cat. no. 85) and the comparanda adduced there. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 124; Cherpion et al. 2007: 102, scene 77; compare for the shorter garment, the figure of Pakhom, governor at Dendera, Detroit Institute of Arts 51.83, dated 50–30 bce, on historical grounds (Bothmer 1960: 178, no. 136; pl. 128, figs. 340 and 341). See also University of Pennsylvania Museum inv. 40.19.3 and cf., e.g., New York 65.119 and New York 1995.81, which have serrations on the edge of somewhat longer garments. A sarcophagus lid in the British Museum (EA 90) shows a Persian-type garment dated to ca. 340 with similar crenelated serrations. Garments similar to these are noted in another context by Baines (2004: 51–52), whose most cogent observation is that these garments often are found on figures indicated as aged, as Neshu is here. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 125. Translation by T. G. Allen 1974: 55. See also Cherpion et al. 2007: 103, scene 84. Dodson and Ikram 2008: 82, the marsh representing the northern part of the Egypt. On the latter (though adducing different subject matter), see Dodson and Ikram 2008: 80–81. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 128. See, e.g., the Dynasty Nineteen papyrus of Ani (e.g. Faulkner et al. 1994); for a later example, see the ‘tomb’ of Petubastis (Pl. XXV and Fig. 5.2). Roman-period tombs capped by

NOTES TO PAGES 10–19

102. 103.

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. 130. 131. 132.

133. See, e.g., Cherpion et al. 2007: 114, below and 115, below. 134. See also Cherpion et al. 2007: 127. 135. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 151 for inscription. Known from tomb of Seti I and elsewhere according to Lefebvre; for the image see vol. III, pl. XXXVII, above. 136. See note 93 above; for the image see Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XXXVII, below. 137. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 186 for inscription; for the image see pl. L. 138. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. LI. 139. For a goddess pouring a libation to the deceased and his ba in a private New Kingdom tomb see the image in the tomb chapel of Panehsy at Thebes, Dynasty Nineteen (Robins 1997: 183, fig. 216). 140. See Cherpion et al. 2007: 152, below. 141. The tiet is seen with the djed as early as Dynasty Three (see R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 201). 142. On which, see Kurth 1990: 59. Cf., e.g., Vienna, Kunsthistorische, architectural relief, inv. no. AE 5092, Ptolemaic period, findspot unknown. The kheker frieze is employed in royal tombs in the New Kingdom. See, e.g., the tombs of Tutmosis II (Hornung 2002: 38) and Amenhotep II [ibid. fig. 22]). 143. Cherpion et al. 2007: 153, above and below. 144. Cherpion et al. 2007: 155; Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. LIII. 145. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 186; I see the ba-bird behind Nekhbet and the vulture behind Wadjet, if both creatures are not ba-birds. 146. See R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 149. 147. See Cauville 1990b: 115. 148. This relationship between the pilasters of the wall and the pillars is similar to the connection between the subjects of the pillars and those of the walls frequently seen in pharaonic-period tombs (see, e.g., Dodson and Ikram 2008: 83). 149. Cauville 1990b: 123. 150. They are especially a feature in later temples and kiosks (see Arnold 1999: 303–304). 151. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 46; “Osiris the Ibis, great god, father of the gods, lord of the Ennead of the gods, vizier, judge of equity, who does good for everyone.” See also Menu (1995: 283), who provides the same reading. 152. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 47; Menu (1995: 283): “Osiris the baboon-headed, great god, master of the gods, who loves equity (ma’at), who has satisfied himself with equity (ma’at), who listens to the prayers of people.” 153. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 46. 154. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 48. 155. See inscriptions in Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 46–48. 156. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 45. 157. See Menu 1995: 284. 158. On this tradition see Dodson and Ikram 2008: 82. 159. Cherpion et al. 2007: 33. 160. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 56. 161. See also Cherpion et al. 2007: 34, below.

pyramids or pyramidions are, however, known. See Flossmann and Sch¨utze 2010 and Bashendi 2013. For the possible use of pattern books in pharaonic-period tomb decoration see Dodson and Ikram 2008: 51–53. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 131–132. Lefebvre (131) notes that the order of the water, incense, and natron in the relief does not accord with that given by the text that accompanies the image. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 132. In the Papyrus of Ani (and elsewhere), these four deities stand on a great lotus facing Osiris and Isis in the Hall of Two Truths (see, e.g., Faulkner et al. 1994: pl. 30). Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 133. Translation Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 133. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 134–135. See, e.g., the New Kingdom tombs of Menna, the sacrifice and purification of the bull (Lhote 1954: pl. 15; Hartwig 2013: figs. 2.8a and b) and of Nakht (Shedid, Seidel, and Eaton-Krauss 1996: 34); the Late Period tomb of Montuemhet (Theban Tomb no. 34), the model taken, according to Robins (1997: 219, fig. 262 and caption to fig.) from the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut. Noted, too, by Littauer and Crouwel 1975: 113–114. Lefebvre 1923–1924, I: 130. For a picture of the Ah-hotep funerary cart model and the reference to the tomb at El-Kab, see Saleh and Sourouzian 1987: cat. no. 123. Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. III: 45. See lines 26–34 of Petosiris’ biography quoted in Lichtheim’s translation earlier in this chapter. Abridged from Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. III: 46–48. Cf., e.g., the New Kingdom tomb of Menna, Hartwig 2013: figs. 2.15a and b. See also Cherpion et al. 2007: 146 (the middle figure in the top scene) and 147. See, e.g., also Cherpion et al. 2007: 136, below and 137; 138, above. Cherpion et al. 2007: 139, above. Cherpion et al. 2007: 146, above and detail below. Cherpion et al. 2007: 145, above. For the entire scene, see Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pls. XXVI and XXVII. On hunting scenes, see, e.g., Dodson and Ikram 2008: 86, 88–89. Lefebvre (1923–1924, vol. I: 172) reads the wall from left to right, that is, from south to north. Hornung 1999: 27–28 and 34. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 175, inscription 75; See also Hornung in Abt and Hornung 2003: 26–27. See Hornung in Abt and Hornung 2003: 28. See Horning in Abt and Hornung 2003: 27. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 177. See T. G. Allen 1974: 32–34; the quotation is from 34: T6. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 177–180; Cherpion et al. 2007: 110–111. Cherpion et al. 2007: 120. Cherpion et al. 2007: 113, below.

206

NOTES TO PAGES 19–34

162. The relationship of the vase to the cantilevered support is ambiguous, as is the function of the support. Supports for all stages of metal-vessel production are normal: see, e.g., the support used by the rhyton maker in the upper frieze and Scheel 1989: esp. 34–39. The support is closest in form to one from the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes (TT 100) (36, fig. 37); see also Lhote 1954: pl. 102, but, in this latter case, the use of the support makes sense. 163. Cherpion et al. 2007: 34, above. 164. See, e.g., figures in the relief from the grave of Ptahemhat, Dynasty Eighteen, ca. 1340 (Berlin 12411; Priese 1991: 136– 137, cat. no. 82); Ptahmai in the figure group of Ptahmai, Berlin 2297, ca. 1250–1200 (150–151, cat. no. 90). 165. Cf., e.g., on major monuments, the garment of the seated Akhenaten (Cairo JE 44866; Saleh and Sourouzian 1987: no. 167); the kneeling Senedjem on the east wall of his tomb at Dier el-Medina (Theban Tomb 1) (Robins 1997: 185, fig. 218); and the garment of Rameses II as child (Louvre inv. N 522). 166. Cherpion et al. 2007: 38, above. 167. See, e.g., Pl. III; see also Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 124 and Cherpion et al. 2007: 102, scene 77. 168. Cherpion et al. 2007: 36, below. The extremely narrow and boneless lower leg of the left-hand worker seems to be a stylistic characteristic of one of the sculptors working on the reliefs, since it appears with some frequency among the artisans (see, e.g., some of the perfumers and woodworkers). 169. See, e.g., Acropolis Kore 675 (Brouskari 1974: 68–69 and pl. 117), Kore 684 (69 and pl. 125), etc. 170. See also Cherpion et al. 2007: 36, middle. 171. Cf. Plutarch, Life of Perikles 31.2, for Perikles having stolen some of the gold intended for the statue of Athena Parthenos. 172. See also Cherpion et al. 2007: 36, above. 173. For a comparison to Thracian garments, which might be felted, though this is not his point, see Picard 1931: 218. 174. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XI. 175. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 58. 176. For the color, see Cherpion et al. 2007: 47. 177. For a detail, see Cherpion et al. 2007: 47, below. 178. Cherpion et al. 2007: 41, below. 179. Cherpion et al. 2007: 41, above. 180. Cherpion et al. 2007: 43, below. See Killen 2000: 357. Baines (2004: 46) points out that much of the industry is of its period and specifically points to lathe-turning, which he says was unknown in Dynastic Egypt. He is not entirely correct; see Killen (357), who says that the precise date of the turning of wood is unknown. 181. Cherpion et al. 2007: 45, above. 182. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 56–57. 183. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 58; Cherpion et al. 2007: 48, below. 184. Cherpion et al. 2007: 50, above. Gilding, according to the inscription read by Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 57. 185. As noted by Picard 1931: 219. 186. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XII and 59–67.

187. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XIII and 67–79. The registers are each 0.80 m high. 188. Cherpion et al. 2007: 53, above. 189. Cherpion et al. 2007: 53, middle; Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XII, upper register. 190. Cherpion et al. 2007: 53, below and 54 and 55. 191. This seemed to be the preferred traditional method; see, e.g., a similar rendition from the Old Kingdom tomb of Kagemni (Memi) at Saqqarah (2323–2294 bce) (Tiradritti 2007: 118). 192. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 66. 193. Cherpion et al. 2007: 56–61. 194. For vineyards considered closer to gardens than to agricultural lands, see Lerstrup1992: 63–64 and M. A. Murray 2000: 583. 195. For Lysippos, see Pliny NH 34.65; irregularly, through the history of Egyptian representation, human figures can be also seen as attenuated (for the occurrence of attenuated figures in Dynasty Twenty-six, see, e.g., Robins 1997: 210), so this treatment is not specifically Greek, but the otherwise Greek form of the figures and the contemporaneity of Lysippos to the tomb painting affords Lysippos (and his followers) the closest comparison. 196. See T. A. H. Wilkinson 1999: 119, citing Kaplony 1963, vol. I: 123. On the early introduction of wine and the archaeological evidence for grape cultivation, see als M. A. Murray 2000: 577, 582. 197. T. A. H. Wilkinson 1999: 41. 198. See Lerstrup 1992: 61–82. 199. See Lerstrup 1992: 61, where he does not name the tomb, but mentions it on 69. Agricultural scenes are almost never depicted in the tombs of Roman Egypt. 200. The frequency according to the table provided by Lerstrup (1992: 65) is based on the limit of archaeological knowledge prior to 1992 and affected by the fragmentary preservation of some of the scenes. 201. Lerstrup (1992: 66–67) notes that most often women and children are excluded from the scene of picking; he does not include the Petosiris tomb among his exceptions (66– 67, note 21). 202. Good examples are found on Wurzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum L282, attributed to the Amasis Painter, ABV 151, 22; Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico 241, attributed to the Orchard Painter, ARV2 524, 25; Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina, 42684 (T254CVP), attributed to the Orchard Painter, ARV2 524, 26; Naples, Museo di Capodimonte 960 (M6745), attributed to a Mannerist, ARV2 563.4; and Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco Vaticano 16505, attributed to the Painter of Bologna 322, ARV2 1170.7. 203. See M. A. Murray 2000: 586 and 587, fig. 23.8. 204. For this difference between Old Kingdom and later representations see M. A. Murray 2000: 586 and see, e.g., the treading scene in the tomb of Nakht (Shedid, Seidel, and Eaton-Krauss 1996: 57; 66–68). 205. See, e.g., Pipili 2000: 153–179. 206. For men carrying vessels on their shoulders in vintage scenes in Egypt, see Lerstrup 1992: 67. One example of men

207

NOTES TO PAGES 34–40

207. 208. 209.

210.

211. 212. 213. 214. 215.

216. 217.

218. 219.

220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225.

supporting vessels on their heads, though not in a vintaging scene, is found in the representation of the estates in the tomb chapel of Mersankh III at Giza (see W. S. Smith 1998: 55, fig. 102). In the Petosiris tomb, it is young boys who carry the basket on their heads, but the method nevertheless remains unusual. See, e.g., the two entertainers in the tomb of Nebamun (Parkinson 2008: figs. 83 and 88 [detail]). Bes, Hathor, and Nut are the main deities represented frontally. And other semi- or non-humans, such as the early form of Medusa. For satyrs, see Korshak 1987: 5–10; 45–54. Also see Conrad 1972. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 62, and pl. XII (drawing); Lerstrup (1992: 69) adds Graeco-Roman Egyptian context, citing Lefebvre 1910: 169 and Adams (1966: 262–283), who notes lion’s-head spouts on rock-cut tombs in Nubia (262, 268, 271 [with cf. to the one in the tomb of Petosiris, arguing against Lefebvre that the spout in the tomb of Petosiris is original to the press] and pl. XXXVII, c). Lion’s-head spouts are normal for Greek fountains, and Adams (268) dates the Nubian ones (“3rd or 4th century a.d.”) partly on that basis. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 63, who identifies the figure by inscription. Cherpion et al. 2007: 65. For the cereal grains see M. A. Murray 2000: 505–506; for flax, Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000: 269–270. Cherpion et al. 2007: 75, above. Cherpion et al. 2007: 72, above and 77. For the method, note Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 69, as well as M. A. Murray 2000: 517; however, see the plowing scene in the New Kingdom tomb of Nakht (Lhote, 1954: pls. 72 and 73 and Shedid, Seidel, and Eaton-Krauss 1996: 34 and 41), which shows the pole yoked to a bar between the bovids’ horns. This method may follow a Middle Kingdom model (see illustration in Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000: 270, fig. 11.2, from the MK tomb of Urarna from Sheikh Said), which shows the same sort of harnessing. See M. A. Murray 2000: 518. Note the comment by Vogelsang-Eastwood (2000: 270) on the depiction in an MK tomb. The inscription (Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 70) indicates “sowing all species of grain.” See Cherpion et al. 2007: 75 for the remaining color. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 71; followed in Cherpion et al. 2007: 77, caption to scene 60d. Though it is possible that the plowman is instead ready to harness the oxen, the lefthand scene in the other friezes on the east wall – despite their figures’ general left to right movement – shows the culmination of the activity, so Lefebvre is probably correct. See Cherpion et al. 2007: 76 for details and the remaining color. Cherpion et al. 2007: 72, above. Cherpion et al. 2007: 72, below. Cherpion et al. 2007: 73, above. Cherpion et al. 2007: 73, below. See, e.g., Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000: 270.

226. Though forming a lovely pattern, the ears of grain are not shown as a single height as in earlier representations (on which, see M. A. Murray 2000: 522). 227. Cherpion et al. 2007: 65, below. 228. M. A. Murray (2000: 522) notes grain tied into sheaves as appearing in Old Kingdom representations, whereas in the New Kingdom, the cut grain is shown collected in baskets. 229. Cherpion et al. 2007: 70. 230. Cherpion et al. 2007: 71. 231. See notes 207 and 209 on frontal faces. 232. As suggested by Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 78. Murray (2000: 524) observes that this is the normal method for small-scale production (see, among other evidence cited by M. A. Murray, Ruth 2.17), though she also notes that “there appear to be few, if any, pharaonic-period tombs scenes which depict threshing by beating” and cites this relief as the only representation known to her. 233. For the remaining color, see Cherpion et al. 2007: 67, detail of scene 58b. 234. See, e.g., the painting in the Persephone tomb from Vergina (Andronikos1994: esp. pls. VII and VII). 235. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 94–95. 236. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 98; Lefebvre (1923–1924, vol. I: 98–99) interprets this line as referring to Re’s birth from the egg laid by Thoth as ibis. 237. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 100; Cherpion et al. 2007: 90. 238. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. III: pl. XX; Cherpion et al. 2007: 91–94. 239. Cherpion et al. 2007: 93, above; it could, of course, be possible that the leaves were rendered in paint on the background, but there is no evidence of this: the few spots of blue that remain accord with the blue ground preserved in other sections of the frieze and the other reliefs provide no instances of this sort of technique (see, e.g., the tree of Nut [Pl. II] and the vine arbor [Figs. 1.23 and 1.24]). 240. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 107. 241. See also Cherpion et al. 2007: 93, above. 242. See Cherpion et al. 2007: 94, above for a detail of the veiled woman. 243. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 107. 244. Cf., e.g., Alexandria 3893, Schmidt 2003: 79, no. 1 and pl. 1 (ca. 380 bce, ibid. 79); see also Robertson 1971: pls. 121d and 123e. 245. See examples in Buhl 1947: 80–97. 246. Baltimore, Walters Art Museum 48.2050, plastic rhyton; Basle, Cahn, fragmentary cup-skyphos; see Hoffman 1997: 141–143 and catalog: 164, N1 and 153, C3. 247. Franks 2012: figs. 3, 4a and b, 5, and 6; Franks (84) does not read the leafless tree as symbolizing death. 248. The correct occupants of the tomb are a question that has engendered numerous articles and strong opinions. For Philip III Arrhidaios, Alexander’s half-brother (which would bring the date of the tomb closer to that of the tomb of Petosiris), see, e.g., (among many others) Borza and Palagia 2007: 81–125; against, see recently, Musgrave et al. 2010: 1–15, but a number of these authors are biased, having previously argued for the tomb being that of Philip II.

208

NOTES TO PAGES 40–45

249. 250. 251. 252.

253.

254.

255.

256.

257.

See, e.g., Robertson 1971: pl. 155. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 84–85. See, e.g., Bowie and Thimme 1979: 50, pl. 9. See, e.g., Robertson 1971: pl. 94c; see also LIMC VII.1 sv Prokne and Philomela: 528, no. 11 and VII.2: pl. 420, no. 11 [E. Touloupa]. See LIMC VII.1 sv Peliades: 272, nos. 11 and 11a [E. Simon] and VII.2: pl. 213, 11 and 11a for three-figure reliefs of Medea and the other daughters of Pelias; for the gesture, without the cauldron, see also the Attic red-figured hydria by the Villa Giulia Painter, Cambridge GR 12.1917, ARV2 623, 66, LIMC ibid. 272, no. 12; for the three-figure reliefs, see also, Robertson 1971: pl. 122c. The pose is slightly reconfigured with a support for the lowered arm for a third-century bce muse (see, e.g., R.R.R. Smith 1991: fig. 95). Cf., e.g., New York Metropolitan Museum 23.160.80, ARV2 1075, 10, an Attic red-figured bell krater by the Danae Painter, ca 460; see also Asterope in the lower frieze of the Attic red-figured hydria, British Museum E 224, by the Meidias Painter (ARV2 1313, 5; CVA Great Britain 8, British Museum 6, pl. III Ic 91, 1). A much later example is significantly closer, since one woman leans her elbow on a support (a marble plaque in the Hieropolis [Phrygia] Museum T 471, LIMC V.1 sv Horai: 507, no. 34 and V.2: pl. 147, end second century ce with Hellenistic influence [V. Machaira]. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 91–92, and 91, fig. 11. Lefebvre adduces a wooden chapel (sarcophagus) from the Late or Ptolemaic Period in the Cairo Museum, which has the upper part similarly composed of two doors and sees the piece of furniture as the facade of an Egyptian chapel (though it adds Doric pilasters and lacks the cavetto cornice of his comparison, as does the one in Berlin below) and he identifies the one on the relief as the tomb of Petosiris and, consequently, the figures in the relief as his family. (See also the shrine-sarcophagus, Berlin 17127, reproduced in Riggs 2005: 151, fig. 70 and 152, fig. 71.) Cf., however, an aedicula from Herculaneum (Mols 1999: 192, cat. no. 29 and figs. 139–145) and the stone chapel dedicated to Isis by Ptolemy VIII from the Temple of Isis at Philae (British Museum EA 1134; Bowman 1989: 193, fig. 119). See, e.g., Kaltsas 2002: 268–269, nos. 561 and 562, the originals of which are dated ca. 300 bce, but also see 279, no. 585, dated early second century bce. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 94. Lefebvre (93) notes that in Greek sacrifices to heroes the victim should sink down (κατασρέφειv) and that the artist has made a mistake because he does not fully understand the ritual. Lefebvre is not correct, however, in seeing an error on the part of the artist in showing the bull with its head turned upward; Ekroth (2002: 304) notes: “The notion that animals sacrificed to heros were killed with their head turned facing the ground can be seriously questioned . . . both from the point of view of the iconographical and the written evidence, particularly the terminology, and from the practical difficulties in slaughtering the animals in that way.”

258. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 91. Boardman (1994: 168–169) notes: “beside [the “figures of the family”] a bull is being wreathed and another sacrificed – a wholly Greek cult act performed in a manner unknown in Egyptian ritual. The execution is not Greek but carried out with full knowledge of Greek art, and, perhaps more importantly, Greek behaviour.” 259. For a brief discussion of blood sacrifice in funerary context see ThesCRA 2004–2012, vol. I: 106–109 [A. Hermary, M. Leguilloux, and A. Petropoulou]. Felton (2007: 88) incorrectly says that the funerary banquet “at the family home” (citing Burkert 1985: 193) “ . . . usually involved animal sacrifices” (without citation, or, perhaps, conflating what Burkert [op. cit.] identifies for “later” periods with that which he describes for the Geometric period). 260. ThesCRA 2004–2012, vol. I: 107 [A. Hermary, M. Leguilloux, and A. Petropoulou]. 261. See ThesCRA 2004–2012, vol. I: 107 [A. Hermary, M. Leguilloux, and A. Petropoulou]. An exception might be found in an inscription from the second half of the fourth century that testifies to a sacrifice offered to the daimon of a certain Leos in the Greek Anatolian city of Lagina (ThesCRA 2004–2012, vol. I: 108, no. 397 [A. Hermary, M. Leguilloux, and A. Petropoulou]). 262. See Straten 1995: 92–100. 263. See Straten 1995: 95–100 and pls. 99–108. In fact, depictions of the killing of bulls are rare; only three examples are known to Straten (1995: 107–108; 111), all of which occur on vases. 264. Frye 2002: 191. 265. See Frye 2002: 186–187, with bibliography. 266. Translation from the “Story of Sinuhe” based on Lichtheim 1973–1980, vol. I: 223–233. 267. Frye 2002: 191. 268. Tombs 1 and 2 at Moustapha Pasha (Adriani 1936: 19 and 47); see also a horned altar in an especially finely appointed Ptolemaic-period tomb at Mafrousa, where the ashes were found in a small circular depression cut into the altar’s top surface (Breccia 1907: 66). Given the steep, dog-legged staircase accessing the tombs, however, it is highly unlikely that the ashes were those of any sizable animal, and rather than burnt animal sacrifice, burnt sacrificial cakes and cheese may have constituted the offerings (see Venit 2002: 188– 189). 269. As noted by Frye 2002: 114. 270. See Straten 1995: 100–102. 271. See Straten 1995: 43–45, and cf especially London, BM F 66 (ibid. 43), which shows a Nike placing both a fillet and a wreath on the horns of a bull. 272. Athens, Epigraphical Museum 3942; Straten 1995, no. R90, fig. 93. 273. See the very slim Chapter Three (Straten 1995: 101–114) in which Straten notes only seven pre-Hellenistic secure examples, only two of which are bovids. Within the corpus of more than 150 images published by Straten in this volume, a rare few depict the animal’s death. Those listed in ThesCRA 2004–2012, vol. I: 117 [A. Hermary, M. Leguilloux, and

209

NOTES TO PAGES 45–49

274.

275.

276.

277.

278.

279.

280.

281.

A. Petropoulou]), with very few exceptions, repeat those of Straten. See Straten 1995: 108–109 for the two vases, one Corinthian (Berlin 3419) and the other Caeretan (Copenhagen 13567) (ibid. figs. 113 and 114), that show the bludgeoning of the animal. See the Hellenistic examples and their sources provided by Straten 1995: 109, note 22. The ones from Kyzikos seem to follow the same model of the animal collapsing onto its forelegs; the one from Byzantion also collapses headlong, but somewhat differently. For a fifth-century example see St. Petersburg Π 1834/5.9, a gold ring, LIMC VI.1 sv Nike: 866, no. 171 and VI.2: pl. 577 [A. Goulaki-Voutira]. See also, e.g., LIMC VI.2: pls. 577, nos. 170 and 172 [A. Goulaki-Voutira] for Greek fifth- and fourth-century examples on a mirror and a gems and LIMC VI.1: 895, nos 714– 716 and VI.2: pl. no. 605 [U. Grote] for relief gutti from the third century bce; see, too, early-fourth-century bce Attic red-figured squat lekythos, Boston Museum of Fine Arts 98.884 (Shapiro 2012: 374, fig. 5). See, e.g., Naples H 2865 (inv. 81.410) Apulian bell krater, ca. 370 (Moret 1975: cat. no. 86, pl. 76/1); Naples H 3239 (inv. 82.262), ca. 310 (sheep) (Moret 1975: cat. no. 86, pl. 76/1). See Herakles and the centaur, ANM 15350, ivory relief from Artemis Orthia, second quarter of the seventh century; LIMC VI.1 sv Nessos: 844, no. 119 and VI.2: pl. 544 (just pulling the head back) [F. D´ıez de Velasco] and ANM 1002 by the Nettos Painter, third quarter of the seventh century; LIMC VI.1 sv Nessos: 844, no. 113 and VI.2: pl. 553 (with foot in the small of the back) [F. D´ıez de Velasco]. Herakles regularly subdues the Keryneian stag by pulling back on its muzzle or antlers, usually from behind with his knee firmly planted in the stag’s back for leverage (see LIMC V.1 sv Herakles: 50–51 [Greek]; 51–52 [Roman] [W. Felten]), which provides a slightly earlier use of the motif than does the bull-sacrificing Nike. Herakles neither kills nor restrains the Cretan Bull by exerting pressure on its muzzle, however, except in examples later than the tomb of Petosiris (see, e.g., LIMC V.1 sv Herakles: 64–65 [L. Todisco] and others). An image on a Greek fourth-century bce relief in the Chalkis Museum – almost certainly a votive relief, though its specific Greek provenance is unknown – shows an assumedly mortal male astride a ram, clasping it between his knees, drawing back the ram’s head to expose its neck while, in his lowered right, he readies the knife (or dagger) with which he will slit the beast’s throat (Chalkis, Euboea Museum 7; see Straten 1995: 103 and R225, fig. 109). But a ram can scarcely be compared to a bull. It should also be noted that on an Attic red-figured cup (Florence, Archaeological Museum 81600), ca. 440–420, four youths are required to subdue a bull (Straten, ibid. V145 and fig. 116; ThesCRA 2004–2012, vol. I: 117, no. 485b [A. Hermary, M. Leguilloux, and A. Petropoulou]).

282. For an extended discussion of the two styles see Riggs 2005: 8–11. 283. See Dodson and Ikram 2008: 78–79. 284. On the problem of what realm these scenes represent, see, e.g., Dodson and Ikram 2008: 78–79 (cautiously); 91, for a metaphorical interpretation of agricultural scenes. See also the summary by Kanawati (2001: 115–121), who leaves the question open. 285. Dodson and Ikram 2008: 78–79, for Egyptian tombs in general. See also the summary, again for tombs in general, by Kanawati (2001: 83). 286. See Dodson and Ikram 2008: 78–79. See also the summary by Kanawati (2001: 83). 287. This garment can also be seen in Egyptian context in the Alexandrian S¯aqiya Tomb (Venit 2002: 105, fig. 89) and in the Nile mosaic from Palestrina (see Meyboom 1995: figs. 16 and 20). 288. Bothmer (1960: 178), discussing a wrapped garment, notes that Persian-period statues have the garment wrapped from left to right, whereas Ptolemaic-period statues have it wrapped in the opposite direction. In the case of the reliefs here, the garment does not follow this model, but is wrapped around the body so that the free side is visible, and thus the direction is dependent on the direction in which the figure wearing the garment faces. See Baines 2004: 51 for asymmetrical garments. 289. Compare for the shorter garment the figure of Pakhom, governor at Dendera, dated 50–30 bce, on historical grounds (Bothmer 1960: 178, no. 136). 290. See Menu (1994: 317) who says that the king in question, “who preferred [Neshu] to all others of his rank” was undoubtedly Nectanebo II; see also, more definitively, Menu 1998: 247 (“the father of Petosiris, exercised the functions of priest and royal councillor under Nectanebo II”). 291. On which, see Menu 1994: 319; see also Menu 1998: 247 (in which she says that Djedthothiufankh succeeded his father at the end of the reign of Nectanebo and held the office in the Second Persian period). 292. Menu (1998: 247) sees Petosiris’ having achieved office at the beginning of the Macedonian reign. 293. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 21–25; Bernand 1999: 22–33. 294. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 25–29. 295. Bernand 1999: 118, no. 27. 296. Bernand 1999: 116, no. 25. 297. See Bernand 1999: 118, no. 28. 298. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 23 (reiterated by Bernand 1999: 115). 299. Lefebvre 1920: 44, note 3; see also Bernand 1969: 492–498, no. 124, and Bernand 1999: 112–113, no. 22. 300. Bernand 1969: 29. 301. See Bernand 1969: 496; Bernand 1999: 112. Cf. the late first century bce (Bernand 1969: 196, dated 5 bce) epitaph of Arsinoe from Leontopolis (Horbury and Noy 1992: 69, no. 33) “my soul has flown to the holy ones” (see Chapter 3). 302. The burial cavern was looted (see Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 25), but the construction of tombs within and around the

210

NOTES TO PAGES 49–51

303. 304. 305.

306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311.

312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321.

tomb of Petosiris does not necessarily speak to its lack of veneration as Lefebvre maintains; see, e.g., Perdrizet (1941: 52–53), who imagines that a graffito of an Egyptian name written in Greek on the east face of the tomb (ΨΕΝΕΘΩ), which he dates to the early Imperial period, marks one (among the many) of the coffinless graves that might have clustered around the tomb; see also Baines 2004: 47, note 42. See, e.g., Bommas 2011: 174 and 175, fig. 8.8. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 25–26. See Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 26; Bernand 1999: 119–120, no. 29. The left chamber held six mummified bodies, several of which bore gilded plaster masks, only one of which could be rescued, Cairo Je 46739 (Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 26). See Bernand 1999: 120; Onnophris or Onnophrios is common in Egypt signifying ‘Osiris, the good being.’ See Bernand 1999: 120, citing another epitaph from Tuna el-Gebel, no. 80. Lefebvre 1923–1924, vol. I: 28–29. For a summary of, and new conclusions on, the foundation of Alexandria, see Łukaszewicz 2012. The following paragraphs are a summary and extension of parts of my chapter, Venit 2012a. This political structure is normal in the Hellenistic period; see, e.g., Fraser 1972, vol. I: 91. Aelian (Varia Historia III.17) credits the exiled Athenian, Demetrios of Phaleron, with helping establish the constitution of Alexandria. See e.g., ’Abbadi 1993: 1–6, esp. 1; see also Fraser 1972, vol. I: 38, 93–131. Fraser 1972, vol. I: 38–48. Delia 1991: 63. Delia 1991: 64–68. Delia 1991: 30–34; see also Bagnall 2000: 28–29. Rowlandson and Harker 2004: 82; 103. Queried by Delia 1991: 39–46. See Tomlinson 1995. See Delia 1991: 115. The boule, for example, was dissolved until reinstated between 199–201 ce (see Delia 1991: 120–121). Though not necessarily ethnically, for almost from its foundation, Alexandria was a multiethnic city. Ptolemy I had settled his army there, and Alexandria’s Greek and Egyptian population was rapidly augmented by immigrants from the breadth of the Greek world, as well as by Syrians, Persians, Gauls, and Jews. See, e.g., Strabo 17.1.12. Enklaar (1985: 145 and map: 146), basing his conclusions on the findspots of vases and on the inscriptions on vases that mention the origin of the deceased, identifies “crowds” of Cretans and Cypriots, fewer Athenians, Cyrena¨ıcans, Rhodians, Celts, Persians, Lebanese, Koans, Chians, Samothracians, Archananians, Aetolians, Boeotians, Eretrians, and Keans among the early population of Alexandria. Funerary inscriptions on stone (see Breccia 1976: passim) bear out these ethnics and add Macedonians, Milesians, Thessalians, Salominians, Megarians, Arcadians, Thracians, and Bithynians. Alexandrian Jews retained some privileges, being classed as Hellenes along with other non-Greek

322. 323. 324.

325.

326. 327.

328. 329.

330. 331. 332. 333. 334.

211

foreigners, though under Roman rule their status diminished. Egyptians under Roman rule fared even worse as they became a delineated underclass (see, e.g., Philo, Flacc. 75, 78–80, which reports Jews having been insulted by being whipped with the type of whip used on Egyptians instead of being beaten with the flat blade used on freemen and citizens [80]). By the late-first or early-second century ce, Dio Chrysostom (Or. 32.40), speaking to an unruly crowd, felt called upon to reprimand not only Greeks and Italians in his audience, but also Syrians, Libyans, Cilicians, Ethiopians, Arabs, Bactrians, Scythians, Persians, and Indians. Yet fittingly, Dio Chrysostom addressed this ethnically diverse crowd in Greek. All of Alexandria’s inhabitants, regardless of their place of origin or their ancestry, lived surrounded by the city’s Classically based monuments and, excepting those interred in shallow surface graves, were buried in its Classically derived tombs. See, e.g., Majcherek 2010; Venit forthcoming (b). See Venit forthcoming (a). Wooden klinai used as biers are known as early as Homer, and on monumental eighth-century Attic geometric amphorae and kraters they appear in scenes of prothesis and ekphora (see Kurtz and Boardman 1971: 58–59, and, for illustrations, e.g., see Ahlberg-Cornell 1971). On klinai in Alexandrian tombs, see Guimier-Sorbets and Nenna 2003: 533–575. On klinai, in general, see Andrianou 2009: 31–50, who provides earlier bibliography. In Hypogeum A (see Venit 2002: 28 and below). It appears in a late-fifth-century or early-fourth-century chamber tomb in the Chalchidike (see Andreou 1989: 121, no. 148). The best example is found in Moustapha Pasha 1 (see Venit 2002: 53–54, and below). Baughan 2004: 16, n. 25; see also Mols 1999: 41–42, who identifies lectus triclinaris as a bed with fulcrum (42); Mols (217) differentiates between lectus and grabat(ul)us, the first for sleeping the second for feasting. See Venit 2002: 16 on the origin of loculi. See Lloyd 2007: 226. It is irrelevant here that Herodotus’ “hyperdiffusionist” (235) view of history can be critiqued today. Also irrelevant to this point are Herodotus’ many inaccuracies. On Herodotus’ discussion of Greece’s debt to Egypt in general, see Mikalson 2003: 167–179. For another view of Herodotus’ discussion of the antiquity of Egyptian gods, see Harrison 2003: 153. See Lloyd 2007: 226; See also Lloyd 1975: 59–66 for an extended rationale for the date. Here Herodotus is incorrect; see Lloyd 2007: 245 for an extended discussion. Here, of course, he is also incorrect; see Lloyd 2007: 269, 272–273 for extended discussions. See also Lloyd 1976: 289. Herodotus goes on to say that Egyptians were the first to teach the transmigration of the soul, a doctrine that some of the Greeks, whom he will not name, have taken as their own. Here he is again mistaken. Transmigration of the soul has no place in Egyptian eschatology (see Lloyd

NOTES TO PAGES 51–57

335. 336. 337.

338. 339.

340. 341. 342. 343.

344.

345.

346.

347. 348. 349.

350. 351.

2007: 329). Lloyd (1988: 59–60) argues that the belief developed independently in many parts of the world and that “there is no reason to believe that it was a foreign import into Greece . . . [,]” where, “during and before the time of Herodotus” Pythagoreans believed it could reside in animals, Empedocles taught that it could return in plants as well (and that reincarnation was retribution for an ill-lived life from which the soul could possibly escape and become a god), and where transmigration of the soul was also an ‘Orphic’ belief. For a more complete discussion of this tomb and its cemetery, see Venit 2002: 26–34. For the rationale for the dating, see Venit 2002: 32. Both styles translate isodomic masonry with drafted margins into inexpensive materials (plaster for the first and paint for the second) to simulate, on an interior wall, a structural stone architectural system first designed and used for monumental buildings in Greece. See Bruno 1969: 308 for masonry style. See Andreou 1989: 13, 193–208, 263–268. Cf., e.g., the columns in the Stoa of Attalos in the Athenian Agora (The Athenian Agora. A Guide to the Excavation and Museum 1990: 130–135, esp. 133). It has been argued that Alexandria was the place of inception of this type of column (see Venit 2002: Appendix B, 201–203). The tomb still retained its color when Adriani saw it in 1935 (see Adriani 1966: 125). See Venit 2002: 29, fig. 12. See Venit 2002: 31, fig. 15. See Mangoldt 2012: 37, n. 327 for a list of Macedonian and Macedonian-type tombs that contain klinai and klinesarcophagi. See also the arrangement of the kline-sarcophagi from a Macedonian tomb at Amarynthos (Huguenot 2008, vol. II: pl. 59, 1–3) that also imitate metal prototypes. See also Andrianou 2009: 47–48, no. 42. Whether these banqueting couches in tombs are to be interpreted as those inhabiting a private dwelling or a civic building is currently debated (see Hougenot 2008, vol. II: 45 for a summary of the arguments). I retain the perhaps objectionable name of Moustapha Pasha, because that is the name used by the original literature on the site. Other, equally or more greatly opulent tombs are no longer extant. See, e.g., Venit 2002: 38–41 (tomb from Sidi Gabr), and 41–44 (tomb from the Antoniadis Gardens). For a more complete description of the tomb, see Venit 2002: 50–61. For the basis of this date, see Venit 2002: 51. Adriani 1936: 19; as did the altar in Moustapha Pasha Tomb 2 (ibid. 47) and a horned altar in an especially finely appointed Ptolemaic-period tomb in Alexandria at Mafrousa (see Breccia 1907: 66), in which ashes were found in a small circular depression cut into the altar’s top surface. See Venit 2002: 49. Adriani (1936: 42) notes that the platform is analogous to others in Alexandrian tombs set in front of the kline for the trapeza, and he compares the one in the southern kline chamber in Moustapha Pasha Tomb 2.

352. See Venit 2002: 49 and 65. 353. The North Stoa at Miletus on the southwest coast of Asia Minor preserves an early example dating to the late-fourth century (see Coulton 1978: 134). For the date, see Pensabene (1993: 127, n. 19), who cites Coulton for this being the earliest example. For a full discussion, see B¨using 1970: 56–63. 354. See Coulton 1978: 114–119. 355. See, e.g., Richter 1988: figs. 1–20, 34–65, 96–103, 105– 106, and 110–122, see p. 6 for an inscription that gives the function of the sphinx as a guardian of the tomb. Throughout the fifth century, and later, sphinxes continue to guard tombs in Greece, Lycia, Etruria, and Cyprus, for example. See the tomb from Xanthos in the British Museum (London B 290) dated 480 bce, with two confronted sphinxes guarding a ‘false door’; the Cypriot sarcophagus (New York 74.51.2453), dated to the second quarter of the fifth century, with sphinxes as corner acroteria; the fourth-century Tomb of Merehi from Xanthos (London 1848.19-20.143), dated 390–350, which shows confronted sphinxes in its gable; and the Attic grave stele of Sostratos, in New York (Metropolitan Museum 08.258.41) and the Attic stele (Metropolitan Museum 65.11.11), both with sphinxes as lateral acroteria and both dated 375–350. Still later, note the Etruscan sarcophagus of Vel Urinates in the British Museum (London GR 1838.6-8.12), dated 325–250 with Greek sphinxes as central acroteria at either end of the length of the roof. 356. See Venit 2002: 80 and 82. 357. On the Pharos, see, e.g., Pfrommer 1999: 11–16. Contra this location for the Pharos, see Fabre and Goddio 2010: 53, fig. 5.1. 358. Guimier-Sorbets (2010: 162–163) has postulated a stone kline in the burial room at Anfushy Tomb II that was removed during the renovation of the room; rock-cut klinai can also be argued for Ras el Tin 1, Ras el Tin 8, and Anfushy V, though the elaborate klinai seen in other parts of Alexandria, both earlier and later than these tombs, are not a feature of tombs of Pharos Island. 359. Adriani 1952b: 128; see Venit 2002: 90–91, which argues against the island having been inhabited primarily by native Egyptians. Guimier-Sorbets (2010: passim) has recently revived the idea of the patron of the second phase of Anfushy Tomb II being Egyptian, but the concurrent bilingualism of Anfushy Tomb V and other points argue against her thesis. 360. Venit 2002: 74–77. 361. For the tomb and previous bibliography, see Venit 2002: 77–85. 362. See Venit 2002: 83, fig. 68. 363. For the seal of the necropolis, see, e.g., DesrochesNoblecourt 1989: black-and-white frontispieces. 364. For an image see Kaplan 1999: pl. 14b. 365. See Venit 2002: 86 and 88. 366. Pagenstecher 1919: 179–180. 367. Petrie 1903: 25 and 48. In the Old Kingdom, they are a feature of the Dynasty Three Step Pyramid Complex of Zoser at Saqqarah, which contained 36,000 of them, and of the Dynasty Five pyramid temple of Neferefere at Abusir (see Nicholson 2000: 179).

212

NOTES TO PAGES 57–65

368. As for example at the palace of Amenhotep III at Malkata (Hayes 1959: 245–247); that of Akhenaten at Tel el-Amarna (290); of Rameses II at Qantir (332–338); and of Rameses III at Medinet Habu and Tel el-Yehoudieh (367); for a summary of Egyptian use of faience tiles see Foster 1979: 33–38. 369. Adriani 1940: 44–45 and pls. XII.2 and XIV.2 (Alexandria 25654). The faience tiles were found in fill, but among the other objects found with them were architectural fragments, all of which date to the first century bce (45, “Late Hellenistic to beginning Roman period”). 370. Adriani 1952a: 63, fig. 34. 371. Adriani 1952b: 64. 372. I had earlier suggested (Venit 2002: 78) the possibility of this figure being a woman, but the hairstyle now seems to me certainly that of a male, as the figure was identified by both Botti and Adriani. Cf., e.g., the hairstyle of Siamun in his tomb at Siwa (see Chapter Four). 373. For the tomb and previous bibliography, see Venit 2002: 101–118. 374. For its plan, see Venit 2002: 102, fig. 84. 375. See Venit 2002: 71, fig. 54. 376. See Venit 2002: 107, fig. 92. 377. See, for example, Athens, once Fauvel Collection, a lekythos in the Manner of the Emporion Painter (ABV 586.11; Vermeule 1979: 204, fig. 27) on which sirens stand on grave mounds. 378. See previous note for examples of sirens perched on grave mounds, and for grave stelai, see, e.g., the two Attic grave stelai cited previously for their sphinx lateral acroteria (New York, Metropolitan Museum 08.258.41 and Metropolitan Museum 65.11.11 [see note 355]), both of which use sirens as their central acroterion. 379. Assmann 2001: 90. 380. See Bremmer 1983: 14–18 and passim; see also Bremmer 2002: 2–4. 381. See, e.g., Assmann 2001: 87–96; for the quoted words, 95. 382. Proposed as certain by Vermeule (1979: 75) despite the female-headed bird already having been known in the Aegean Bronze Age (231–231, n. 69). See also Kurtz and Boardman (1971: 134–135), who also accept that the siren derives from the ba-bird. 383. It is likely that another ba-bird occupied the right-hand side of the sarcophagus as a pendant, since its occurrence would give the slab – now only partially preserved – its correct approximate length as the front panel of a sarcophagus. 384. See Venit 2002: fig. 90. 385. In the S¯aqiya Tomb, however, unlike in the tombs of Pharos Island, the ‘faience squares’ are set above a double string course. This string course appears as a vestigial element of the zone-style wall, since it is eliminated in the repainting of the ‘faience’ decoration of Anfushy II and is absent from other tombs in the Anfushy necropolis. Thus, though the treatment of the main frieze closely connects the S¯aqiya Tomb with those at Anfushy, the retention of the string course suggests that the S¯aqiya Tomb predates those of Pharos Island and that it probably dates to the late-second century bce.

386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391.

392. 393.

394. 395.

396.

397.

398.

399. 400.

401.

402.

403. 404.

213

Venit 2002: 116–118. C. Segal 1981: 25–46. Humphreys 1981: 275–278. Venit 2002: Chapter Six, 146–159. Venit 2010a: 243–257. Bones of horses discovered in the catacomb along with human bones encouraged speculation that the tomb contained the bodies of young men massacred by Caracalla in 215 ce (see Rowe 1942: 31–32, who discounts the idea as does Empereur [1995: 19] who follows Rowe). See Schreiber 1908: 128 and 129, fig. 75; Adriani 1966, vol. 2: pl. 97, fig. 329. For Tomb ‘h’ see Venit 2002: 122–124 and 123, fig. 101. See also Schreiber 1908: 363–364 and ibid., vol. I (plates): pl. LXII as drawn by Fiechter. On Nemesis sphinxes see Lichocka 2004: 52–56 and, specifically, for the ‘Hall of Caracalla’ sphinxes, 54. Rowe (1942: 32) says that he is the first to describe these two tombs. Guimier-Sorbets and Seif el-Din 1997: 355–410; see also Guimier-Sorbets 1999: 180–182; Guimier-Sorbets and Seif el-Din 2001: 129–136. Designated Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 by the authors, they correspond to Tombs e and b of Schreiber 1908: pl. IV; 1st and 2nd Painted Tomb of Rowe 1942: pl. IV. Further publication is being prepared on this tomb, unfortunately too late for the ideas to be incorporated into this book (personal communication from Jean-Yves Empereur, December 7, 2014). For paintings in tombs, see Lindner 1984: 55–58; 59–60. See, here, Chapter 3, the tomb of the Abduction of Persephone, for a discussion of gender. LIMC 8.1 sv Persephone: 970–971, nos. 249–253 [G. G¨untner] lists five examples: two Attic red-figured vases, a relief frieze from the theater at Nysa, and two Roman sarcophagi. For more possible examples, exclusively on vases, see B´erard 1974: esp. 91–115, 129–139. Guimier-Sorbets and Seif el-Din 2001: 129–136. A Locrian plaque dated 500–450 bce (LIMC IV.1 sv Hades: 64, fig. on 379 and IV.2: pl. 213 [R. Lindner]), shows the motif, but the actors are undistinguished by any attribute, there are no intermediaries to suggest any connection to later imagery, and the identification has been severely questioned by a number of scholars. The mosaic from the floor of the second chamber of the Macedonian tomb at Amphipolis, uncovered in October 2014, is also of this type. Andronikos 1994: 126–130, esp. 130; Lindner (1984: 32–33) concurs that the Vergina tomb represents an early painting by Nikomachos, of which the one taken off to Rome was a later (and extended) version. See LIMC IV.1 sv Hades: 100 a–c and IV.2: pl. 216 [R. Lindner]. See, e.g., Jones 1912: 276, no. 71 and Helbig 1963–1972, vol. II: no. 1674 [K. Parlasca], both cited by Andronikos 1994: 127. Both citations deal with the mosaic from the Via Portuensis, which is closest to the extant painting. See also

NOTES TO PAGES 65–70

405. 406.

407. 408.

409.

410.

411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416.

417. 418.

419. 420. 421.

422. 423. 424. 425.

Frothingham (1886: 223) who early notes that the mosaic “is evidently copied from some famous original.” See Lindner 1984: 58, no. 50, and pl. 14, 1. Note also, among others, the representation in a black-andwhite mosaic from a necropolis under St. Peter’s which, while not showing the nymph, does picture the overturned baskets and the falling flowers (Lindner 1984: 59, no. 52 and pl. 14, 2). A major exception is the painting from the tomb of Vibia, Lindner 1984: 59, no. 53, and pl. 20, 2. The idea (‘Lung’s rule’; see Beazley in Caskey and Beazley 1954: 14–15) of the winners positioned left to right seems to have been an Attic conceit; add to Beazley’s exceptions the east frieze of the Siphnian Treasury where the winner (Achilles) is positioned right to left. Lindner (1984: 14–15) identifies Athena and Artemis, independent of other deities (except Eros) in an abduction scene of Persephone on fragments of a red-figured skyphos from Eleusis (Eleusis 1804; mentioned in the entry ARV 2 647.21 and dated there by Beazley 430), which she dates 450–440, which would be an early occurrence in visual media, but the identity of the deities is not followed by G¨untner in her entry in LIMC VIII.1 sv Persephone: 967, no. 193. Corfu, Archaeological Museum 205, without provenance; Lindner 1984: 87–88, no. 119 and pl. 30; not noted in LIMC VIII sv Persephone. Lindner 1984: 87. Lindner 1984: 87–88. Guimier-Sorbets and Seif el-Din 1997: 355–410; see also Guimier-Sorbets 1999: 400–401. Trans. Smith and Trzaskoma 2007: 148. Boriaud 1997: vii. A more recent edition of the text is Marshall 2002, but Marshall does not address either the issue of authorship or date. In an even more recent translation (based on Marshall’s text), Smith and Trzaskoma (2007: xlii–xliv) do address the issue, but except for presenting the evidence that the text was known in 207 ce, they, as many before them, arrive at no definitive conclusion. Boriaud 1997: x and xii–xiii. See Boriaud 1997: x; OCD3 rev sv Hyginus [C. J. Fordyce; A. J. S. Spawforth]; the issue is addressed by Breen (1991), who comes to no definitive conclusion. Guimier-Sorbets and Seif el-Din 1997: 405. For a more complete discussion of this tomb see Venit 2002: 124–146 and appendix A: 199 for previous bibliography. See, e.g., Rowe (1942: 15–17 and pl. III) who successfully pumped out the water and observed the lowest level. He suggests the two lower levels originally served as a Serapeum and that the tomb chapel of the Apis bull was only later modified into a burial room, the current Main Tomb. See Empereur 1998: caption on 156, referring to the second Tridacna-shell motif. On which see, e.g., Lindsay 1998: 72; see also Rowe 1942: 13. On which see, e.g., Toynbee 1971: 50–51. See Empereur 1998: fig. on 156.

426. Alan Rowe (1942: 19) suggests that these statues “may well be” of relatives of the deceased (“perhaps the son and daughter”) influenced by the observation expressed by Bissing (1901: 3) that the statues in the niches appear to have been later additions because the niches in which they stand were initially openings in the wall. Jean-Yves Empereur (in conversation) doubts Rowe’s interpretation (as does Adriani 1966: 176, by inference), and, although the construction of the stone wall remains curious, I do not see that the statues must be disassociated from the date of the Main Tomb based on the transformation of an opening into a niche. 427. See Venit 2002: 133, fig. 110 for a detail of the male’s face. 428. For a discussion of the date of the tomb, see Venit 2002: 129. 429. On which see Vassilika 1989: 96, 97, 121, and 205. 430. See, e.g. the Menkaure statuette, Boston MFA 11.280a–b. 431. See, e.g., the statue of the official Tjayasetimu (London, British Museum; Robins 1997: 227, fig. 271); the statue of Mentuemhat (228, fig. 273), both from Dynasty Twenty-six or Twenty-seven. 432. For example Museo Gregoriano Egizio 22795 from Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli; cf. Athens National Museum statue of Antinous from Marathon. 433. For Agathodaimons, see LIMC I sv Agathodaimon [F. Dunand]. 434. See Venit 2002: 130, fig. 107 for a line drawing of the pronaos that clarifies the attributes of the Agathodaimons. 435. See Ogden 2013: 286–291. Ogden does not, however, treat the Agathodaimons at Kom el-Shoqafa, and, with the exception of speculating that Shai might be related to the Agathodaimon, he avoids discussion of a funerary function for the snake. Quaegebeur (1975: 170–176) had already connected the Greek Agathodaimon with the Egyptian deity Shai. 436. See F. Dunand 1969: 28. 437. Fraser (1972, vol. I: 205–206, 211, 255–256) has observed that a chthonic cult of Dionysos was prominent in hellenized Egypt and probably in Alexandria as well. 438. See Graf in Graf and Johnston 2013: 50 and 142. 439. Graf and Johnston 2013: 4 and 5, from Calabria in Magna Grecia; see also 36 and 37, texts 26a and b: “Tell Persephone that the Bacchic One himself released you”; and 38 and 39, text 27: “Passwords: Man-and-child-thyrsus. Man-andchild-thyrsus” from Thessaly; 40 and 41, text 30: “pure and sacred to Dionysus Bacchius am I” from Macedonia. 440. See Rice 1983: 38–44 and 80–81. For other evidence of ‘Orphism’ in Alexandria, see 189–190; see also Fraser 1972, vol. II: 350, n. 128. 441. Dismissed by F. Dunand (1969: 36), but in LIMC I.1 sv Agathodaimon (281) F. Dunand says that on the wall at Kom el-Shoqafa it protects and guides the deceased. 442. For Anubis, see LIMC I.1 sv Anubis [ J. Leclant]. For Anubis in military garb see Paribeni 1910: 177–183; Kantorowicz 1961: 368–398; Grenier 1977: 36–40. For Egyptian gods in military garb, see Seyrig 1970: 77–112, esp. 101–107. 443. See Venit 2002: 159–165 and 144, fig. 124.

214

NOTES TO PAGES 70–75

444. Rowe (1942: 25) compares a small bronze in Cairo published by Edgar. Grenier, who connects the imagery with snakes that act as guardians of doorways in Egyptian mythology, adds another (Grenier 1977: pl. XIV). Anubis himself has snaky associations. In one version of the story recalling the death and resurrection of Osiris, Anubis transforms himself into a serpent to save Osiris from his wicked brother Set (see Grenier 1977: 38); another source for this rare form of Anubis may be traced to the anguiped aspect of the pervasive image of Isis-Thermouthis, which is visually similar; on an intaglio, for example, Isis-Thermouthis takes as pendant a figure described as Serapis-Agathodaimon (e.g., Munich, Staatliche M¨unzsammlung inv. no. 2042; Arslan 1997: 254, IV.270 [A. Magni]), which is none other than Serapis appropriating one of his consort’s iconographic roles, and Anubis’ close connection with Isis could allow him also to assume her imagery. 445. The Hellenistic bronze Terme ruler, e.g., also leans on a shaft held in his left hand, but he does not hold a shield with his right; normally a shield is worn on the left side, which makes the anthropoid Anubis appear unusual. 446. See, e.g., Grenier 1977: pl. XIV. 447. This plan sets the Main Tomb (and the other burial chambers in the Great Catacomb) among a small group of extant Alexandrian tombs that base their funerary chambers on a triclinium model. With the exception of the Tigrane Tomb, which is discussed later in this chapter, the Ramleh Tomb (see Venit 2002: 122), and a chamber found within a group of modest tombs between Sidi Gabr and Ibrahimieh (called Sidi Gabr, Hypogeum 2) (Venit 2002, appendix A: 195), these tombs appear in sections of the city in which the necropolises are primarily of Roman date: tricliniumshaped chambers are frequent in the Western necropolis, and at least four in addition to the Main Tomb occur in the Great Catacomb at Kom el-Shoqafa (see, for example, Rowe’s plan [Rowe 1942: pl. IV]). All triclinium tombs that provide enough evidence to be dated are clearly of Roman Imperial date or later. Five of these tombs are known only from notes, photographs, or drawings once preserved in the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria and published by Adriani in his catalog. Of these five only one, which photos of garland sarcophagi securely date (see Adriani, 1961: pl. 27, fig. 81 [misnumbered no. 33] and p. 31, no. 34 for one of these sarcophagi), is certainly of the Roman period, although it is most likely that all are in fact of Roman date or later. See Adriani 1966: 154, no. 100 bis (Tomb near Fort Saleh “between the barracks of the coastguard and the sea”); 154, no. 101 (tomb with garland sarcophagi from the Western Necropolis, referred to above); 155, no. 102 (known from unpublished photograph; also from the Western Necropolis); 155, no. 103 (known from an unpublished drawing by Bartucci; also from the Western necropolis); and 157, no. 109. 448. See, for example, Hawwass 1979: 75–87 and figs. 2 and 3; Nassery, and Wagner 1978: pls. 77–85, figs. 30–55. The arrangement in a triclinium format of three sarcophagi in kline form with reclining figures of the deceased on

449.

450.

451.

452.

453.

454. 455.

456.

457. 458.

215

their lids in the Palmyran ‘Tomb of the Three Brothers’ seems to make the heroic banquet connection explicit in the East (for the tomb, see Starkey and Gawlikowsky 1985: 127, fig. 16; for the sarcophagi, Schmidt-Colinet 1995: 35, fig. 47). Another stimulus may be found in the dining clubs, such as the ‘Couch of Serapis,’ that flourished in Egypt as well as throughout the rest of the Roman world and that often acted as burial societies (see, e.g., Shore 1971–1972: 16–19; Cenival 1972: 233–236; Burkert 1987: 44). For garland sarcophagi from Alexandria see, for example, Adriani 1961: 23, no. 9, pl. 7, 21–23 (Alexandria 22162: garland sarcophagus from Ibrahimieh); 25, no. 13, pl. 10, 30–31; pl. 11, 32–33; pl. 12, 34–35 (Alexandria 24666: garland sarcophagus from Moustapha Pasha); 25, no. 15, pl. 13, 38; pl. 14, 43–44; pl. 15, 46 (Alexandria 22160: garland sarcophagus from Moustapha Pasha); 26, no. 18, pl. 15, 45, and 48–50 (Alexandria 22161: garland sarcophagus from Ibrahimieh). Other triclinium-shaped chambers with rock-cut garland sarcophagi in Alexandria include a tomb near Fort Saleh “between the barracks of the coastguard and the sea” (Adriani 1966: 154, no. 100 bis) and a tomb from the Western Necropolis (see Adriani 1966: 154, no. 101 and, for one of its sarcophagi, Adriani 1961: pl. 27, fig. 81 [misnumbered no. 33] and 31, no. 34). For a detailed description of the back walls of the niches and for references for some of their anomalies, see Venit 2002: 136–141. Rowe (1942: 23) observes that the vessel might hold either a plant or incense, but the drawing of the plants depicted encircling the altar and that of the plant set on the altar on the right wall argue against a plant here. Identified by Rowe (1942: 22) as the weeping son of the deceased; he sees the figure holding a cornucopia or a torch. Empereur (1995: 11) sees the figure as a female deity holding a cornucopia, but the figure does appear to have a nude torso, and its short wig differs markedly from the long, layered wig worn by the female on the right wall. See Flossmann and Sch¨utze 2010: 94. See Turcan 1996: 116; Merkelbach 1995: 155 §286 quoting Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis VI. 4.35.2–37.1 (who uses hierogrammatos). See also Griffiths 1975: 265. For images of a pterophoros see the relief plaque in Rome, Vatican, (Merkelbach 1995: 615, fig. 145; and Amelung 1908, II: 143–145, Cortile del Belevedere, no. 55 and pl. VII, dated by Amelung to the Hadrianic period). Kaplan (1999: 36) identifies the priest as a choachytus on the basis of the lustration vessel on the plate. Rowe (1942: 21) sees her as weeping, and consequently as “obviously a relative” and “perhaps a daughter” of the deceased. Cf., e.g., the sons of Horus from the Dynasty Nineteen papyrus of Ani (Faulkner 1994: pl. 8). Rowe 1942: 25, on the parallelism with the figure he identifies as Osiris on the opposite wall. In Venit 2002: 140, I followed Rowe in suggesting this figures as a mummiform image of Isis, but I now think it is clear that the designer

NOTES TO PAGES 75–80

459.

460.

461. 462.

463. 464.

465. 466. 467. 468.

469.

470.

471.

472.

473.

differentiates by incision and paint between true mummiform figures and others that just have tightly wrapped garments. See also the drawing by Gilli´eron in Venit 2002: 140, fig. 120, which is reproduced somewhat larger than the image here. According to Rowe 1942: 24; Taylor (2001: 207) sees the garment as a net garment and the signs as indicating Osiris’ astral connections, since he identifies the figure as Osiris. Identified as Ptah by Rowe 1942: 24. These garments, with the swath of fabric hanging down, are similar to those of figures on a first- or second-century ce funerary bed (see Flossmann and Sch¨utze 2010: 83 for the date) that are identified as deities and others that are identified as the sons of Horus by the authors, Kessler and Brose (2008: 33 and 36); see also Flossmann and Sch¨utze 2010: 93–94 and pl. X; the figures on the bed of Seutas, however, carry what appear clearly to be mummy bandages (termed “fabric bands that signify rebirth” [94]). Rowe 1942: 23. Compare similar mummiform figures set among files of deities painted on a mummy mask of a woman, Cairo 33.133 (Edgar 1905: 26–29 and pl. XIV), but who are identified as deities by the signs that crown them. Venit 2002: 143. Rowe 1942: 24. Empereur 1995: 13. See, e.g., register two of Cairo CG 33216 (Corcoran 1995: 171, cat. no. 19 and. 175, fig. 28). See also register one of the stuccoed mummy, Cairo, Egyptian Museum 17/10/16/1 (194, cat. no. 22 and pl. 22 and the comparison, Alexandria 27808, pl. 30) where, however, the two deities do not surround the bier. See also, register six of Cairo CG 3320 (141, cat. no. 15; 149, fig. 14) for the same lustration scene as in Cairo, Egyptian Museum 17/10/16/1. Cf. the representation of Horus on the Temple of Horus at Edfu (R. H. Wilkinson 2003: figure on 202); that of Thoth from the Late Period sanctuary of the temple of Hibis (R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 88, fig. 4). See Chapter Four, House-tomb 21; Chapter Five, the tomb of Petosiris. For the deceased in its transfigured mummiform state, see also Riggs 2005: 186–187. ¨ See, e.g., Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Agyptisches Museen inv. no. 20.004, a statuette of Isis (Arslan 1997: 518, no. V.291); Naples NM inv. no. 6372, a black marble statue (518, no. V.213); Turin, Egyptian Museum inv. no. 32771, from Arsinoe, the cartonnage of Isis-Reshit, priestess of Sobek (73, no. II.47). See, e.g., Vatican, Museo Pio Clementino, Galleria dei Candelabri, inv. 2547; Lippold, 1956: 270, no. 40 and pl. 123, dated by Lippold to the third century ce. See Diodorus I.87.8 and cf. Vatican 16637 (Amelung 1908, II, 143–145, Cortile del Belevedere no. 55 and pl. 7, dated by Amelung to the Hadrianic period). On Isiac mysteries offering a blessed afterlife, see Brenk 1993: 147–164, who provides much of the earlier bibliography and argues strongly for the mysteries incorporating eschatological meaning.

474. For a drawing of the sarcophagus, see Venit 2002: 135, fig. 113. For the mattress and images in funerary context elsewhere, see Mols 1999: 38. 475. In an oral communication in another context, Evelyn B. Harrison observed that right-handed women normally first cradle the infant in the crook of their left arm, so that the child sucks from the uncovered left breast, and thus she took this sign to signify motherhood. 476. Rowe 1942: 20. 477. See R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 170–171 and Allen 2005: Unis 165 and Pepi 312 and 486. 478. Metamorphoses XI.2. 479. This part of the discussion is partly based on a section of my article, Venit 2010c. 480. Adriani 1956. 481. See, e.g., Ling 1991: 179–181. 482. Thermouthis was equated with Isis and may have had mysteries into which her worshipers were initiated. See Vanderlip 1972: 20. For Thermouthis see Aelian On the Nature of Animals X.31. See also Vanderlip, ibid., for the second hymn to Isis (lines 2 and 29), third hymn to Isis (line 1), and fourth hymn to Isis (line 1), where she is addressed as Hermouthis. For other images of Isis-Thermouthis as a snake see, LIMC V.1 sv Isis: 788, nos. 332–344 [V. Tran Van Tinh]. 483. Cf. the terracotta in Berlin figured in Merkelbach 1995: 80, drawing 22; see also LIMC I.2 sv Agathodaimon: pl. 204, fig. 13; pl. 205, figs.14, 15, 17, 20; pl. 206, figs. 28, 31, 35 [F. Dunand]; LIMC V.2 sv Isis: pl. 524, figs. 333, 334, 337, 344a [V. Tran Van Tinh]; see also Vanderlip 1972: 21 for discussion and further bibliography. 484. Personal correspondence, August 12, 2011. 485. As, e.g., Adriani (1956: 72) thought. 486. See, e.g., the tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis and Bissing’s tomb from 1897 in Chapter Five. For further examples, see note 1122 below. 487. Adriani 1956: 83. 488. Eggs have always been a Greek symbol of rebirth or regeneration. See, e.g., London, British Museum GR 1882.3–12.1, a late-fifth-century black-glazed cup with five eggs from a tomb on Rhodes; see also Kurtz and Boardman 1971: 77; white-ground lekythoi occasionally show scenes in which eggs are presented at the grave. See, e.g., the possible egg held by a woman on Syracuse 22879 (Fairbanks 1907: 167) and one on Boston 03.801 (Oakley 2004: 55, fig. 31; see also 203 and 206–208); they are part of the Isiac cult meal (see, e.g., remnants of the priests’ meal from the Iseum at Pompeii, Witt 1971: 71 and pl. 29) and a feature of the cult of Isis (168, 213). See also Griffiths (1975: 261), although most of his examples concern the purification of ships. 489. Venit 2002: 153–154. A plaque in the Vatican that shows an Isiac procession (Vatican 16637; see Merkelbach 1995: 615, fig. 145) includes a pterophoros, who might be construed as similarly coifed and dressed as our frontal figure, but – aside from their stylistic dissimilarity – I see a marked difference between the two, especially in their garments. 490. A similar branch is carried by a priest in an Isiac procession on a fragment from a wooden sarcophagus (Hildesheim

216

NOTES TO PAGES 80–83

491. 492.

493.

494. 495.

496.

497.

498.

sarcophagus fragment, dated 193–212 ce; see Bianchi 1988: 240–241, cat. no. 129); a priest of Isis painted in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii holds a palm branch even closer in form (Merkelbach 1995: 496, fig. 11), as does Anubis sculpted on altars, one of which is in tomb context (Rome, Capitoline Museum, 614, fig. 144); for Anubis with palm and caduceus on an altar from the tomb of Fabia Stratonice (Karlsruhe 67/134) Merkelbach ibid.: fig. 130 and Grenier 1978: 15– 18 and pls. IV and V; and a young child, characterized by the lock of childhood, holds one on a gravestone from the necropolis of Ostia (Merkelbach 1995: 597, fig. 125). For the mosaic, see, e.g., Dunbabin 1999: 70, fig. 71. Grain is associated with Isis as early as the fourth century bce, when she receives the epithet εὐεργέτεια καρπώv, εὐεργέτια (“benefactress of grain, benefactress”; see Vanderlip 1972: 22–23); the hymns of Isidorus from Medinet Madi celebrate the harvest in her name (see ibid. passim and esp. 45; see also F. Dunand 1973: 219–221; by the first century bce, Diodorus (I.14.2) credits her with the actual discovery of grain; and in her guise as Isis-Thermouthis she is often depicted with ears of wheat. See, e.g., Berlin, Egyptian Museum 20004, a statue of Isis-Kourotrophos from Carinola with a representation of Thermouthis and the Agathos Daimon on the back of its base (Tran Tam Tinh 1972: 79–80 and pl. 6, fig. 7 = LIMC I.2, sv Agathodaimon: pl. 205, no. 14 [F. Dunand]) and a relief in Turin (LIMC I.2 sv Agathodaimon: pl. 7, no. 8); see also Cairo JE 47108 (LIMC V.2 sv Isis: pl. 510, no. 174 [Tran Tam Tinh]). The female figures who protect the mummy in the central niche and the female goddess in the right niche are also dressed in imbricated garments and nemes headcloths, but here I think it significant that their garments terminate in fringes, like the fringed garment described by Apuleius (Metamorphoses, XI.3; 268.16), that worn by the woman on the right lateral wall of the central niche in Kom el-Shoqafa’s Main Tomb, and that worn by priests and a priestess in paintings from the Iseum at Pompeii (Merkelbach 1995: 496, fig. 11; 497, figs. 12 and 13; 498, fig. 15). Burkert 1987: 7. Burkert 1987: 11. Accepting Burkert’s definition and providing further evidence, especially for the Hellenistic period, is Pakkanen 1996: 65–68. Bommas 2005: 3; 6–11. For another view of mysteries in Egypt from the pharaonic through the Roman period, see F. Dunand 1975. Merkelbach 1995. Both preserved on papyri from Oxyrhynchos, The first is preserved on two papyri, P.S.I 1162 and 1290, the one dated to the first century ce, the second to the third century ce (170–171 § 325); see also Merkelbach 1967 (and for the date, 55). For the two documents see also Totti 1985: 19–23, who follows Merkelbach’s interpretation. For the second see Merkelbach 1995: 171 § 326 and Merkelbach 1968: 7–30. An aretalogy from Kyme on the west coast of Anatolia can also be adduced if the Kyme aretalogy (and other similar ones) is, in fact, copied from an inscription at Memphis, as it self-describes in lines 1–5, because in this inscription,

499. 500. 501.

502. 503. 504. 505. 506.

507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517.

518.

519.

217

Isis numbers among her many accomplishments that “[she] revealed mysteries unto men” (line 22). For the translation of the foregoing, see, Meyer 1987: 172–173; see also Merkelbach 1995: 113 § 210 for previous bibliography. The ur-text of the aretalogy is dated to the Ptolemaic period by Vanderlip 1972: 86 and, more specifically, to the third century bce by Bommas 2005: 52–53. For a summary of the problem of the origin – Greek or Egyptian – of the Memphite text see Grandjean 1975: 12–15. The Isis aretalogies from Medinet Madi in Egypt from the first century bce (see Vanderlip 1972: passim) indicate no knowledge of Isis as a deity of rebirth or of Isiac mysteries, though the Second Hymn (35– 36, lines 7–8) declares that those “bound in mortal illness in the grip of death, if they (but) pray to you, quickly attain your (renewal of ) life”; see also Kockelmann 2008: 66, who references the same hymn. See, recently, Bianchi 2007: 470–476; Naerebout 2007: 506– 554. See Bianchi 2007: 471–473. For a similar interpretation of the architecture (in this case of Italic Iseums), see Turcan 1996: 107–111. For a slightly different interpretation for the architecture, see F. Dunand in Dunand and Zivie-Coche 1991: 300–301; see also Naerebout (2007: 506–554) for an entirely different interpretation of the architecture. The term is first applied to Alexandrian tombs by GuimierSorbets and Seif el-Din 1997: 355–410, as noted previously. I have previously succinctly discussed this bilingualism, as I identify it, in Venit 2009: 42–65. See also Venit 2002: passim. Trans. A. T. Murray 1976: 149. Trans. Evelyn-White 1943: 15. These doors find precise parallels in tombs from the Greek city of Taranto on the Italic peninsula (see Tin`e Bertocchi 1964: 81–84 and 83, fig. 64) and as entrances to Macedonian tombs (for which, see, e.g., Miller 1993: 8). Steingr¨aber 1985: 300, no. 55 and pls. 62–63. Steingr¨aber 1985: 371, no. 165 and pl. 180. Kosmopoulou 1998: 531–545. Alexandria 24040. Adriani 1966: 116. Blanc 1998: 107, fig. 54. M. Dunand and Rey-Coquais 1965: 12 and pl. 8. Bucchielli 1985: 194, fig. 1; Petsas 1966. Daszewski and el-Fattah 1990: pl. 65, figs. 1–2. Rodziewicz 1992: 332, fig. 1. She repeats that given in DarSag III.1 sv H´eros, 141[Hild], recognizing that much work has been done on the genre since. Nevertheless for an exhaustive overview of the history of the hero in its assorted manifestations – though some would differ with permitting the word always to designate the ‘special dead’ – see, e.g., Mazarakis Ainian 1999. See, e.g., Mazarakis Ainian 1999: 9–36. For the leaders, founders, and the war dead as heroes, see Rohde 1987: 528–531. See also Hughes 1999: 167–175. For a fuller account of the early hero see Wypustek 2013: 65–78; 83–95, and the bibliography he cites.

NOTES TO PAGES 83–88

520. IG XII, 3, 330; the stone is in Verona, Museo Maffieano. See Wittenburg 1990. In the first century ce, there is evidence on Thera for a public hero cult to a priest of Apollo (see Wypustek 2013: 69). 521. See above, note 349. 522. See Wittenburg 1990: 52–53. 523. See Hughes 1999: 169, and for further examples, 168–175. See also Rohde 1987: 561, n. 73; Hiller von Gaertringen 1899: 171. 524. See note 49. 525. See Rohde 1987: 531–533 and Hughes 1999: esp. 169–172. On aspects of heroization see also Guimier-Sorbets 2002: 170–176; Guimier-Sorbets 2003: 607–618. On the Greek ideas of the afterlife, see also Bremmer 2002: esp. 1–26; Wypustek (2013: 65–78, 83–95), who initially equivocates as he sets out scholarly viewpoints, further concludes that those who heroized the dead did believe in an afterlife. 526. Hughes 1999: 170; see also Wypustek 2013: 67, 68–69. 527. See Hughes 1999: 170–171; Wypustek 2013: 72–95. 528. Bernand 1969: 259–263, no. 64. 529. Bernand 1969: 263. 530. Bernand (1969: 263) further argues that (σ)πονδα˘ισι, meaning a libation poured to the gods, is used precisely by the poet to underline the heroization of the deceased. 531. On which see Bezerra de Meneses and Sarian 1973: 77–109. 532. Adriani 1952b: 72–76. 533. See Fraser 1972: 201–206 and Chapter 3. 534. Guimier-Sorbets 2003: 607–616. See also Guimier-Sorbets 2002: 170–176 for convincing archaeological evidence for the baldachin as an expression of heroism. 535. Larkin 1994. 536. Larkin 1994: 122–126. 537. It may also appear on an egyptianizing loculus slab in Anfushy Tomb V, Room 4; see Venit 2002: 89, and see below. 538. See Venit 2002: 93, fig. 77 and Sabottka 1984–1985: pl. I b (Tomb I); for the date, see Sabottka 1983b: 197 and Sabottka 1984–1985: 280. 539. See, e.g., Sismanid¯es 1997; cf. Huguenot 2008: pl. 59, 1–3; Mols 1999: 145, cat. no. 1 and fig. 34 (House of the Wooden Partition) and 159, cat. no. 8, fig. 61 (House of Neptune and Amphitrite); see also Richter 1966: figs. 530 (Berlin Br 8903, bronze couch from Boscoreale); 532 (Naples inv. 78614, bronze couch from Pompeii); 542 (Morocco, Rabat Museum, bronze leg of a couch); 304 (Naples inv. 18394, a kline depicted on an Apulian bell krater); and 308 (Berlin Br 10053, Greek bronze couch from Priene). 540. Cushions are arranged at both the head and foot of the bed, curved bands hold the mattress in place, and a simulacrum of a painted bier-cloth, described by Breccia (1932: 37) as striped with richly varicolored bands, covers the mattress and appears to fall behind the horizontal bar of the bed, descending almost to the ground. 541. On which, see Larkin 1994: 513, cat. no. 86. 542. Alexandria 10974; see Pensabene 1983, vol. I: 93, no. 4 and pl. X, fig. 4. 543. Daszewski 1990: passim.

544. Alexandria 3212; Pensabene 1983, vol. I: 96, no. 12 and pl. XI, fig. 5. 545. Alexandria 21793; Pensabene 1983, vol. I: 97–98, no. 13 and pl. XI, fig. 6. 546. Alexandria 24863; see also Pensabene 1983, vol. I: 98, no. 14 and pl. XI.7. 547. Turin, Egyptian Museum inv. cat. 1668 (without provenance); Donadoni Roveri et al. 1988: 213. 548. The precise dates of Jewish habitation are undetermined. For all aspects of Leontopolis, see Capponi 2007. See also Bohak 1996: 26–27 and Bohak 1997: 106–107 (where he is not quite so explicit), who suggests that a number of sites in the region including Demerdash (which yielded inscriptions; see Horbury and Noy 1992: 186–196), the ‘Jew’s Camp,’ a second Tel el-Yahoud, and the Syrians’ Village (Siryaqus) were all settled by Onias and his followers, but there is no evidence to connect any of the other sites specifically with this group of immigrants (see also Capponi 2007: 210–211 and Horbury and Noy 1992: xviii, specifically on Demerdash). Bohak (2002: 187–191), in a short summary on ‘The Land of Onias,’ does not conflate the sites. 549. Specifically the Letter of Aristeas, which is problematic. 550. Gruen 2002: 2. See Modrzejewski 1997: 21–44, who dates their arrival to the fifth century. 551. See, e.g., Capponi 2007: 13. 552. See, e.g., Gruen 2002: 68–69. 553. Josephus (C. Ap. 2.43) relates that Alexander himself invited Jews to settle in Alexandria, but this account should probably be discounted (see Gruen 2002: 71; Gruen 1998: 189–200, esp. 199). 554. One quarter, according to Josephus (B.J. 2.488 and C. Ap. 2.35); Philo (Flacc. 55) records that two of the four private residential quarters of the city were Jewish, and Strabo remarks ( Josephus, A.J. 14.117) that “in the city of Alexandria, a large part has been apportioned to [the Jews].” 555. Delia 1988: 287. 556. For a summary of Jews in Alexandria, see Venit 2010b. 557. See, e.g., Gruen 2002: 106–107, 127–128. See also Horbury and Noy 1992: passim, for inscriptions; see also Bohak 1996. 558. A remarkable mummy label in the Cairo Museum (Horbury and Noy 1992: 223–225, no. 133) with a menorah on each side, is inscribed in Hebrew, entreating that “her soul have eternal life.” It is the “only apparently Jewish mummy-label from Egypt” (224). 559. Noy 1994: 162. 560. See Horbury and Noy 1992: 51–182, nos. 29–105 with commentary by Horbury. 561. Bernand 1969: 196–209, with commentary. 562. Acroteria also are seen above the pediments of treasuries that are in temple form, which are set in sanctuaries. See also, e.g., the flying Nike from the anomalous Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios in the Athenian Agora, which was sacred to Zeus (see The Athenian Agora: A Guide to the Excavation and Museum 1990: 78) and the Stoa Basileus (82), both of which are within the confines of the Agora, which itself was bounded.

218

NOTES TO PAGES 88–90

563. Horbury and Noy (1992) collect seventy-seven gravestones. For a possible seventy-eighth inscription on a stone with a triangular pediment and two lateral acroteria, see Sijpesteijn 1990: 122–123, no. 1 (as cited by Noy 1994: 162, n. 2) in the Moen Collection (inv. no. 632). It is for a thirtyfive-year-old Josephos and includes the line, very much in the Greek tradition, “O you who pass by, weep for the unfortunate who died too young” (Sijpesteijn 1990: 123). Three more tombstones from Tel el-Yehoudieh, housed in the inspectorate at Benha, are published by Łajtar 1999: 172– 178. The inscription of the first (174–175) is set in a naiskos with a central and two lateral acroteria. Both the first and the second inscription (174–177) exhibit a similar sentiment of “the untimely dead, excellent one.” 564. A few inscriptions from Alexandria include, or are entirely written in, Hebrew or Aramaic (see Horbury and Noy 1992: 3, no. 3; 7, no. 5 [both funerary inscriptions]; and 25, no. 17, a synagogue dedication). 565. For a summary on scholarly views on the value of epigrams in discerning the afterlife beliefs of the deceased (or their descendants) see Wypustek 2013: 10–28. 566. Bernand 1969: 92–95, no. 15; Horbury and Noy 1992: 74– 78, no. 34. All translations are by Horbury. 567. Horbury and Noy 1992: 90–94, no. 38. 568. Horbury in Horbury and Noy 1992: 91; see also Horst 1994: 133. 569. See, e.g., a tombstone in the Athenian Kerameikos to Dionysos, who is “in the thalamos of Persephone” (Clairmont 1970: 151, no. 76). 570. See, e.g., a gravestone (Athens Epigraphical Museum 9376 [Clairmont 1970: 140, no. 62]) in which the unmarried girl has “gone to the thalamos of Persephone.” 571. See, from Tuna el-Gebel, the epitaph of three children, one of whom is noted as gone, as an “evening star,” to the “house of Hades” (δόμov ῎Αϊδoς) (see Bernand 1999: 168, no. 76). Cf., e.g., the Attic δόμov ῎Αιδος, on the gravestone, Athens, NM 3845 from Vari, last quarter of the fifth century (Clairmont 1970: 89, no. 22). 572. EG 195; see Lattimore 1962: 109; EG 559, 3–4, ibid. 87; EG 569, 5, ibid. 130. 573. SEG 8, 799, 5–6 from Haunia (cited by Horbury in Horbury and Noy 1992: 94); see Lattimore 1962: 96; see also BMI 1084, 1–4 from Naukratis (Lattimore, 193). 574. See Horbury in Horbury and Noy 1992: 94, who cites Psalm 87 (88, in The Jerusalem Bible; “the land of oblivion”), 12–13. 575. For this term, see Horbury in Horbury and Noy 1992: 98; he cites the possibilities that the ‘all-subduer’ is Time, Fate, a divinity, or “a supreme deity” (based on the avoidance of the name), and it is the latter for which he opts. In Jewish context, he continues, this would bring to mind the Almighty, though the Greek authors (he cites Od. XXI.213 and Eur. Alcestis 127) use the term to indicate death or the dead. 576. On the name as Jewish, see Horbury in Horbury and Noy 1992: 99–100; see, however, Bohak (1997: 109–110) who does not accept ‘Jewish’ names as an ethnic determinative and, here, specifically that of Abram[os].

577. Horbury and Noy 1992: 95–96, no. 39 Hades. 578. See, e.g., Ecclesiasticus 14.16, 28.21, 51:6 and 9, and Isaiah 5.14. 579. See, e.g., Ecclesiastes 9.10, 17, and 27–28. 580. Horst 1994: 132; “the LXX [Septuagint] translators used [Hades] freely to render the Hebrew she’ol.” 581. See note 578. 582. The earliest surviving reference to bodily resurrection is Dead Sea Scroll no. 4Q386 (from Cave 4, excavated in 1952) in pseudepigraphic Hebrew, dated to the second half of the first century bce, which is a reworking of the prophesy of Ezekiel 37. Displayed in the exhibit “Dead Sea Scrolls: Life and Faith in Biblical Times,” Discovery Times Square, November 2011 (information from caption at the exhibit). 583. Radt 1999: 553; Bremmer (2002: 6) translation. 584. For further examples of life among the gods, see Wypustek 2013: 34–35, and for astral imagery, 48–64. 585. Horbury and Noy 1992: 69–74, no. 33. 586. See Wypustek 2013: 39, who notes that some scholars would take the notion back to “the Archaic Period.” See also Wypustek (2013: 39–34) for a discussion of the “ether” (aither). 587. Bremmer 2002: 7; for further discussion see Wypustek 2013: 39–47. 588. Phaedo (64C, 245C, and passim); Republic, Book X.XI (611a–612a). 589. In the biblical period, despite general agreement that the dead go down to dreary She’ol, exceptional individuals – Enoch (Genesis 5.24) and Elijah (II Kings 2.11), for example – are permitted to live a celestial afterlife. For less exalted mortals, however, the conception of resurrection of the body is admitted within Jewish eschatological thought beginning only in the Second Temple period. The earliest surviving mention of the resurrection of the body, preserved in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (see above, note 582), reformulates the prophecy of Ezekiel 37. Enoch (1 Enoch, e.g., 22, 27), in his journey, finds the dead awaiting judgement, and in the Testament of Job, probably written in Egypt in the first century bce or the first century ce, an angel assures Job that he will be resurrected (4:6–9), and Job relates the riches that await him in heaven (chapters 31–34); and, finally, in the Book of Job (33.16–30) it is asserted that even sinners can find a release from “the pit.” 590. M. Segal 2010: 844. 591. See Charles 1972: 151. 592. It is, however, equally as clear that for transgressors, the darkness of She’ol is their sole reward (cf., e.g., Jubilees VII.29; XXII.22). 593. Winston 2010: 697. 594. No definitive dates for the life span of Philo exist. For the approximate dates cited earlier, see Schwartz, 2009: 10. 595. See Encyclopaedia Judaica sv Afterlife: vol. I, 337, col. 1 [editorial staff]; see also, more recently, Termini 2009: 108. 596. Horbury and Noy 1992: 60–63, no. 31. 597. See, e.g., VII.186 by Pilippus; VII.188 by Antonius Thallus (Paton 1916–1918, vol. II: 107).

219

NOTES TO PAGES 90–93

598. Athens NM 4889, for the statue. See, e.g., Boardman 1978: 73, for a reading of the base. See, for the theme in general, Rehm 1994 passim and specifically 33 and 36. See also Griessmair 1966: 71–75. 599. Lembke 2010a: 239. 600. Lembke (2010a: 236) notes that the stones in the ‘templetombs’ are smaller than those in the earlier tombs of Petekakem and Petosiris and their surface is rusticated. 601. Perdrizet 1941: 53. 602. Temple-tomb 5 (Perdrizet 1941: 60–63) has the greatest number of Greek elements: two niches on the facade are framed by pilasters with Corinthian capitals that support an entablature with a triglyph-metope frieze and a triangular pediment (which, however, has a disc in relief at its center); its doorway is in Ionic style, framed with an Ionic egg-anddart that Perdrizet (61) compares to those of the Erechtheion in Athens. The building also had a dipinto in Greek on the exterior of a certain Loukios (see Bernand 1999: 124, no. 35). The interior, which contained a structure fitted to receive a sarcophagus, was entirely egyptianizing. 603. See Bernand 1999: 125–126, no. 36. 604. See, e.g., the tomb of Isidora (Perdrizet 1941: 67) and House-tomb 12, without mention of the staircase (90). In fact, Tuna el-Gebel house-tombs closely resemble the tomb of Cleopatra VII, which is described so that it must be imagined as built above ground (an architectural type very rare in Graeco-Roman Egypt beyond Tuna el-Gebel) and that can be visualized as two storied with high windows; the description of the tomb of Cleopatra omits only the outside staircase characteristic of Tuna el-Gebel house-tombs. (See Plutarch, Antony 78.4, 77.1, 79.1 and cf. Cassius Dio 51.10.8–9. Plutarch and Dio both say that the dying Mark Antony was hoisted up by ropes through the high window at which Cleopatra stood, and Plutarch adds that Proculeius, Caesar’s envoy, later needed a ladder to reach the level at which Cleopatra rested. For a reconstruction of Cleopatra’s tomb based on Plutarch’s description see Pfrommer 1999: 142–143 and 142, figs. 194a and b). 605. The restorers were told only that the entrance to the building was prostyle and they took it from there; see Perdrizet 1941: 67. 606. Gabra 1932: 66. 607. Perdrizet 1941: 67. 608. Perdrizet 1941: 68. 609. Toynbee 1971: 63. Roses are also associated with Dionysos (see, e.g., Philostratus [Imagines 1.15], whose Dionysos is wreathed with roses and Seneca [Phaedra 769 and Hercules Furens 18] whose Ariadne wears the wreath). 610. Gabra 1932: 66. 611. Perdrizet 1941: 68; he compares Funerary House 15. For which, the pyramidion-shaped tomb, “the last pyramid” at Tuna el-Gebel (see Flossmann and Sch¨utze 2010) may have served as inspiration. 612. Gabra 1932: 66. 613. Perdrizet (1941: 68) describes it as a bed, cut in a way to form a loculus, but Gabra’s description of the placement of the mummy indicates it as a kline niche.

614. Gabra, 1932: 68; Perdrizet 1941: 68. 615. Venit 2002: 49. For the lion’s paw feet, compare the footstool partially preserved also in the kline room of Moustapha Pasha 2 (see Chapter Two and loc. cit.). See, however, Lembke (2010b: 253–254) who sees it as “an embalming bed.” 616. See Chapter Two and Venit 2002: 129. Raimondi (1998: 117) sees the shell as symbolic of a grotto and referencing mysteries of Pan and Dionysos in which the Nymphs mentioned in the poem had a privileged role. 617. Gabra 1932: 68. 618. At the back of the niche, in the interstices to the right and left of the shell, were painted symbols: at the right was a crescent with dots below and two stars; of the left one, there is no record. Above the niche, to the right and left, two small rectangular light holes were pierced for light and air. See Perdrizet 1941: 68. The floors of both rooms are painted red (Gabra 1932: 68). 619. See Graindor and Waddell 1932: 98. 620. See, e.g., F. Dunand in Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 328–329. 621. Bernand 1969: 343; translation, Larson 2001: 192; square brackets mine. 622. See Bernand 1969: 350–351; translation, Larson 2001: 192– 193; square brackets mine. 623. For representations of Hylas and the nymphs see LIMC V.1 sv Hylas: 574–578 [ J. H. Oakley] and V.2: pls. 396–399. 624. The Krenaia of the epitaph, however, is not part of the literary tradition. Apollonius does not name his nymph at all, and Theocritus does not specify Krenaia among those whom he has spirit Hylas away. Nor is Krenaia named by other ancient authors, who allude to the story – Theocritus, Idyll 13 (350–310 bce); Apollonios Rhodios, Argonautika, I. 1175–1280 (ca. 250 bce); Apollodorus, Library 1.9.19 (140 bce); Vergil, Ecologue II.45–50 (before 37 bce) and Georgics III.6 (ca. 37–29 bce); Sextus Propertius, Elegies, I.20.17–50 (50–15 bce); Ovid, Ibis, 488 (8–18 ce); Seneca the Younger, Medea, 646–649 (first century ce); Gaius Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica III (period of Vespasian, ca. 69–79); Hyginus, Fabulae, XIV.125 (date unknown). Krenaia does appear as the name for the nymph of a spring on a Paestan bell krater bearing the myth of Kadmos (Naples NM 82258 (H3226) signed by Asteas, 360–350 bce; LIMC V.1 sv Kadmos I: 868, no. 23 and V.2: pl. 559 [M. A. Tiverios]) in the scene of Cadmos killing the serpent with Athena behind him and Thebe sitting on a rock. Above Athena, are the old king Ismenos (as a half-figure) and the fountain nymph KPHNAIH with headband and chiton (also as a half-figure), but the name’s similarity to κρήvη, spring or fountain (KPHNH is seen as one of the river nymphs in Odyssey frieze, LIMC VI.1 sv Laistrygones: 187, no. 1 [C. Lochin]), renders it more generic than Theban. The author of the poem may have had the same thought in mind when he named his nymph Krenaia, though he had a number of choices had he used Theocritus as the model for the myth. 625. Larson (1997: 133) notes that the abduction of Hylas as an epitaphic allusion (in the Roman period, at least) is limited

220

NOTES TO PAGES 93–95

626. 627.

628.

629. 630. 631. 632. 633. 634.

635. 636. 637. 638. 639.

640. 641. 642.

643. 644. 645.

646.

647.

648. K´akosy 1982: 295, translates θύω as “offering,” but “sacrifice” is more normal for the term, and that is the translation supported by other authors. 649. According to Scheid (2003: 168–169), in Rome, blood sacrifice accompanied the funerary and commemorative rites. It is difficult, nonetheless, to see any influence from Rome in the tomb of Isidora. 650. See discussion in Chapter One of tomb of Petosiris bull sacrifice and consider Flores 2003, whose interest is more in the origin of sacred animal cemeteries, but – in addition to animal burials – also catalogs animals found with humans in early tombs. Based on the altars in the courtyards of Alexandrian monumental tombs (see Chapter Two and note 268 above) – some of which still preserved ashes when excavated – and concurrent with other Egyptian themes, Greeks were comfortable adopting funerary sacrifice in Alexandria as well, though not necessarily blood sacrifice. 651. Bernand 1969: 353. 652. See, e.g., Parker 1974: 52; Bochi 2003: 159. 653. Bochi 2003:163. 654. Humphreys 1981: 275–278. 655. Bernand 1969: 354. An image of Narcissus is painted in a Classically inspired Roman-period tomb at Massyaf in cental Syria (see Chapouthier 1954). 656. Hani 1974: 216. 657. See Perdrizet 1941: 89. 658. Perdrizet 1941: 94. 659. Perdrizet 1941: 95. 660. Perdrizet 1941: 94. 661. An altar in front of the door does not belong to House-tomb 4, but to another house-tomb (see Perdrizet 1941: 76). 662. For a color image see Gabra 1954: pl. 10. 663. Perdrizet (1941: 76–77) describes a white cover with a braiding of black netting over the mattress, which is visible neither in the watercolor drawing, Gabra 1954: pl. 10, nor in the black-and-white photo, Gabra 1941: pl. XXXVII. The mattress itself is painted green, with a net of white (or yellow, according to Gabra 1954: pl. 10) dots with red flowers in the interstices (see Perdrizet 1941: 77). 664. See Gabra 1954: pl. 9 for a color image. 665. Perdrizet 1941: 77. 666. Perdrizet 1941: 77; the krater in not visible to our right of the ciste, nor is the second thryrsus, in either Fig. 3.5 here or in Gabra (1941), pl. XXXVIII, or Gabra (1954), pl. 9, but the staff of a thyrsos and a crater are figured in Gabra (1954), pl. 8, and they are probably the ones from the tomb. Perdrizet (1941: 77) likens the basket to the one that holds the sacred objects necessary for “the δρώμενα and the δεικνύμενα of the mystery cult of whom the deceased . . . was perhaps the hierophant.” 667. Graf and Johnston 2007: 143. See also Burkert 1987: 23, who notes that images of “the cista mistica with the snake [and] the liknon with phallus” are indications of Dionysiac mysteries. 668. See note 666 above.

to young children and females to avoid the erotic connotations. See note 690 below. F. L. Griffith 1909: 132–134; he says (132) that he had previously addressed the issue in the National Home-reading Union Magazine (Special Courses) for June 1904. Raimondi 1998 provides the fullest bibliography on the epitaphs. M. A. Murray 1914; see also Foucart 1918: 162–163, who adduces children as heroes independent of any death by drowning. M. A. Murray 1914: 130. M. A. Murray 1914: 134. Graindor in Graindor and Waddell 1932: 97–112. Hani 1974. For complete bibliography on the inscription see Bernand 1969: 342–357, nos. 86 and 87, and Raimondi 1998. Garland (1985: 9–10) argues that the phrase is a normal epithet for the deceased by the Hellenistic period. C. Segal (1974: 32) speaks, however, of the “resurrection” of Hylas, arguing that the language of Theocritus suggests the rebirth of Hylas who “enacts a fantasy of returning to the womb and being born again”; Segal accepts the phrase in line 73 to indicate that Hylas “plunges into their [the nymphs’] dark realm to emerge an immortal.” K´akosy 1982: 290–298. K´akosy 1982: 295. Wypustek 2013: 159, partly based on Raimondi 1998. Bernand 1969: 345, nos. 86 and 8, with previous bibliography. Nock 1986: 924; see 920–921; 924–926 for other Greek epitaphs in which the deceased is carried off by Nymphs or Nereids. See also 925, n. 27, citing Robert and Robert 1954: 183, who bluntly state that Isidora’s death was not by drowning and for Nock’s parsing of the term ἒγvωv. See, e.g., Wypustek 2013: 30–39 for examples. See, e.g., Boardman 1978: 73. See, esp., Hani 1974: 217–221; K´akosy 1982: esp. 294–296. For references to Egyptian immortality for the drowned add the text of the tenth hour of the Amduat (see Hornung 1999: 40: “saved from decay and decomposition by Horus, who leads them to a blessed posthumous existence”) and the Ninth Hour of the Book of Gates that echoes the theme (Hornung, ibid. 64). But see Raimondi 1998: 117; Thomas 2000: 16–18. See the previous discussion above and notes 569 and 570. See, e.g., Griessmair 1966: 70–71. He cites a number of epitaphs including AP VII.183; AP VII.649 (“instead of a bridal chamber, a marble stele”). (For the verses he cites, see Paton 1916–1918: 105 and 347.) See Griessmair 1966: 70, who cites Peek 1955: 683, no. 1250a; second half of the fourth century bce from Rhamnous, “ οἳ τάφον ἀντὶ γάμου.” See also, for similar concepts, e.g., Peek 1955: 183, no. 710 from Pantikapaion from the first century ce; Peek 1955: 261, no. 947 dating to the second to first centuries bce. See, e.g., K´akosy 1982: 294–296 and Boll´ok 1972 on the nymphs of the Nile as Egyptian.

221

NOTES TO PAGES 95–99

687. Brill’s New Pauly 2002–2010, vol. 9, sv Nimbus: cols. 763– 766 [J. Quack, J. Renger, and D. Willers]; see also Ahlqvist (1990), who begins the discussion only in the later Roman Imperial period. In the Classical world, a rayed diadem is normally associated with Helios and with nimbused Roman emperors from Augustus onward (see, e.g., Geissen, vol. 1, 1974: 26– 30, nos. 48–59; 28, no. 56 [Augustus on coins of Tiberius]). Even earlier, coin portraits of Ptolemy III and Ptolemy V show the rulers with a radiate crown (see R. R. R. Smith 1991: pl. 75, figs. 9 and 11). A nimbus is also worn by Souchos, an Egyptian solar deity assimilated to Helios (cf. Cairo 26902, a terracotta plaque; see F. Dunand 1979: 274, no. 366 and pl. 126; LIMC VII.1 sv Souchos: 802, no. 24 [Z. Kiss]; see also LIMC ibid. 802, nos. 23 and 25–28), Serapis (see, e.g., Alexandrian coins of Lucius Verus, Geissen, vol. 3, 1982: 68, nos. 2147– 2148, called Serapis-Pantheos by Geissen), and Isis (see, e.g., Madrid, Archaeological Museum 2084, Arslan 1997: 112, III.28; see also LIMC V.1 sv Isis: 780, no. 250d [V. Tran Tam Tinh]). 688. On a lug-handled bowl by the Underworld Painter in a Vienna private collection (Lindner 1984: 27, no. 18a and pl. 6), dated 330–320, the heads of both Kore and Hades are encircled by a single radiate disc. 689. Lindner 1984: 45; 103. The ensemble of scenes in the ‘Nebengrab,’ unknown to Lindner) is unusual (see Chapter Two). 690. The Persephone tomb at Vergina contained the bones of a woman, a man, and a baby (see Bartsiokas and Carney 2007– 2009; the tomb is variously designated Tomb 1 and Tomb 2; in this article, it is titled Tomb 1); the columbarium of the Via Portuensis (see, e.g., Jones 1912: 276, no. 71 and Helbig 1963–1972, vol. II: no. 1674 [K. Parlasca]) that preserves the scene was a communal tomb. 691. See Chapter Two for the evidence in Alexandria for the relationship between the Persephone myth and that of the Egyptian Osiris. 692. Perdrizet (1941: 100) reports its discovery as in the vestibule on the second floor (“1er e´ tage”) of a house-tomb, thirty meters to the northwest of House 16. He provides a more complete report on 103–104, in which it appears that the painting was on the lower part of the wall of the pronaos (= vestibule?) of the tomb (103). See also Gabra 1934: 268, in which he sites it thirty meters from the house with the painting of Oedipus. For a photograph of the fragment close to its discovery, see Gabra 1941: pl. XLIX.2. 693. Gabra 1954: pl. 16. 694. Gabra 1932: pl. 49, 2. 695. Cairo 63611; LIMC III.1 sv Equus Troianus: 814, no. 11 [A. Sadurska]; Meer 1977–78: 87 and 131, fig. 104. Sparkes 1971: 54–70 remains the most complete discussion of images of the myth, but he does not include the Tuna el-Gebel painting. 696. Meer (1977–78: 87) notes the wheels and the similarity of the composition to that in the later Vatican Virgil (MS 3225, fol. 19; ca. 420 ce).

669. For the papyrus, see Graf and Johnston 2007: 188–189; for the edict of Ptolemy IV Philopator, see 189–190; the period of the decree is not absolutely secure and may instead date to the reign of Philapator’s father, Euergetes (190), but the absolute date is not of consequence here. See also Graf and Johnston 2013: 218–219. 670. Hordern 2000: 131–140, dated by J. G. Smyly (131); see also Graf and Johnston 2007: 188–189; Graf and Johnston 2013: 217–218. 671. Bowden 2010: 137. 672. See Chapter Two (Fig. 2.32 and notes 515 and 516 above). 673. See Bernand 1999: 165; Bernand 1969: 110. Bernand accepts the date originally proposed by Paul Graindor (Graindor and Waddell 1932: 114) of “before the second century.” 674. Gabra (1932: 71) says a propylon and a sleeping chamber. 675. See Bernand 1999: 165, no 74; Bernand 1969: 109, no. 21; Graindor and Waddell 1932: 112–114; Perdrizet 1941: 73. Only the lower part of the epigram remained in place when the building was excavated; its beginning verses were reconstructed from twenty-three fragments found in the sand that had filled the niche. 676. Gabra 1932: 71. When excavated, the column to the right still had the lower part of its capital (74); for a color image see Gabra 1954: pl. 20, left. 677. Perdrizet 1941: 74. It is nevertheless still extant in situ, though very ill preserved (see Lembke 2012: 216, fig. 13.8). 678. Perdrizet 1941: 74, describes Hermes as wearing on his forehead a large lotus petal, characteristic of Hermes-Thoth trismegistus, but though the watercolor does show him with something in the middle of his forehead, it does not resemble a lotus petal, and it may be a misinterpretation of one of the wings Hermes often wears. 679. Roman poets note the blackness of the horses (Ovid, Met. V.360; Orph. Argon. 1194; Claudian, De Raptu Proserpinae II.XXXV.277). 680. A ‘Flavian Baroque’ reading of the Arch of Titus having chronological import is disputed by Pfanner (1983: 58–63), though he agrees that the spacial phenomenon, as defined by Blanckenhagen and others, exists. 681. Ling 1991: 183. 682. M. Dunand and Rey-Coquais 1965: 5–49; dated by Ling (1991:183, caption to fig. 199) presumably following M. Dunand; dated by Lindner (1984: 55, no. 42) ca. 150. 683. Chapouthier 1954: 172–211; dated second half of the second century ce; Mielsch 1981: 245 “Antonine”; for the later date see, e.g., LIMC IV.1 sv Hades: 382, no. 97, second half of the second century/beginning of the third [R. Lindner] and LIMC VI.1 sv Narkissos: 704, no. 7, second half of the second century through the third [B. Rafn]). 684. Though a fecund female or male is sometimes shown under the bodies of the chariot horses on sarcophagi. For Massyaf, see Chapouthier 1954: 181–192, pls. XXI–XXII and pl. B, 3, for the tomb and 185–186 for examples of the figures under the chariot horses (see also Lindner 1984: pls. 21 [bottom] to 26, and for the Ge motif as unique, 106). 685. Chapouthier 1954: 183. 686. Perdrizet 1941: 74. Lindner (1984: 133, n. 216) does not accept that the Tuna el-Gebel Hades is haloed.

222

NOTES TO PAGES 99–101

697. Florence MA 5766; Meer 1977–1978: 86 and 130, fig. 102; LIMC III.1 sv Equus Troianus: 816, no. 29 and III.2: pl. 592, fig. 29 [A. Sadurska]; Sparkes 1971: 67 and pl. 4a. 698. Meer 1977–1978: 87 and 130, fig. 103; LIMC III.1 sv Equus Troianus: 814, no. 13 and III.2: pl. 590, fig. 13 [A. Sadurska]. 699. See LIMC III.1 sv Equus Troianus: 814, no. 10 [A. Sadurska]. 700. LIMC III.1 sv Equus Troianus: 815, no. 23 and III.2: pl. 591, fig. 23 [A. Sadurska]; see also Sparkes 1971: 55–56 and 55, fig. 1; Sparkes (56) is reluctant to propose that the cursory mention in the Odyssey would have underlain this image. 701. Sparkes 1971: 55–56 and 55, fig. 1; LIMC III.1 sv Equus Troianus: 815, no. 22 and III.2: pl. 591, fig. 22, dated end of the eighth century [A. Sadurska]. 702. In nonfunerary context, paintings of the story of the Trojan Horse decorated the Lesche of the Knidians at Delphi (Paus X.26.2) and, later, houses at Pompeii. Reiterating the opinion of other scholars, Sparkes (1971: 67) differentiates the latter as having as their source Virgil’s Aeneid, rather than any Greek poem. 703. Weitzmann (1959: 47) sees the Little Iliad as the source of the banqueting Trojans set upon by the Greeks “as hinted at in Proclus’ summary” (“The Trojans . . . take the wooden horse into their city and feast as though they had conquered the Hellenes”; trans Evelyn-White 1943: 511); in Proclus’ account, this incident greatly precedes the moment when the Greeks leap from the horse to engage the Trojans, but it does appear to be the only extant mention of a Trojan banquet in relation to the horse, and it may have been placed earlier in the original. 704. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Art Museum 1935.551; LIMC III.1 sv Equus Troianus: 814, fig. 12 and III.2: pl. 590, no. 12 [A. Sadurska]; Sparkes 1971: 68–69; Hopkins 1935: 295–296 and 297, fig. 4. 705. See above, note 696. 706. Meer 1977–1978: 87–90, specifically 87 for the Tuna elGebel painting. 707. Vergil, Aeneid II.49. 708. According to Perdrizet 1941: 97. He is seemingly following Gabra (1934: 267–268), who says that on the outer walls, the owner had represented scenes taken from the myth of Agamemnon and from the legend of Oedipus, though he then describes all the paintings as being in rooms in the house. Gabra also says (268) that another painting, ill preserved, was set below the painting of Oedipus. It showed a woman seated in the attitude of sadness in front of a round temple, whom he identifies as probably Antigone, the daughter of Oedipus, seated in front of the tomb of her father. This painting is not mentioned further, and it is probable that the reference is actually to the painting identified as Electra, noted in the name of the house, and on which see below. 709. Perdrizet 1941: 97. Perdrizet (98) imagines its owner as a professional actor or a professor of literature, seeing theatrical influence in the scenes (and figures) represented. 710. Perdrizet 1941: 98; Gabra (1934: 268) says only that they were found in the same house.

711. A third fragment showed a person, unbearded, posed frontally, wearing a garment pinned with a fibula at either shoulder. See Perdrizet 1941: 98. 712. Perdrizet (1941: 98) interprets the building as a tholos, because of the curved architrave, and though the stylobate is horizontal, he is almost certainly correct. 713. Cairo Museum 6248; for a color image see Gabra 1954: pl. 17, upper left; see, also, for a detail of Electra and the building upon excavation, Gabra 1941: pl. XLV. 714. See, e.g., Bielfeldt 2005. 715. See Bielfeldt 2005: 39–40 for the few sarcophagi that show the scene of the meeting at the tomb; see also New York 28.57.8a–d fragments from the short right side (LIMC III.1 sv Electra: 713, no. 31 [I. McPhee], dated 150–165) and the short right-side panel from a lost sarcophagus (LIMC III.1 sv Electra: 713, no. 32 [I. McPhee], dated 140–180). 716. British Museum 1907.0520.79, dated to the second half of the fourth century bce. It assumes the form of a round building with exterior columns. 717. See, for a color image of one example, Gabra 1954: pl. 11, top right; see also Kaplan 1999: pl. 76c and pl. 77b; and see here Fig. 4.4. 718. Popkin 2012: 220–221. 719. For a cock painted in a tomb, cf. the Taranto tomb from Piazza D’Armi (Tin`e Bertocchi 1964: 65 and 67, fig. 42 [here associated with two fish], which she interprets as being of the same genre as a still life). See also the Locri plaques in which Kore, seated in the underworld, holds a cock (Bernab´e Pajares et al. 2008: 285, fig. 4 and 287, fig. 5) and designated by Ricardo Olmos (ibid. 284) as “an infernal animal of passage.” See also LIMC IV.1 sv Hades: 377, no. 55 and 377, fig. 55 [R. Lindner] (Heidelberg University) and 378–379, no. 59 and 378, fig. 59 (Reggio Calabria), among others, for other Locri plaques with cocks. Cocks seem to appear primarily on Locri plaques with Hades and Persephone, and Lindner (391) sees these plaques as depicting an interpretatio graeca of a local Sicilian pair of heroes. 720. See, e.g., Simon 1962: 760–761. In the Roman period, Romans substitute Amazons for their northern enemy (776–777). 721. They are also associated with Apollo and the sun in the Roman period. See Simon 1962: 763–774. 722. See Simon (1962: 779–780), who sees it as one of their roles. 723. See, e.g., Trendall and Webster 1971: 41, III.1 and 2; 42–43, III.1, 3–6 (the latter four are the iconic images of the scene, though they do not follow the text closely). 724. For a vase-painting image, see Vienna 689 (SK 195, 69), a Lucanian bell-krater by the Sydney Painter, 360–350 bce (Trendall and Webster 1971: 66, III.2, 5). 725. For images see LIMC III sv Electra [I. McPhee] and Trendall and Webster 1971: 41–44, 66. 726. See a Melian plaque, Berlin Staatliche Museen, Terr. inv. 6803 (Trendall and Webster 1971: 41, III.1, 1; LIMC III.1 sv Electra: 714, no. 42 [I. McPhee]). McPhee takes the image as another moment in the drama but cites another very fragmentary Melian plaque (714, no. 43), which would follow the play. A red-figured Attic skyphos by the Penelope

223

NOTES TO PAGES 101–104

727.

728. 729.

730. 731.

732.

733. 734.

735. 736.

737.

Painter (Copenhagen, National Museum inv. 597; ARV 2 1301, 5; Trendall and Webster 1971: 41, III.1, 2; LIMC III.1 sv Electra: 713, 1, no. 34 [I. McPhee]) also seems to follow the text. Both date closely after the first production of Aeschylus’ drama. Visual images apparently based on the play focus on the main protagonists – Orestes, Pylades, and Electra – grouped around the stele that marks the grave (see, e.g., Trendall and Webster 1971: 42–44, III.1 3–6). The most literal image, on the skyphos in Copenhagen (see above), shows Electra and her servant symmetrically grouped at the stele on one side of the vase and Orestes and Pylades, gazing toward the two women beyond the handle decoration, on the other. The closest image to ours is on a Lucanian Panathenaic amphora, Naples 82140, by a painter near the BrooklynBudapest Painter (LIMC III.1 sv Electra: 710–711, no. 6; III.2: pl. 543 [I. McPhee]) dated 380, which shows Orestes and Pylades moving forward, having reached the tomb, which is marked by a stele. It is a variant on the symmetrical composition, though marked by more movement on the males’ part than most. Cf., e.g., the funerary urn from Olbia, British Museum 1907.0520.79. Seaford 1994b: 275–288; he repeats his conviction of the connection between the Oresteia and the mysteries in Seaford 1994a: 373–374. This discussion is a slight revision and a considerable extension of my essay, Venit 2012b. Now in the Cairo Museum as Cairo, Egyptian Museum 63609 (Bernand 1999: 156 gives the number of the fresco as Cairo 6247). It measures 2.15 m long and 0.85 cm high. For a photograph of the fresco upon excavation, see Gabra 1941: pl. XLVI. Mount Kithairon has the double summit indicated in the painting, but it is not (and certainly was not) as barren as the rocky landscape in the painting. However, since no model can be demonstrated to underlie the composition as a whole, little reason exists to imagine that the painter was intimately aware of the configuration of the Theban landscape, so the double summit should remain Mount Kithairon’s identifier. See note 681 above. Slight discrepancies arise between the watercolor illustration and the painting, but not enough to justify Phyllis Lehmann’s characterization (in Lehmann 1962: 68) of the watercolor as “crude.” See, e.g., note 775, below. See, e.g., illustrations in Moret 1984: vol. II. The skull that lies against the base that supports the sphinx is not so well defined in the published photograph, and the second skull does not appear in the fragment inserted in the lacuna in the watercolor. Human skulls, however, have an occasional place in the composition, especially when the sphinx scene is incorporated into a funerary monument – see, e.g., Etruscan urns (Moret 1984, vol. II: pl. 70, 1 and 2; pl. 71, 1) and a mosaic from an Ostia necropolis (pl. 84, 1). Also seen in a limited number of other Roman-period representations. See, e.g., the lost painting from the Tomb of the Nasonii (Moret 1984, vol. I: 183–184, no. 156, and vol. II: pl. 78.2), Athens NM sarcophagus (vol. I: 184, no. 159,

738.

739. 740. 741. 742.

743.

744. 745.

746.

747.

748. 749.

750.

751.

752.

753. 754.

224

and vol. II: pl. 80.1), and Marseilles 1672 (a sarcophagus acroterion, vol. I: 186, no. 169 and vol. II: pl. 87, 1 and 2). In none of these images (or others like them), however, does the sphinx react to Oedipus’ response as she does in the Tuna el-Gebel painting. See Lehmann 1962: 67 for the interpretation of the gesture in the Tuna el-Gebel painting. For other Roman images that replicate the gesture see, e.g., the mosaic from the Pianabella necropolis, Ostia (LIMC VII.1 sv Oidipous: 5, no. 32 and VII.2: pl. 8; second to third centuries ce [I. Krauskopf]); and the Attic sarcophagus, Athens NM 5846 (VII.1: 5, no. 35 and VII.2: pl. 8; third quarter of second century ce). Perdrizet 1941: 100. Lehmann 1962: 67. See LIMC VIII.1 sv Zetema: 309, no. 1 [F. Canciani]. Exceptions that come to mind are Bithynian Kios, Korinthos, and Salamis, but there are others. For a partial list and discussion, see Venit 2003: 49–50. Pompeii V 4.11 (LIMC VI.1 sv Narkissos: 704, no. 1 and VI.2: pl. 415 [B. Rafn]); see, for other examples, VI.1: 703– 711 and VI.2: pls. 415–420. Lehmann 1962: 67. He is closely followed by Baldassarre 1970. Ovid. Met. 10.106–142; Pompeii VI 15, 1 (House of the Vettii); see LIMC VI.1 sv Kyparissos: 165–166 and 165, no. 4 and VI.2: pl. 77 [J.-R. Gisler]. See, e.g., the Roman marble urn, British Museum 2382 (LIMC V.1 sv Hippolytos I: 449, no. 37 and V. 2: pl. 319 [P. Linant de Bellesfond]), the sarcophagus, Beirut National Museum 447 (V.1: 448, no. 25, and V.2: pl. 318), and especially the lost painting, Pompeii VIII 4.34 (V.1: 451, no. 47 and fig. on 451). See, e.g., Naples NM 9246, a painting from Herculaneum (LIMC III.1 sv Endymion: 730, no. 19 and III.2: pl. 552, [H. Gabelmann]), and the mosaic from Ostia’s Isola Sacra, grave no. 87 (LIMC III.1: 731, no. 29 and III.2: pl. 553). See Sichtermann 1976: 534–550. For Adonis, see Hodske 2010: 187 and 187, fig. 5 (Pompeii, Casa di Successus). The author’s focus is on the introduction of androgynous, nude youths populating Fourth-Style walls in Pompeii. See, e.g., the seated figure on the east wall of Viridium h of the Casa dei Cei at Pompeii (Mitchel 1990: 86, and fig. 276). See, e.g., Rome, National Museum, inv. 1187 from the southwest wall of the anteroom of the Villa Farnesina (Bragantini and de Vos 1982: 191 and pl. 97). See, e.g., Venus fishing, from the north wall of Room R (a cubiculum) from the Casa degli Amorini Dorati at Pompeii (Seiler et al. 1992: 57 and fig. 389. Cf., e.g., nymphs in paintings from Boscotrecase (Anderson 1987–1988: 50 and 53 and see below, note 765). Hodske (2010: 186–187) suggests that the appearance of the Hermaphrodite in Fourth-Style painting permitted the gender leap for the motif, for which he cites Aphrodite as Fisher (see note 752 above). This observation addresses the formal change of gender, but also underscores that meaning does not necessarily follow form.

NOTES TO PAGES 104–106

755. See, e.g., above, note 748. 756. The watercolor does not indicate Zetema’s irises and pupils, which are fairly clear in the original. 757. Whereas one might argue a similarity between Narcissus and Kyparissos, Adonis, Ganymede, and Endymion – since all were amorously pursued by a deity, and perhaps even to Hippolytus, who also proved fatally attractive – only a stretch of the imagination (and sexual allure) would link the use of the pose to nymphs and Venus. Since the theme of sex underlies much of the narrative of myth, however, this connection appears too broad to consider practicable. A connection of a meaningful Narcissus pose to generic males and females is even a further stretch. 758. Lehmann (1962: 63) acknowledges this dichotomy while still insisting on the connection of model to meaning. 759. Xenophanes, frag. 15; see Diels and Kranz 1906–1910, vol. I: 49; Lesher 1992: 24–25 for text and his translation and 89– 94 for interpretation and for other fragments that address the same issue. 760. See, e.g., Israel, private collection, Attic red-figured skyphos, side B; (LIMC VII.1 sv Salamis: 652, no. 2 (as Swiss, private collection) [E. Manakidou] and LIMC VII.1 sv Thebe: 915 (no number) [C. Vlassopoulou]; A. C. Smith 1997: 3, 48, and 281, no. VP 11 [Thebe inscribed]; the personification of the Boeotian city, appears on one side of the vase, Salamis on the other; ca. 460). Thebe also appears inscribed, denoting Thebes, in the last quarter of the fifth century in the scene of Kadmos attacking the dragon (Berlin F 2634, red-figured hydria by the Kadmos Painter, ARV 2 1187, no. 33; LIMC VII.1 sv Thebe: 914, no. 3 [C. Vlassopoulou], dated end of the fifth century, and LIMC IV.1 sv Harmonia: 413, no. 2; IV.2: 239, dated 420–410 [E. Paribeni]; see also, Shapiro 1993: 103; 241, no. 49; 103, fig. 56 (dated 410–400); A. C. Smith 1997: 47 and 305, no. VP 34). 761. Perdrizet 1941: 99 sees it as “a fan in the form of a leaf of a white water lily”; it is less fanlike and more budlike in the original painting than in the colorplate, and Thebe is, after all, the nymph of the spring of Boeotian Thebes, where a water lily should be out of place. 762. See note 760. 763. See e.g., London, British Museum G 104, another relief skyphos on which she holds a scepter (LIMC VII.1 sv Thebe: 915, no. 12 [C. Vlassopoulou], LIMC I.1 sv Antigone: fig. on 821 [I. Krauskopf ]), and New York 1922.139.1, a redfigured bell krater (LIMC VII.1 sv Thebe: 914, no. 7; LIMC IV.2 sv Harmonia: pl. 239 [E. Paribeni]). 764. See, e.g., LIMC VII.1 sv Thebe: 915, no.18, and VII.2: pl. 620 [C. Vlassopoulou]. 765. As seen, for example, in a statuette, possibly from women’s baths in the Piraeus (British Museum GR 1885.8-4.1 [Sculpture 1713], dated 200–100 bce) and a larger replica, Palatine Museum inv. no. 12, as well as in the two paintings from Boscotrecase noted in note 753. 766. Lucian says that the two women flanking a man with huge ears “seem to me (μοι δοκεȋ) to be Ignorance and Suspicion.” The date of Lucian’s Apelles is problematic, however, since the historical event he mentions in connection

767. 768. 769. 770.

771.

772.

773.

774. 775.

776.

777.

225

with Apelles – a conspiracy against Ptolemy III Philopator – occurred a full century later than the working period of the Apelles celebrated by Pliny (Nat. Hist. XXXV.XXXVI.79– 97) as the only painter permitted to paint Alexander’s portrait, and Pliny confirms that Apelles was active in the court of Ptolemy I. Antiphilos, Apelles’ accuser, who provoked the painting, was also active in the fourth century. Lucian, writing long after both events, might have conflated his sources. See Pollitt 1990: 163 and Cast 1981: 10–11, n. 10, for full discussion and bibliography. Perdrizet 1941: 99. This observation is one of the reasons that Perdrizet credits the theater as the painting’s inspiration. Cited as 23.1 by Lehmann (1962: 64). See also LIMC I.1 sv Agnoia: 302 [F. Canciani]. For the date, see Pesce 1982: 11. Found at Oxyrrynchos in Egypt (Oxford, PapOx 2652; LIMC I.1 sv Agnoia: 302, no. 1 and I.2: pl. 221 [F. Canciani]). Recognizing a similarity in pose between the Tuna el-Gebel Agnoia and the winged daemon flagellating a young woman on the rear wall of the painted room in the Villa of the Mysteries near Pompeii, Lehmann (1962: 62–68) proposes that the figure in the Villa painting is also Agnoia. With Agnoia, he also associates a figure on a mosaic from Djemila (LIMC I.1 sv Agnoia: 303, no. 5 and I.2: pl. 222 [F. Canciani]) and a carved sardonyx, Cab. des M´ed. 62 and Cab. des M´ed. 63 (LIMC I.1: 303, nos. 6 and 7; I.2: pl. 222). Fulvio Canciani (LIMC I.1 sv Agnoia: 303) categorizes both as “Documenti dubbia interpretazione.” See LIMC VI.1 sv Laios: 186, nos. 3–7 [O. TouchefeuMeynier]. See also Moret (1984 vol. I: 2), who notes one Greek image on a very fragmentary vase (Adria Bc 104, bell krater by Polygnotos, ARV 2 1029, no. 19, and 1678–1679; Moret 1984, vol. II: pl. 1.3), which seems to show Oedipus, having leapt down from his chariot, attacking Laios with his staff, while Kalliope watches; see also, for the few Roman examples of the death of Laios, Moret 1984, vol. I: 127, n. 6. Vatican 10.408 (Moret 1984, vol. I: 184, no. 161 [ca. 220 ce] and II, pl. 83; LIMC VI.1 sv Laios: 186, no. 7 [O. Touchefeu-Meynier]). Moret 1984, vol. I: 127. In the original painting, Oedipus’ chest is drawn with greater definition and his left arm is somewhat brawnier, mitigating the flat expanse of chest seen in the colorplate. Lehmann (1962: 63) identifies the stele as denoting a sanctuary, but the two circular protuberances near the top of the stele can also serve to indicate or to carry funerary wreaths. Lehmann (1962: 67) interprets Agnoia in the Tuna el-Gebel painting as urging Oedipus on as he commits patricide, but this interpretation is necessitated by the thesis of his article rather than by any value-neutral visual analysis. For the interpretation of Agnoia “expressing extreme horror by a theatrical gesture,” see Moret 1984, vol. I: 120, n. 8, who cites also K¨orte 1874: passim. Moret sees the gesture as paradoxical since it is Agnoia who has precipitated the action that leads to the death of Laios.

NOTES TO PAGES 106–113

778. 779. 780. 781. 782.

783. 784. 785. 786.

787.

788. 789. 790. 791. 792. 793. 794.

795. 796.

797. 798. 799. 800. 801. 802. 803. 804. 805. 806. 807.

808. See Kurth 1990: 24, who says that those who created both the paintings and inscriptions were acquainted with GraecoRoman-period Egyptian temples. 809. Hornung 1999: 13. 810. Taylor 2010: 59, citing Lejeune 2006 and Quirk 1999. 811. See, e.g., Quaegebeur 1990: 786. 812. Hornung 1999: 24. 813. Hornung 1999: 55–56 and 83. 814. Olaf Kaper notes a rare image of Scene 62 from the Sixth Hour in the Book of Gates – a double-sided triple cobra with human legs and a human figure holding it – painted in one of the Graeco-Roman tombs at Bir el-Shaghala in the Dakhla Oasis (personal communication: September 29, 2014). 815. Kessler 1986: col. 802. 816. See note 822 below. 817. Gabra 1941: 14. 818. Gabra 1941: 19 and 19, fig. 4. 819. Gabra (1941: 14) sees the destruction of the tomb as of recent (i.e., twentieth-century) date. He dates the tomb later than that of Petosiris on the basis of the entrance stair flanked by two ramps, which, he says, evoke Ptolemaic style, and he identifies the woman as a priestess or a magician based on the vials and other objects found with the mummy. MinasNerpel (2012/13: 66, n. 6, with bibliography) indicates that there is no solid date for the tomb of Padykam, the name she retains for the tomb. The tomb of Djedthothiufankh, elder brother of Petosiris (see Kessler 1986: col. 802), also near the tomb of Petosiris (see Sabottka 1983a; Minas-Nerpel 2012– 2013: 66) is constructed similarly to the tomb of Petosiris and Petekakem and preserves painted reliefs of processions of votaries on the inside walls of its inner room; among these is a scene of a bull being led forward, a bunch of lotuses tied about his neck (see Gabra 1954: pl. 1 [below]). 820. Perdrizet 1941: 101. 821. Perdrizet 1941: 101. 822. See Kaplan 1999: 160–162, esp. 160 and pl. 75; based on Grimm 1975: 233, n. 75, and Kaplan 1999 pls. 63–77. 823. See Kaplan 1999: 160. Building a second story onto an existing mudbrick or stone tomb is common at Tuna el-Gebel (see Lembke 2010a: 242). In modern Egyptian villages, multiple stories are often added to extend the original house. 824. Perdrizet 1941: 101; see Kaplan 1999: pl. 77d. 825. For these images, see Kaplan 1999: pls. 77a and b. 826. See Kaplan 1999: pl. 77b. 827. Kurth 1990: 59, mentioned in relation to the falcon in the burial room of House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel discussed immediately below. 828. See Kaplan 1999, pl. 78d. 829. Kaplan 1999, pl. 78c. 830. For figures in a cauldron and a discussion, see Bissing’s tomb from 1897 in Chapter Five. 831. Quoting Dr. Barbara Mertz, who, as Elizabeth Peters, wrote a book of that title that references Thoth, and in her memory. 832. See Chapter Three for the possible meaning of the confronted cocks; see also Perdrizet 1941: 102–103, specifically 102.

Perdrizet 1941: 100. Baldassarre 1970: 944. Baldassarre 1970: 944–945. Moret 1984, vol. I: 123. Moret 1984, vol. I: 123. His conclusion is that the symbolic recurrences of the city of Thebes show that the myth preserves enough reality to accompany a cultivated representative of Hermopolis into the afterlife. Vatican 10.408 (see note 773 above). See, e.g., Birge 1984: 11, and the works noted in the following citations. Ahrensdorf 2009: 48. Oedipus at Colonus (1656–1665); Fitzgerald’s translation in Fitts and Fitzgerald 1949: 166–167. Fitzgerald also comments on Oedipus’ intelligence (179) and “beautiful ending of the play” (180) and notes that “it is not until he has acted . . . that the passionate man is fit to embody and symbolize human divinity” (180). Ahrensdorf 2009: 32. He notes that Oedipus is the only character in the play (except the priests) to speak of Hades (Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, 29–30) and observes that every time Oedipus does speak of the afterlife he “does so in order to reject the apparent suggestion . . . that there is no afterlife.” Ahrensdorf 2009: 15. Edmunds 1981: 221–238; see also Edmunds 2006: 26–31. Calame 1998: 349–351. Markantonatos 2002: 198–220. Kelly 2009: 81–82. Markantonatos 2002: 208. Seaford 1994a: 396–398 and Seaford 1994b: 275 and 287. His argument for the Oedipus by Aeschylus is based on this play being one in which Aeschylus had been accused of profaning the mysteries of Demeter (Seaford 1994a: 398 and 398, n. 128). Moret 1984, vol. I: 122, n. 4. See, e.g., Plato, Phaedo 251, A; Baldassarre (1970: 945) concludes her entry with the comment that the picture “becomes allusive of Dionysiac initiation, as the escape from ignorance toward truth and revelation,” but she provides neither background nor evidence to attach this interpretation to the Tuna el-Gebel painting. She is channeling Lehmann (1962: 66), who comes to a similar conclusion for the painting in the Villa of the Mysteries. See Chapter Five, specifically Bissing’s tomb from 1897. See Chapters Two and Five; see also Venit 2010c: passim. See F. Dunand 2007: 256. Trans. Sandbach 1969, vol. 15: 317. Seaford 2006: 62. See, e.g., Bagnall 2000: 28. See Lloyd 2000: 419. Lloyd 2000: 417–419. Translation Horst 2003: 68–69; italics mine. Larson 2011: 57. See, e.g., Kurth 1990: 23–24 for this statement concerning Tuna el-Gebel House-tomb 21 and the coffins he adduces on 19–23.

226

NOTES TO PAGES 113–121

833. Cf., e.g., Brooklyn 58.13 (Fazzini, Romano, and Cody 1999: 138; dated to the Ptolemaic period) and figures copulating in a scene from the “House of the Necropolis Workers” at Tuna el-Gebel (Gabra 1954: pl. 12). 834. See Kaplan 1999: pl. 79a. Grimm (1975: 229–231 and pls. 64b and 68–72) discusses house tombs with First-Style wall decoration. 835. According to Perdrizet (1941: 102) the curtain is supported by a curtain rail decorated with gorgoneions; neither is visible in the photograph in Kaplan 1999: pl. 79b. 836. See, e.g., Gabra 1954: color plate 23 (from House-tomb 10, according to Grimm 1975: 227–228, n. 30), for a painted kline with a painted curtain above with erotes holding a medallion at its closure and Gabra 1941: pl. XXXV (Housetomb 2) for another kline with a painted curtain; see also Lembke 2010a: 243, fig. 11 (as tomb GB 10; not preserved) and 244, fig. 12 (House-tomb 2; GB 8). 837. See Riggs 2005: 132; Grimm 1975: 231–232 (early Empire and definitely pre-Hadrian; followed by Kaplan 1999: 165); Rogal 2005: 237 (first half second century). 838. Gabra 1941: 39–50. 839. Gabra 1954: pls. 25–29. 840. Gabra 1941: 39. Similarly to Rooms 3 and 4 in Anfushy Tomb II (see Venit 2002: 85). 841. See, e.g., Rogal 2005: 237–238. 842. Rogal 2005: 238–240. Further conservation is planned (communication from Katja Lembke). 843. See Lembke 2004a: figs. 106 and 108 for decoration preserved on the tomb walls. 844. Gabra 1941: 39. 845. See note 834 and add House-tomb 22 (Lembke 2004a: fig. 104). 846. See also Gabra 1941: pl. Xbis; Lembke et al. 2004a: 60, fig. 106 and 62, fig. 108. 847. R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 200, fig. 2. 848. R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 166, fig. 2. 849. For the term ‘syncretism’ to mean the combination of two (or more) gods that can be easily “dissolved at any time into their constituent elements, which can also form part of other combinations without sacrificing their individuality” see Hornung 1982: 95–98. For a recent, extended discussion of the “politically loaded” term see Moyer 2011: 151–153. 850. See Hornung 1982: fig. on 94. 851. See e.g., Gabra 1941: pl. X. 852. For which see, Gabra 1941: passim and Kurth 1990: 23–24. 853. See also Kurth (1990: 25), who notes the axial symmetry of deities based on “common or complementary” traits. 854. See also Gabra 1941: XI, 1. 855. Hornung 1999: 23. 856. Zivie-Coche in Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004: 191, who says that it is used only in the Theban region, reflecting theology there (190). 857. Gabra 1941: 40. 858. See below, note 896. 859. See Gabra 1941: 41. Gabra describes what Amun holds in his right hand as a fillet, but it corresponds to other Romanperiod examples of the sail-sign (identified as such by Osing

860. 861.

862. 863. 864. 865. 866.

867. 868. 869.

870. 871.

872. 873. 874. 875. 876. 877.

878.

227

1982a: 76, where he translates it as air [Luft]) for one in the tomb of Petubastis. As seen by Gabra (1941: 42): “Words spoken by Thoth, three times great, Trismagistus.” See, e.g., Taylor 2010: 252, cat. no. 129 (papyrus illustration from the Book of the Dead of Ani, London British Museum EA 10470/37, from Thebes, Nineteenth Dynasty). See also the tomb of Siamun at Siwa (below) and Bissing’s tomb from 1897 (Chapter 5). Hornung in Abt and Hornung 2003: 59. See Hornung in Abt and Hornung 2003: 68–80. See also Gabra 1941: pl. XII, 2. Gabra 1941: 43. PT 258; see J. P. Allen 2005: 46, Unis 169: “Unis is Osiris in a dustdevil! The ground is his abomination: he will not enter Geb.” See also Faulkner 1969: 67–68, Utterance 258: “The King is Osiris in a dust-devil; the earth is his detestation, and the King will not enter into G¯eb lest he perish and lest he sleep in his mansion upon earth.” R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 105. Gabra 1941: 43. Kurth 1990: 59, cites the crowns of Geb as another aspect of the appropriation of royal imagery in the Roman period. Gabra 1941: 43, identifies the papyrus role as the Royal Charter. For the male mummiform figure, see the right wall of the right niche in the Main Tomb (Fig. 2.28). It is unlikely that the House-tomb 21 figure is intended as male, but perhaps wears the beard as a either a royal attribute or as an assimilation to Osiris. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 130. Gabra 1941: 44 (“Ptah-Tatenen, father of the gods offers justice”). Gabra 1941: 44 (“Sekhmet, the great friend of Ptah, [who] kills his enemies”). R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 181. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 129. Grimm 1975: 231. Grimm (231 and 236 and pl. 75d) adduces another female painted in House-tomb 28 who stands frontally, her hands clasped between her breasts, who has a similar hairstyle and Classically derived visage (though entirely frontal), which he dates on stylistic grounds to the second-half of the fourth century ce (236), and who should represent the deceased there. According to Grimm (231, n. 61), House-tomb 28 is Perdrizet’s House-tomb 24 (which, he says, is incorrectly noted as such by Perdrizet in Gabra 1941: 104). Differences are slight and by no means as great as one would expect given the drawing in Riggs 2005: 138, fig. 63. The depth of hair seen behind the ear of all three figures is remarkably uniform, with the two figures on the north wall showing a bit more thickness, but not to the extent indicated in drawing shown in Riggs’ fig. 63. The hair of the figures on the north wall appears longer than the one on the west, as shown in Riggs’ drawing, but, again, it does not fall quite so thickly as seen there.

NOTES TO PAGES 121–133

879. See Riggs 2005: 138–139, who also provides the reference to Kaplan. 880. Gabra 1941: 44. 881. See also Lembke 2004a: 62, fig. 108. 882. Whitehouse 1998: 259; Riggs (2005: 135) reads the garb as a variant of an Egyptian one. For the colorplate of the watercolor, see Gabra 1954: pl. 25, top. 883. As noted by Kurth (1990: 59 [see note 827 above]) for the falcon that hovers above the mummy in the lap of Nut in the burial room. 884. Riggs 2005: 135–136. 885. For the shadow see Book of the Dead, chapters 26b, 91, 92, 188, and 191, in which it is associated with the ba (and in chapter 191 with the body and the mummy). Gabra (1941: 46) suggests that drawing of shadow is influenced by Greek mythology and cites Seneca, Epistle XXIV.18, in which he describes the shadow as articulated: “I am not so foolish as to go through at this juncture the arguments which Epicurus harps upon, and say that the terrors of the world below are idle, that Ixion does not whirl round on his wheel, that Sisyphus does not shoulder his stone uphill, that a man’s entrails cannot be restored and devoured every day; no one is so childish as to fear Cerberus, or the shadows, or the spectral garb of those who are held together by naught but their unfleshed bones. Death either annihilates us or strips us bare” (Gummere 1934, vol. 1: 177). Gabra’s connection seems an imaginative leap. 886. Gabra 1941: 45 and pl. XVI, 1; identification from R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 152–153, Gardiner sign list, F (parts of mammals) 45. 887. For Meskhenet holding an ankh see the Temple of Hatshepsut at Dier el-Bahri (R. H. Wilkinson 2003: drawing on 153). 888. The top of the ankh is clearest on the rightmost figure; it is completely lost on the left one. 889. Gabra 1941: 45. 890. Gabra (1941: 45) sees the figure as precisely copied from a figure of a king walking in front of a sacred barque and turning back to offer incense, but also compare the male offering incense in front of the funerary cart of Neshu (see Chapter 1 and Fig. 1.4). It is also similar to an image of a priest performing the same function walking before the sledge with the mummy of Ani (see Taylor 2010: 92, cat. no. 33 [London British Museum EA 10470/37] from Thebes in the Nineteenth Dynasty). Riggs (2005: 136) describes this figure as a “sem-priest in a leopard skin,” but though the figure may perform the function of the sem-priest, he does not wear an animal skin. 891. See also Gabra 1954, pl. 28, above for a color watercolor. 892. Gabra 1941: pl. XV, 1. According to Gabra (45), the altar bears traces of red, which probably refers to wine. 893. Cf., e.g., the hairstyle of the male Siamun adoring Osiris from the tomb of Siamun, Fakhry 1944: 151, fig. 30 and here Pl. XIX. 894. Gabra 1941: 45. 895. As does Riggs 2005: 136.

896. In front of the deceased mummiform figure at the left Gabra (1941: 47) observed an inscription in Demotic in a very bad state, which he believed contained the name and titles of deceased, but which was untranslatable except Ta (= daughter of ) (Ta-sheryt according to Riggs 2005: 131). This inscription is no longer visible (Lembke 2004a: 61). 897. Gabra 1941: 47. As noted previously, the tomb is normally dated to the first century ce. 898. See Gabra 1941: 47. 899. For the beaded shroud, see Taylor 2001: 206–207. 900. Riggs (2005: 41–48 and passim) discusses the differentiation between the representation of the male and female deceased in the Roman period, but that differentiation need not be absolute (see Chapter 3 for various means of gender-bending practice by Greeks). 901. The Hamadryas baboon has a red or pink face, penis, and rump, and is the baboon species associated with Thoth. 902. Chapter 16 lacks text, except for captions; it consists of vignettes applicable to spell 15 (see T. G. Allen 1974: 26). 903. Gabra 1941: 50. 904. Kurth 1990: 59. Kurth also adduces the ba-bird in the scene of Nut and the mummy and the image of Geb in the anteroom as acting similarly (59). 905. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 89. 906. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 90. 907. Gabra (1941: 48) mistakenly says left (or he is viewing the room from the south). 908. Gabra 1941: 48. 909. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 162. 910. Hornung 1999: 25. 911. As identified by Kurth (1990: 59) on the basis of function and connected by him to the image of the royal falcon; see also note 883 above. 912. Kuhlmann 1998: 160. 913. Kuhlmann 1998: 161, referencing Pliny NH V.V.31. 914. That Alexander the Great was buried at Siwa is entirely discredited despite Souvaltzi 2002. See, e.g., Kuhlmann 1998: 164–165 and Bianchi 1995: 58–60. 915. Kuhlmann 1998: 162, referencing Diod. XVII, 50.3. 916. Kuhlmann 1998: 162, citing Diod. XVII 50.3 and Silas Italicus, Punica, XV 652 ff. 917. Fakhry 1990: 77. 918. Taylor 2000: 334–341. 919. Fakhry 1990: 179–182; Kuhlmann (1988: 48) gives this as the earliest possible date for the tomb. 920. Kuhlmann 1988: 42–48. 921. Kuhlmann 1998: 162. 922. Kuhlmann 1998: 163; Kuhlmann 1988: 102–106. 923. Kuhlmann 1998: 164; see also Kuhlmann 1988: 106. 924. Pantalacci and Denoix 2009: 650. 925. Herodotus (III.25–26) again reports that during the Persian invasion of Egypt in 525 bce, Cambyses II, the Persian king who led the expedition, sent his army “to enslave the Ammonians and burn the oracle of Zeus,” but that a violent sandstorm blew up while they were breakfasting and “they disappeared from sight” (Godley 1957, vol. II: 33–37). Plutarch, Alexander 26, repeats the story.

228

NOTES TO PAGES 133–136

926. A temple to Zeus-Ammon, built in the Doric order, was dedicated at Aphytos in the Chalcidike (see Bommas 2005: 33 and 32, fig. 39); Laconia had two temples to the god, one at Sparta (Paus. III.XVIII.3), the other at Gythion (Paus. III.XXI.8); Eleans performed sacrifices to Hera Ammonia (Paus. IV.XV.11), and alongside a private dwelling in Megalopolis a herm of the god was erected. For their part, Cyrenaicans from Libya dedicated a chariot with a statue of Ammon at Delphi (Paus. VIII.XXXII.1). 927. Kuhlmann 1998: 171. 928. Fakhry 1990: 120; see also Aufr`ere, Golvin, and Goyon 1994, vol. 2: 160–161. 929. E.g., in Fakhry 1944: 166, fig. 45 and pl. XXXIII A; Fakhry 1950: 93, fig. 17; Fakhry, 1990: 185, fig. 64. See here Fig. 4.27. 930. For the plan see Fakhry 1990: 184, fig. 63. 931. Fakhry 1990: 187; see also Fakhry 1944: 170. See also below, note 948. 932. Fakhry 1950: 94. 933. Fakhry 1990: 183; for their locations, see nos. 1 and 2 on the plan in Fakhry 1944: 164, fig. 44; in the latter publication (165), Fakhry is less definitive in the identification of the figures. 934. See also Fakhry 1944: pl. XXXIII B. 935. As identified by Fakhry 1990: 183 and 1944: 166. 936. As identified by Fakhry 1950: 94. 937. Fakhry 1944: 168. 938. Fakhry 1944: 167 and 1990: 183. 939. See Fakhry 1944: 168 and 1990: 183. 940. Fakhry 1944: 165 and 1990: 187. 941. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 220. 942. Fakhry 1944: 165 and 1990: 187. 943. Aufr`ere, Golvin, and Goyon 1994: 161. 944. Fakhry 1944: 168. 945. Fakhry 1944: 169 and 1990: 187. 946. Fakhry 1944: 168–169. 947. The only possibility – and this one highly unlikely because of the length of the available wall – is as part of the very poorly preserved painting on the lower staircase of Anfushy II (see Chapter 2). 948. Fakhry 1990: 187; earlier Fakhry (1944: 170) dates it to the time of that of Siamun. 949. It is unfortunate that the volume on the tomb of Siamun by Lembke (2015), which would have undoubtedly changed aspects of the discussion below, was not yet available when this book was submitted for publication. 950. Lloyd (2007: 225) takes Siamun as Greek. 951. Fakhry 1944: 134; or “from the 3rd century B.C.” (Fakhry 1990: 192); or “the middle of the Ptolemaic period” (Fakhry 1950: 85). Stephens (2003: 23) dates the tomb of Siamun to the “late Saite period,” on the basis of Braun 1982, vol. 3, pt. 3: 48 (“between the 26th and 30th Dynasties”) and Koenen, (1983: 145, “400–200 v. Chr.”), who follows Fakhry’s dating. Parlasca (1975: 304) dates the tomb to the third century bce based on other undated monuments and the running-dog pattern (a date that he retained in 2008, when he challenged the date I voiced at a conference). Kuhlmann (1998: 171

952.

953.

954. 955.

229

and idem. 1988: 84–85 and n. 594) disagrees with the date of early Ptolemaic given by Parlasca and says that though various attempts have been made to date the tomb in the Late Period or Hellenistic era, little evidence has been adduced to support anything but a vague Late Hellenistic or even early Roman date. A relatively early date for the tomb might be suggested by the canonically drawn sailsign (see Fig. 4.34), which contrasts with the sail-signs in House-tomb 21 and the tomb of Petubastis at Dakhla’s elMuzawwaqa cemetery, dated by Osing to the first century ce (see Chapter Five), but it is as likely that the difference indicates geographic distance rather than any chronological impact. Lembke 2004a: 70. The throne pattern, which is ubiquitous in House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, is also seen earlier on the throne of Osiris in the tomb of Seti II (see Wulleman, Kunnen, and Mekhitarian 1989: 54) and elsewhere in New Kingdom tombs, but it is not a major motif there. Lembke (2004b: 372) compares the ‘Greek’ form of Siamun to Castiglione’s dual style (a connection with which I would disagree) and notes that the pink (seen as yellow by Fakhry) skin color does not enter the Egyptian visual vocabulary before the early Imperial period. Although she adduces the Twenty-sixth Dynasty tombs at Bahariya Oasis as the best parallels for both the architecture and the decoration, she sees the Siwa tomb as most likely dating to the early Roman period. Lembke (2004b: 367 and esp. 369–370) argues the loculi as contemporaneous with the decoration of the tomb, though she cannot explain their uneven placement. Though this issue is not central to understanding the tomb and though Lembke does not see this tomb connected to those in Alexandria, it is worth noting that Ptolemaic-period Alexandrian tombs generally have loculi cut as needed, whereas those that date originally to the Roman period normally show pre-cut loculi (see Venit 2002: 15). These pre-cut loculi are set in neat ranges that are very different from the irregular placement in the tomb of Siamun. Furthermore (and Alexandria, aside), it is difficult to imagine the design of the tomb intentionally (and unnecessarily) incorporating irregular loculi, if indeed the decoration and the loculi are coeval. Only if the decoration postdated the loculi could one imagine the decoration taking the loculi into account, and, in that case, nothing would then rationalize the irregularity of the loculi. Fakhry (1944: 144–146) sees the lacunae between scenes as originally inhabited by false doors that were later cut through by the loculi that destroyed the false doors and some parts of the scenes to its left and right. Fakhry (1944: 133) estimates that half the scenes were destroyed by the cutting of the loculi. Fakhry (1990: 191) judges that “not less than one-fourth” of the scenes were destroyed. Lembke (ibid.) has argued the scenes as complete. Fakhry 1990: 192. Discernable especially in the scene of the lustration of the mummy, which is very clear in Kuhlmann 1988: color plate X and also, see here, Pl. XIX (Siamun greets Osiris).

NOTES TO PAGES 136–143

956. 957. 958. 959.

960. 961. 962. 963. 964. 965. 966. 967. 968. 969.

970. 971. 972. 973. 974. 975.

976.

977.

978. 979. 980.

981.

As suggested by Fakhry 1944: 144. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 179. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 178. A possible substantiation of the deity as Mahes is found in the depiction of another lion-headed deity (though without a knife) in a tomb in the nearby oasis of al-‘Ara˘g (see Kuhlmann 1988: 89 and pl. 45a). Fakhry 1944: 145; Fakhry 1990: 194–195 and 198, fig. 74. Fakhry 1990: 197. Fakhry 1944: 145 and 1990: 197. Mistakenly titled the Western Wall by Fakhry 1944: 145. See plan on 133 for correct orientation. See Fakhry 1944: 145, fig. 25. Cf., e.g., the image in the Papyrus of Ani (Faulkner 1994: pl. 8). See R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 174. Fakhry 1944: 145 and 145, fig. 25 (the image is now poorly preserved; no beard is indicated in the drawing). Fakhry 1944: 146. See also Fakhry 1944: 146, fig. 26 and 1990: 197 and fig. 75. On which, see Fakhry 1990: 197; Fakhry 1944: 148 and 148 n. 1. Cf. the opening of the mouth ceremony from the Nineteenth Dynasty papyrus of Hunefer (London, British Museum EA9901/5) (Taylor 2010: 94, no. 35 and image on 95). Cf., e.g., Nekhbet flying over Domitian (Esna no. 135; Kurth 1990: 61, fig. 19). The right eye is the eye of Re; the left the eye of Horus, see R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 43. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 95. Lembke 2004b: 367. Fakhry 1944: 148; Fakhry 1990: 197. Identified by Fakhry (1944: 148 and 1990: 197) as Hathor, who also assumes the aspect and insignia of Imentet. Lembke (2004b: 367) retains the identification as Hathor. See Fakhry 1944: 147, fig. 27 and pls. XXVII A and B; see also the photograph, Fakhry 1990: 200, fig. 76, her emblem missing. Fakhry (1944: 148 and 1990: 197) identifies him as Duamutef, one of the Four Sons of Horus. For another image of Osiris-Sokar see Taylor 2010: 252, no. 129, in the Nineteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead of Ani (British Museum EA 10470/37). See also Fakhry 1944: 150, fig. 29 and pl. XXIX A. Cf., e.g., the sistrum in the British Museum from Dynasty Twenty-six (R. H. Wilkinson 2003: fig. on 143). The figure is garbed similarly to Siamun’s wife in her appearance on the west wall, and though unlikely – since mortals do not process with deities in the tomb of Siamun – it is not impossible that this image shows her too. This scene and the following one retain the grid lines the artist established before he laid his figures on the wall, implying the painting was not completely finished. See also Fakhry 1944: 151, fig. 30; 152, fig. 31; and pl. XXIX B in which a bit more of the figure of Osiris remains; Fakhry 1990: 202, fig. 77.

982. Lembke 2004b: 367–368; see also Kuhlmann (1988: 83) who give the name as Pr-jw.w and Nfr.t-hr. 983. See Fakhry 1944: 152, who also notes the similarity of her garment to that of Mut. 984. Fakhry 1944: 146. The lack of any figurative remains below the higher loculi on the east wall argues for the figures that are preserved to have constituted the original complete imagery. 985. Lembke 2004b: 367 and 369–370. 986. See the elevation of the west wall in Lembke 2004b: 369, fig. 12. 987. Lembke 2004b: 368. 988. See also Fakhry 1990: 196, fig. 72. 989. Fakhry 1944: 136. 990. Fakhry 1944: 137; no longer preserved. 991. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 84. 992. Lembke 2004b: 368. 993. Fakhry 1944: 137; see Kuhlmann 1988: pl. 40b; Lembke 2004b: 368, fig. 10. 994. See, e.g., Seeber 1976: 165 and 165, fig. 67 and note 761, though the Siwa Devourer lacks the feather crown. 995. Fakhry 1944: 137 and Fakhry 1990: 192–193; see Kuhlmann 1988: pl. 40b and Lembke 2004b: 368, fig. 10. 996. See Fakhry 1944: 138, fig. 19. Though not absolute in its disposition of figures, a scene from the papyrus of Kerasher (British Museum EA 9995/4), dated to the reign of Augustus, provides a good idea of how the completed scene would have appeared (see Taylor 2010: 225, cat. no 111). 997. See Lembke 2004a: 68, fig. 122, upper right. Fakhry (1944: 137) reports six deities remain, though “the other four have been destroyed through the cutting of one of the late burials.” Fakhry does not provide evidence for the other four deities, and, if they existed, the modern closing of the loculus has obliterated them. 998. Fakhry 1944: 137. 999. See Lembke 2004a: 68, fig. 122, upper left. 1000. Fakhry 1944: 138; see also Lembke 2004a: 68, fig. 122, Lembke 2004b: 369, fig. 11. 1001. See also Kuhlmann 1988: color plate XI. All that now remains of the image of Siamun is the sail-sign he holds, part of his long garment, and his feet. 1002. Fakhry 1944: 143 and 144. The elder son often serves as the sem-priest, which is presumably the reason for Fakhry’s identification. 1003. Fakhry 1944: 144. 1004. Fakhry (1944:142) describes the skin of Anubis as painted red. 1005. Fakhry 1944: 143. 1006. Fakhry 1944: 141. 1007. See also Fakhry 1944: 142, fig. 22. 1008. Fakhry 1944: 142. 1009. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 212. 1010. Nut’s connection with the sycamore tree may be based on her connection with coffins, thus wood and the sycamore; see R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 161. 1011. According to Fakhry (1944: 141) little of Siamun is now preserved.

230

NOTES TO PAGES 143–154

1012. See e.g., the “Fifth Hour of the Amduat,” in which the blessed dead are permitted water. 1013. See R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 161. 1014. See also Kuhlmann 1988: color plate II. 1015. Kuhlmann (1998: 171) thinks he is depicted as Berber, rather than as Greek; see also Kuhlmann 1988: 84, where he sees the chlamys, not as evidence of Siamun as Greek, but as “chic.” 1016. Kuhlmann (1998: 172) sees this scene as representing Siamun bidding farewell to his son. The son stands in what might be taken as an Egyptian composite pose, but the gesture of his raised hand could be read as pulling his far shoulder forward. Lembke (2004b: 372) also adduces Greek gravestones (Hiller 1975: 172–174, cat. no. K 6, pl. 16, 1 and 2 and 186–188: cat. no. I 2, pl. 24, 2 [both only conceptual parallels]). Better parallels are the stele of Stratonikos (Volos Museum 9; Arvanitopoulos 1928: 144, figs. 167 and 168; 145, figs. 168 and 169; and pl. I), which shows a youth, clad in chiton, sandals, and chlamys, bidding farewell to the seated male figure, and the stele of Aphrodeisia (Volos Museum 28; ibid. 156, figs. 185–187 and pl. VI), which depicts a smaller male figure, similarly dressed, bidding farewell to the seated female. 1017. Fakhry 1944: 153, figs. 32–35 and 40 and pls. XXX–XXXI. 1018. Cf. Hornung 1999: 118, fig. 65. Possibly later combined with the Book of the Night (see 116–117). 1019. Translation, T. G. Allen 1974: 123; Fakhry 1944: 157: “Salutation of Horus to the first pylon of the still heart. I have made my way, I know thee and know thy name and I know the name of your guardian. The mistress of fear, the one with the high wall, the chief one, mistress of destruction, who prophesies the words which drive away the storm and deliver from the invader, thy name is Neru (i.e. the fearful one).” 1020. See Fakhry 1944: 154; Fakhry (154, n. 2) connects the stern and prow ornament with that of boats in the Amduat and the Book of Gates, in which they certainly appear repeatedly, but similar floral arrangements are also found, e.g., on Meket-Re’s Middle Kingdom funerary boats (e.g., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 20.3.4 and 20.3.5) that precede these books. 1021. See also Fakhry 1944: 154, fig. 34 and pl. XXXI A and 1990: 205: 81; Kuhlmann 1988: color plate VII. 1022. For Re in an egg see the Book of the Dead Spell 17b (T. G. Allen 1974: 30, S1). 1023. The latter is missing from the drawing in Fakhry 1944: 154, fig. 34 and 1990: 205: 81. 1024. Fakhry 1944: 155, fig. 35. 1025. Fakhry 1944: 155–156; see also Fakhry 1942: 72. Fakhry (1944: 156) notes that they appear in the western desert temple of Darius at the Khargha Oasis and in the Bahariya Oasis in the Twenty-sixth Dynasty tombs of Ba-n-nentiu (Fakhry 1942: 72, fig. 32), Ped’ashtar, and Thaty (Fakhry 1942: 138, fig. 109), in each case worshiping the sun barque. 1026. See Jomard 1982: pl. XVII, 4. 1027. Pace Lembke 2004b: 372. 1028. Arnold 1999: 206.

1029. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 1. 1030. Arnold 1999: 211–212. 1031. Arnold 1999: 212. On which see also Farag, KapionyHeckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 1–4. 1032. Petrie et al. 1908: 13 and 12–13, respectively. 1033. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 1–8; read as P-shen-asir, son of P-du-asir by Petrie et al. (1908: 13). 1034. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 5 for the title and the suggestion that Psenosiris might have employed sculptors from the temple. 1035. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 5–6. 1036. See Petrie et al. 1908: 4 and Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 5, by implication. 1037. The tomb will be completely published by Kuhlmann. 1038. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: pls. 15 and 16. 1039. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 6 and pl. 11. 1040. See, e.g., Cauville 1990a: 79; Chassinat 1934, vol. 2: pl. 142 for another. 1041. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 6; as they do on the south wall of the anteroom room (8). 1042. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: pl. 12; see note 1040 above. 1043. See Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: pl. 10b. 1044. See Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 8 for the identification of the zodiac as Nag’ Hammad A in Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 75–76, no. 56; for the description of the zodiac see Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969. The authors say that a twisted figure of Geb supports Nut, but I cannot see it in the drawing. 1045. See Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 76–77, no. 57 and pl. 39. 1046. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 76. 1047. Farag, Kapiony-Heckel, and Kuhlmann 1985: 8. 1048. Petrie et al. 1908: 12–13. For the identification of the patrons, see Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 96–97, who call the tomb The Tomb of the Brothers; this reading differs from that of Petrie, who sees them as father and son (Petrie et al. 1908: 12). 1049. The orientation of the walls is that given by Petrie (1908: 12 and in captions to Pls. XXXIX and XL). According to Porter-Moss (see Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 96) the tomb is actually entered from the north (not the east, as Petrie) and oriented west-east. Petrie’s orientation is used here because it accords with the tomb’s major publication. 1050. Petrie et al. 1908: 12 and pl. XXXIX. 1051. See illustration in R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 229. 1052. Petrie et al. 1908: 12 and pl. XL. 1053. Identified by Petrie et al. 1908: 12 as “the father and grandfather of the deceased.” 1054. Petrie et al. 1908: 12 1055. Petrie et al. 1908: 12. 1056. On Mehyt, see Cauville 1982: 105–125. 1057. For the niche, see Petrie et al. 1908: 12–13 and pl. XLI. 1058. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 97–98.

231

NOTES TO PAGES 154–163

1059. See also Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: pl. 51. 1060. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 96. 1061. A five-pointed star motif decorates, for example, the ceiling of the Fifth-Dynasty pyramid of Unas, accompanying the pyramid texts that cover the walls of the tomb (e.g., Aldred 1998: 111, fig. 70), and the same motif is seen on the ceiling of the millennium-later tomb of Nefertari, the favorite consort of Rameses the Great (see, e.g., McDonald 1996: image on 74–75 and passim). 1062. See Hornung 2002: 35. 1063. See the tombs of Seti I and Rameses VI among others (see e.g., Hawass 2006: 270–279 [with illustrations]). 1064. Hannah 2005: 87–88; Parker 1974: 55. 1065. Parker 1974: 55–56. 1066. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 72–74 and 200–202, cat. no. 54 (“Dendera B”) and vol. III: pl. 35, ´ dated to “before 30 B.C.” (72). See also, Cauville 1997. E. Aubourg dates it to 50 bce on the basis of the astronomical signs (Cauville 1997: 11–13). 1067. See Cauville 1997: 8–10; Neugebauer and Parker (1960– 1969, vol. III: 73–74) note that “its organization is far from haphazard,” but they do not see the absolute specificity recognized by Cauville insofar as the southern constellations are concerned. Parker (1974: 63), however, in an article postdating the publication of Neugebauer and Parker (1960–1969), says that the zodiac is an attempt at exactitude, without discussing the individual signs. 1068. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 97–98. 1069. See Bashendi 2012 and 2013. 1070. Moursi 1982: 70. 1071. Bashendi 2012: 260; the number of tombs also estimated by Bashendi. 1072. The town has produced a number of houses with wall paintings, though considerably later than the tombs under discussion; see, e.g., McFadden 2014 and Hope and Whitehouse 2006. 1073. For color images of the tomb, see https://www.flickr .com/photos/isawnyu/sets/72157623916994596/ (as the tomb of Sadosiris). 1074. Osing 1982a: 71–95. 1075. Neugebauer, Parker, and Pingree 1982: 96–101. 1076. Osing 1982a: 71. 1077. Osing 1982a: 71. Whitehouse (1998: 262) points out that the short hairstyle and clean-shaven face of the portrait of Petosiris should obviate a date later than the first quarter of the second century when, under the influence of the emperor Hadrian, Romans again began to assume beards. Nevertheless, Siamun (see Chapter 4) is bearded, and it is highly unlikely that his tomb postdates Hadrian (or predates Alexander the Great), and, perhaps even more tellingly, harvesters and vintners in the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, which is clearly post-Alexander, are bearded (see Chapter 1). 1078. See Whitehouse 1998: 261, n. 6. 1079. Osing 1982a: 80.

1080. Osing 1982a: 74. Whether these snakes wore the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, as they do in the tomb of Petosiris at el-Muzawwaqa (see below), cannot be determined. For snakes or Agathodaimons guarding the entrance, cf. also the Tigrane Tomb and the Main Tomb at Kom el-Shoqafa in Alexandria (see Chapter Two). 1081. For Tutu (or Tithoes) see Kaper 2003; for a cult of Tutu in the region see ibid. 16, 24, and passim. 1082. Osing 1982a: 74, suggests Horus, but he offers no parallels for a double-headed Horus child (74, n. 341). The pose of the Bes-daemon in the frieze above and the second head of the Janus-headed child direct the viewer to the west wall of the tomb. 1083. For Agathodaimons similar to this image, see LIMC I.1: 278, nos. 13, 14, 15; 279, nos. 17, 19, 20, and 21 [F. Dunand] and LIMC I.2: pls. 205 and 206. All known provenances are Alexandria. 1084. See Osing (1982a: 88, n. 394), who notes that this sign is otherwise only seen on the bas of the tomb owner and his wife in tombs and on papyri of the Book of the Dead. 1085. At least one Roman-period tomb with a pyramid-like superstructure is found at the Dakhla Oasis cemetery site of Bir el-Shaghala (see Bashendi 2013, who preliminarily publishes the tomb). 1086. See Osing 1982a: 76. 1087. On clavi, see note 1114. 1088. For colors see Osing 1982a: 76 (and see Osing 1982a: passim for colors throughout the tomb). Whitehouse (1998: 261) describe the tunic as white and sees what I take as fold lines as a “patterned or textured . . . mantle or stole” suggesting that Petubastis wears a priestly garment as befits his office. 1089. R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 169. He adds that it became a more complex symbol and began to be seen as a reliquary for the head of the god. R. H. Wilkinson (2003: 122) describes it as a “symbol of the Abydene area” and describes it as “a beehive-like container surmounted by two tall plumes, which was interpreted to represent a reliquary” that held the head of Osiris. 1090. Osing (1982a: 76) suggests that the one at the far left is probably Anubis and the other may be Horus, based on the green body that remains. For details of the colors of the paintings on the east wall see 75–76. 1091. The niche is not in the precise center of the wall, but it probably would have been viewed as such. 1092. For the colors, see Osing 1982a: 79. 1093. Osing 1982a: 78. 1094. Osing 1982a: 79. 1095. Osing 1982a: 76. Identified as paralleling a scene in the cult room of the Roman-period tomb of Qtjjnws in Ezbet Baschandi by Osing (76, n. 347). See Osing 1982b: 61 and Osing et al. 1982: pl. 17b (image on the north wall). The identification of Hathor is based on the inscription in the tomb of Qtjjnws. 1096. Osing 1982a: 77. 1097. Translation T. G. Allen 1974: 87.

232

NOTES TO PAGES 164–172

1098. Osing 1982a: 77. According to T. G. Allen (1974: 105), Spell 129 is the same as Spell 100. 1099. Osing 1982a: 77. 1100. For the similarities see Hornung 1999: 57–58. 1101. On the necessity and ritual of water for the dead, see Assmann 2001: 355–362. 1102. For a composite photograph of the ceiling, see Osing et al. 1982: pl. 36. 1103. Neugebauer and Parker in Neugebauer, Parker, and Pingree 1982: 101. 1104. Not visible in drawing. On the northern part of the ceiling are two painted hieroglyphic texts, one inscribed in black, the second, which is fragmentary, in red. For a translation of the first text see Osing 1982a: 80 and the beginning of the section here on the tomb of Petubastis. 1105. Neugebauer and Parker in Neugebauer, Parker, and Pingree 1982: 101. 1106. Two chapters in the Book of the Dead reference the papyruscolumn amulet, Chapters 159 and 160. The latter designates the column’s color as that of green feldspar. See Taylor 2010: 131, cat. no. 62, and accompanying figure. 1107. Kaper (2003: 138) describes ‘Horus’ in this image merely as a “falcon god.” 1108. Osing 1982a: 85. Chapter 16 lacks text except for the caption; See T. G. Allen 1974: 26. 1109. R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 217. 1110. See R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 27. 1111. See R. H. Wilkinson 1992: 81, who notes its use by private persons “in the later periods in funerary context.” Alternatively, the form can be seen as the complete nefer hieroglyph. 1112. Osing (1982: 85, n. 388) compares vignettes in late Theban Books of the Dead: pMilbank; pRyerson. 1113. Osing 1982a: 85. 1114. Clavi are not indicative of the equitus or the senatorial class, unless they are purple; in Egypt, their addition to a tunic does not equate with the wearer having Roman citizenship either (see Jørgensen 2011: 75 and 76). 1115. As Whitehouse (1998: 258), who compares representations of the deceased in masks, portraits, and sculpture; Osing 1982a: 86, identifies it as a twig. 1116. Whitehouse (1998: 261) suggests that the scroll does not allude to Petosiris’ profession but that is probably specifically funereal, noting that it might be his letter of recommendation, for which she cites Quaegebeur’s discussion (Quaegebeur 1990: 786–795). 1117. Osing 1982a: 86, says that he makes a libation, but the wine flowing from the offering table does not appear to emanate from the vessel in his hand, and the linear pattern on the object and the apparent handle that he holds make it appear perhaps as a sistrum. Nevertheless, see the image in the lower frieze of the north end of the east wall in Room II, where it is clearly a vessel. The wine that issues from the offering table here, though, may have its genesis in the vessel lying on the altar as it does on the east wall of Bissing’s 1987 tomb (see below).

1118. Osing (1982a: 87) suggests the second jackal and connects these standards with the festival of Sokar. 1119. Translation, Osing (1982a: 92). Osing (92) notes that only the left inscription gives the name of Petosiris, but based on the masculine pronoun, the right-hand one should be a continuation of the left. 1120. Whitehouse 1998: 258, where she cites Osing 1982b: 62, n. 275, for parallels in the tombs of Bahariya and Siwa oases, though she does not cite Osing 1982a: 87 (see note 1118 above) who also connects the standards to the festival of Sokar. 1121. Castiglione 1961. 1122. The combination of the deceased in a classicizing style and deities surrounding her (or him) can take various configurations. On a limestone grave stele in the British Museum inv. EA 189 of unknown findspot, but probably Abydos, the deceased pair stands frontally framed by two figures of jackal-headed Anubis in profile (the right-hand one’s body – hidden by the figures in the foreground – possibly in three-quarter view), and a remarkable frontal-faced seated Osiris, and Isis (see Parlasca and Seemann 1999: 326–327, cat. no. 233 and image on 326; dated by Parlasca to the first century ce; see also Walker and Bierbrier 1997: 16 and 151, no. 167 and 152, fig. 167, dated “Perhaps first century bc”); on a shroud in the Berlin Egyptian Museum (inv. 11651), probably from Memphis, the deceased man is flanked by Anubis and Osiris with smaller images of Egyptian deities in the interstices between their heads (Parlasca and Seemann 1999: 261, no. 165, and images on 260 and 261; dated by Parlasca, ca. 170–180;); Abdalla (1992 passim) gives a range of grave reliefs to which ones from Lower Egypt, especially Kom Abou Billou (Terenouthis), can be added (see also, e.g., Parlasca and Seemann 1999: 254– 255, no. 158 and image on 254, probably from Terenouthis and, in general, Hooper 1961); and Castiglione himself (1961: 229) provides a host of coffins that have a naturalistically treated face, but that are otherwise decorated with traditionally Egyptian scenes in traditional Egyptian style. 1123. Osing 1982a: 84. The ‘flame’ pointing downward might indicate the funerary nature of the scene, but the object does require a better explanation. 1124. Osing 1982a: 83. 1125. See T. G. Allen 1974: 157–158. 1126. Osing 1982a: 84; the fragment is figured in Osing et al. 1982: pl. 30g. 1127. For this treatment of the sun-barque on water compare, e.g., the tomb of Tutmosis III (Abt and Hornung 2003: 15, fig. 6 and passim) and the Papyrus of Ani (Faulkner 1994: pls. 18, 21, and 22 for dark-gray stand; pl. 16 shows the boat on a blue rectangle with the lines for water). 1128. Osing (1982a: 84) cites the Book of the Night as well. 1129. See R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 83. 1130. Cf., e.g., the images of the sun-barque in the tomb of Tutmosis III (Abt and Hornung 2003: 15, fig. 6 and detail, 16, fig. 7 and passim). Abt (92), in regard to the tomb

233

NOTES TO PAGES 172–184

1131.

1132. 1133.

1134. 1135. 1136. 1137. 1138. 1139. 1140. 1141.

1142. 1143. 1144.

1145. 1146. 1147.

1148. 1149.

1150. 1151. 1152. 1153. 1154.

of Tutmosis III, interprets the contiguity of the Mehenserpent to the sun god as protection against the dangerous Apophis-serpent. In the Amduat, the kings of Upper and Lower Egypt are normally limited to the sixth hour (Hornung in Abt and Hornung 2003: 82). For the “Bull with the roaring voice,” see Hornung in Abt and Hornung 2003: 80. For this combination of protective daemons, see, e.g., Spell 182 from the Book of the Dead of Muthetepty (London, BM EA10010/3) (Taylor 2010: 199, cat. no 94, and fig. on 198). Hornung in Abt and Hornung 2003: 14. Osing 1982a: 87. Osing (1982a: 87) identifies the fish as a tilapia. Osing 1982a: 87 and 88. As noted by Osing (1982a: 88). Whitehouse 1998: 264 on the basis of the identification of Sobek with Kronos; she cites K´akosy 1956. Neugebauer and Parker in Neugebauer, Parker, and Pingree 1982: 96. See Harris 1998: 266–267. He notes that the soul’s escape through planetary gates – Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Moon, Sun – is not specific to Mithraism but may be related to a Mithraic concept described by Origen (Contra Celsum vi.22) with Neoplatonic and Gnostic additions (on the supposed Mithraic concept see Chadwick 1953: 334, n. 2). See Neugebauer and Parker in Neugebauer, Parker, and Pingree 1982: 96; Pingree in ibid. 100. See Osing et al. 1982: pl. 30e. Osing 1982a: 90 connects fragments (Osing et al. 1982: pl. 30f) that give the titles and upper details of the female deities. Osing 1982a: 89. See note 1084 above. As Osing 1982a: 91; the head of the vulture can just be made out in the damage above its wings. The frontal image of the deity, though not necessarily the attributes applied here, is seen frequently in jewelry. Osing 1982a: 88 (Osing says the jackal is on a chest). Or Wadj-wer, another fertility god whose name means the Great Green, referring to the Mediterranean or to the sea in general, who is depicted in New Kingdom tombs (see R. H. Wilkinson 2003: 130–131). Osing 1982a: 89. Neugebauer and Parker in Neugebauer, Parker, and Pingree 1982: 97. See Neugebauer and Parker in Neugebauer, Parker, and Pingree 1982: 98. On the problems of which see a summary by McNally and Dvorˇzak Schrunk 1993: 3–5. See McNally and Dvorˇzak Schrunk 1993: 3–4 for a summary of modern scholarly interpretations of Herodotus’ claim. Plutarch (Isis et Osiris 14 [356D]) notes that “[t]he first to learn of the deed of Osiris’ death and to bring to men’s knowledge an account of what had been done were

1155.

1156. 1157.

1158. 1159. 1160.

1161. 1162. 1163. 1164. 1165. 1166. 1167.

1168. 1169. 1170. 1171. 1172. 1173. 1174. 1175.

1176. 1177. 1178.

234

the Pans and Satyrs who lived in the region around Khemmis,” though it is as likely that he is referring here to the Khemmis in the Delta that was the birthplace of Horus, as to the Khemmis in Upper Egypt (see, e.g., Griffiths 1970: 313–314). See McNally and Dvorˇzak Schrunk 1993: 7. Scholars now believe that Nonnos was not a Christian convert and that the Dionysiaka might have preceded the verse Gospel, finding no incompatibility between the two religions systems. See, e.g., Martin and Primavesi 1998: 41. See, e.g., Kanawati 1990: 36–37. An Akhmim birthplace is based on Ay’s parents being Yuyu and Thuyu (the parents of Tiy, the wife of Amenhotep III), which is not absolutely substantiated. See Kuhlmann 1983: 14–49. Kuhlmann 1983: 14–49; 50–61 for both the temple and the ‘field of ruins.’ Bissing 1946–1947; Bissing 1950. He also offers reports of early travelers to the site. Rostovtzeff (1913–1914: 494– 496, figs. 92 and 93; see now also the French translation, Rostovtseff 2003–2004: 622–624, figs. 92 and 93) visited the necropolis in 1919 and described and summarily figured one of the tombs, but his description stresses the Greek aspects and merely mentions that in the field delimitated by pilasters and garlands are “figured scenes from the Egyptian repertoire.” Kanawati 1990. The date of his visit is from a personal communication (May 13, 2007). Kuhlmann 1983: 50–86. Kaplan 1999: 166–178 and pls. 86–101a. M. Smith (2002: 242) counts six representation of the zodiac on ceilings of tombs from al-Salamuni. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 98–102, cat. nos. 73–78. Bissing 1946–1947: 6–16; Bissing 1950: 560–562 and passim. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 101, cat. nos. 77 and 78; Kaplan 1999: 171, Tomb III and pls. 90 and 91a. Kaplan 1999: 175–178 and pls. 95b–98; 99b–101a. Bissing 1946–1947: 2–7 and Bissing 1950: 549–560 and passim. Bissing 1946–1947: 7, fig. 10; Bissing 1950: 560, fig. 7. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 99 and 100, cat. no. 73. Kaplan 1999: pl. 89b; as in Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 37c. Bissing 1946–1947: 6; Bissing 1950: 562. See Bissing 1946–1947: 9 and 7, fig. 12; Bissing 1950: 561 and 561, fig. 9. Bissing 1946–1947: 9; Bissing (10) compares both the kline and the garlands to those in tombs in Alexandria. See also Bissing 1950: 560 and pl. II. See Kaplan 1999: pl. 89b; Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 37c. Bissing 1950: 562. See Kaplan 1999: 170 and pl. 89b and Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 33a and pl. 37c.

NOTES TO PAGES 184–188

1179. See also Kaplan 1999: 171 (as Tomb III) and pls. 90a and b; Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 33a; identified by Kuhlmann caption to pl. 33a. 1180. Kaplan 1999: 171. 1181. The zodiac designated Salamuni 8A by Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 101, no. 77, pl. 55 B. 1182. The zodiac is designated Salamuni 8B by Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 101, no. 78 and pl. 56; for the quotation, 101. Harpocrates is also found on the ceiling of Salamuni 3B and Salamuni 6 (see 100, n. 1). See also, Kaplan’s Tomb VI immediately below, which appears to show another. 1183. Kaplan 1999: 175–176. 1184. Kaplan 1999: 175; Kuhlmann (1983, in the captions to pls. 34b and d) identifies the figures as the tomb owner. 1185. Kaplan 1999: pl. 96a and b; Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 34, b and d. 1186. Kaplan 1999: pl. 97a and b; Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 34, a and c. 1187. Kaplan 1999: pl. 98a; Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 35a. Not recorded in Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III, but Kuhlmann (1983, in caption to pl. 35a) connects it to the Salamuni 3B type and as from the same tomb as depicted in his pl. 34. 1188. Kaplan 1999: pl. 98b; Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 35b. 1189. Kaplan 1999: 176–178 and pls. 99b–101a. 1190. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 98 and 98, n. 2. 1191. See Kaplan 1999: 177 and pl. 100a. 1192. See Kaplan 1999: 177 and pl. 100b. 1193. This section incorporates some of the material in my article, Venit 2010c. 1194. Bissing 1946–1947: 2–7 and Bissing 1950: 549–560 and passim. 1195. See Kanawati 1990: pls. 40–42, photographed in the late 1970s (personal correspondence, May 13, 2007) here reproduced as Pls. XXXII and XXXIV and Fig. 5.29; see also Kaplan 1999: 166–169, cat. no. XI, and pls. 86–88 and Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 35c and d and pl. 36. 1196. For more Hellenically derived decoration in tombs at Akhmim; see above, note 1160. 1197. Bissing 1946–1947: 2. 1198. Kaplan 1999: 168. 1199. Bissing 1950: 559. 1200. Bissing 1950: 559 and fig. 6. 1201. Kaplan 1999: 168 and pl. 88c. 1202. See Kaplan 1999: pl. 88a. 1203. According to Bissing 1946/47: 4. 1204. Despite the purple stripes, the garment is not a toga praetexta. 1205. See, e.g., Poole 1892: 35, no. 285 (reverse) statue of Domitian in quadriga holding branch of laurel on roof of triumphal arch, flanked by trophies and captives; 41, no. 338 (reverse) Domitian in biga holding laurel branch; biga pulled by centaurs, each of which holds a Nike; 41, no. 339 (reverse) Domitian in elephant quadriga holding a branch

1206.

1207.

1208.

1209.

1210. 1211.

235

of laurel; 41, no. 340 (reverse) Domitian in a quadriga holding a branch of laurel; 48, no. 394 (Trajan in quadriga holding laurel branch); 61, no. 507 (Trajan in centaur biga holds branch of laurel); 62, no. 515 (Trajan in quadriga holds laurel). Kuhlmann (1983: 73) says that the figure holds an olive twig and a papyrus roll in one hand and an egg-formed vessel (an unguentarium? alabastron?) over another vessel in the other, but the photo published by Kuhlmann (pls. 36a and b) indicates that rubble covered the bottom of the vessel; thus Kuhlmann was unaware that the vessel remains unsupported unless grasped by the deceased. Kuhlmann also (73, n. 373) says that the depiction appears twice, once to the left of the entrance in the anteroom and once to the right of the opening into the burial room (wall D-E), but the two illustrations he cites (pls. 36 a and b) are of the same wall. For another example of a similarly dressed patron at Akhmim, see Kuhlmann 1983: 73, n. 373 and pl. 33b. The latter’s pose is difficult to make out, but it appears to be frontal with the figure’s weight equally divided onto both legs. The two libation vessels on each offering table from which libations flow permits the same conceit to perhaps occur on the offering table in the tomb of Petosiris in the Dakhla Oasis. See, e.g., late-Roman mosaics of gladiators in the Vatican from the Baths of Caracalla (Dunbabin 1999: 70, fig. 71); also prevalent on reverses of Imperial coinage: see, e.g., Poole 1892: Augustan coin: 1, no. 4; Vitellius (69 ce): 27, no. 218; Vespasian: 29, no. 233 and 31, no. 251; Trajan: 45, no. 365; 46, no. 381; 53, nos. 438, 442, and 443; 61, no. 508; 63, no. 526 (the palm held by Nike throughout). Pace Whitehouse 1998: 259, who says that Petosiris, in his tomb at Dakhla Oasis, is “so far unique” as the “recipient of funerary cult.” For the figure noted by Kuhlmann, see note 1206. See e.g., Du Mesnil du Buisson 1939: pl. XVII. Another image of Moses, slightly different in the gesture of the right hand but probably from the same source, appears at Dura in the painting of Moses and the Burning Bush (pl. XIX). The slight differences between the Dura images and the one from Akhmim are dependent on the proportion of the figure: that at Akhmim is more slender and perhaps, in consequence, more of the chiton appears below the himation wrapped around his hips. The remarkable similarities between the Akhmim figure of the deceased and that of Moses Parting the Red Sea (and even that of Moses and the Burning Bush) are unmatched in the figures from Egypt commonly cited as carrying forward Castiglioni’s thesis: the deceased Petosiris from Dakhla and the deceased on the shrouds in Moscow (Pushkin Museum I ia 5749: Doxiadis 1995: 21, no. 14; Bresciani 1996: 17, fig. 6), Paris (Louvre N 3076: Doxiadis 1995: 20, no. 13), and New York (New York, Metropolitan Museum 09.181.8, dated 170–200). A brief summary and analysis of the transmission of motifs in antiquity are provided by Thompson 1992: 31–52. Whitehouse (1998: 259) sees the painted image (in this case, of

NOTES TO PAGES 188–192

1212. 1213. 1214. 1215. 1216. 1217.

1218.

1219.

1220. 1221.

1222. 1223. 1224.

1225. 1226. 1227. 1228.

Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis) as derived from Hellenistic and Roman funerary sculpture, but the extraordinary similarity between the figure of Moses in the Parting of the Red Sea scene from Dura and the figure of the deceased from Akhmim argues, in this instance at least, for an immediate two-dimensional source. See, e.g., Lichtheim 1947: 169–179 and passim; see also Walters 1988: 20–25. See Walters 1988: 20. As indicated in the Fifth Hour of the Amduat (see, e.g., Abt in Abt and Hornung 2003: 84). See Bissing 1950: 557 and Bissing 1946–1947: 2; Kuhlmann 1983: pl. 35c; Kaplan 1999: pl. 86b. Kaplan 1999: 166. Brunner-Traut (1981: 79) provides a Roman-period parallel from Antinopolis for the figure, in which, according to Brunner-Traut, it is weighed against a heavy stone. Bissing (1950: 572) adduces parallels for the human figure on “diverse papyri” and notes that the one in the Akhmim tomb is un-Egyptian in style, stylistically better fitting with Greek images of the ‘soul.’ The Greek weighing of the ‘soul,’ however, has a very different intent and conveys a distinctly different meaning from that in the Egyptian Judgement scene, since the Greek weighing lacks the ethical sense implicit in the Egyptian, only connoting which one of the warriors, whose keres are weighed, will live and which will die. Brunner-Traut (in Brunner-Traut, Brunner, and ZickNissen 1984: 137) sees the scale inclined in favor of the deceased. Bissing, as skeletons, 1950: 557 and 569; as shadows, 570. Brunner-Traut (in Brunner-Traut, Brunner, and ZickNissen 1984: 137 and Brunner-Traut 1981: 76) identifies the figures as skeletons and considers them images representing the deceased. Bissing 1950: 573. Seeber (1976: 186) calls it a “Feuerkessel” (cauldron of fire), though she cites parallels between the Devourer and the Lake of Fire. Brunner-Traut in Brunner-Traut, Brunner, and ZickNissen 1984: 137; similarly Brunner-Traut 1981: 76. Brunner-Traut 1981: 79; see also Seeber 1976: 171 and 171, fig. 69. Piankoff 1942: 1; known also from the Book of the Dead; see, e.g., T. G. Allen 1974: 30 (Spell 17b, S2; S5). On the Book of Caverns, see also, e.g., Hornung 1999: 83–95; in the Late Period, a complete version of the Book of Caverns is found in the tomb of Petamenophis at Assasif (see Piankoff 1947: 73–92, esp. 86–88). For translations of the Book of Caverns, see Piankoff 1946: esp. 57, and Piankoff 1954, vol. 1, pt. 1: 45–135, esp. 98, 100, and 107. Hornung 1999: 86–88 and 95–103; see also Piankoff 1946: passim; Piankoff 1954, vol. 1, pt. 1: passim. Piankoff 1946: 57 and pl. LI; Piankoff 1954, vol. 1, pt. 2: pls. 25 and 26; Hornung 1999: 88 and 89, fig. 45. Hornung 1999: 98 and 106, fig. 57, top right. Hornung 1999: 99 and 106, fig. 57, bottom right.

1229. As noted by Seeber 1976: 171 and Kurth 1990: 66. 1230. Identified as such by Bissing 1946/47: 4 and Kaplan 1999: 167. 1231. For the image, see note 1215. 1232. Bissing 1950: 557; Bissing 1946–1947: 4. 1233. Bissing 1950: 557 and Bissing 1946–1947: 5) identifies them as Hathor and Isis; Kaplan (1999: 167) identifies Hathor before and Isis behind. 1234. Bissing 1950: 557; Bissing 1946–1947: 5; part of this scene was buried beneath the rubble when seen by Bissing. 1235. Kaplan 1999: 168 and pl. 88b. 1236. Venit 2010c. 1237. For example, Klotz (2012: passim) misinterprets the altar (note the lustration paraphernalia on its sides, its length, and the volute and palmette) as a kline, the spiral form that I suggest may be intestines, as an arm (only accurate were it that of the Michelin Man), and the animal-headed figure – which may indeed be jackal-headed, but, as strongly, may not – as Anubis, discounting other jackal-headed daemons in Graeco-Roman tombs, e.g., the two in the tomb of Petubastis at Dakhla as well as the one on the north side of the west wall in this tomb, as well as other visual details. He also ignores what I see as the violence of the act in his general reading and with his conclusion that the tomb owner wished to “remain sexually active in the afterlife” (396). 1238. The Turin Papyrus (see note 1240 below) remains the obvious exception to all human-based erotic imagery stemming from the Graeco-Roman period. For erotic imagery, see Omlin 1973: passim and pls. XVI, XVII, XVIIIa, XIX; the undated ithyphallic terracottas and those depicting copulating humans (pls. XXX and XXXI) are identified by Omlin as votive and probably are (reproduced in My´sliwiec 2004: opposite 55, also undated). See also the “erotic scenes . . . decorating ritual vessels” from Tell Atrib, unnumbered colorplate in My´sliwiec and the Ptolemaic-period limestone sculpture, Brooklyn Museum 58.13 (Cody in Fazzini, Romano, and Cody 1999: 138, no. 85), considered to have “religious content.” For textual references, see Klotz 2012. 1239. My´sliwiec 2004: 120. 1240. As Jan´ak and Navr´atilov´a 2008: 66. For Turin 55001, see also My´sliwiec 2004: 120–127, and, more recently, Jan´ak and Navr´atilov´a: 63–70. 1241. Jan´ak and Navr´atilov´a (2008: 67–69) note that no interpretation has been agreed upon, and they themselves reach no conclusion. 1242. Greek and Roman erotic images are far too numerous to mention, as are their publications, but for general summaries see, e.g., Johns 1990 and Clarke 1998. 1243. Jacobus a Voragine and Graesse 1965: chapter CXCIX (196) De santo Erasmo: 890–894. 1244. See Zandee 1960: 20–25. 1245. Zandee 1960: 147–158 1246. Brunner-Traut 1981: 79. 1247. See, e.g., Zandee 1960: 158–160.

236

NOTES TO PAGES 192–198

1248. See also Milan “H.A” 239, Apulian volute krater, ca. 370 (Trendall and Cambitoglou 1978–1982, vol. 1 [1978]: 193, no. 4 and pl. 60, 3) and the Death of Neoptolemos from the Casa di Frontone, Pompeii, 69–79 ce (LIMC VI.1 sv Neoptolemos: 778, no. 26 [O. Touchefeu-Meynier] and VI.2: pl. 452, no. 26). See also Moret 1975, vol. 1: 108–109 and 108, n. 5 with bibliography. 1249. See Bauchhenss-Th¨uriedl 1971: 25–32 and catalogue: 87– 91. See also the Attic calyx krater, Berlin 3974, by the Painter of Berlin 3974, beginning fourth century (ibid. 87, cat. no. 53 and pl. 2; Moret 1975, vol. 2: 10, cat. no. 117 and pl. 52); Faliscan calyx krater by the Nazzano Painter, Boston 1970.487 (Bauchhenss-Th¨uriedl 1971: 88, cat. no. 57 and pl. 3). 1250. See also, e.g., Ferrara 2482, the Marlay Painter, ARV 2 1280, no. 64. 1251. See, e.g., Naples 2422, Attic red-figured hydria by the Kleophrades Painter, ARV 2 189, no. 74. 1252. See, e.g., the Lucanian pelike by the Vastos Painter, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ, early fourth century (LIMC I.1 sv Aigisthos: 15 [Ruth Michael Gais] and I.2: pl. 289, Aigisthos 15; Moret 1975, vol. 2: 9, cat. no. 112 and pl. 92, 1). 1253. See note 1244 above. 1254. Griffiths 1975: 77. 1255. For a highly debatable connection between Egypt and the Greek Elysian Fields see R. D. Griffith 2008. 1256. See Rutilius Lupus below and note 1272. 1257. Wells 1985: 259, who identifies Satet’s “earliest specific connection” to Sothis in a Dynasty Twenty-six bronze; Clerc 1978: 249 and 251. 1258. Hannah 2009: 45. 1259. See e.g. Unis 207; Pepi I 38 (J. P. Allen 2005: 56 and 107). 1260. PT 632 (applying Sethe’s numbering system): “You have placed her [Isis] upon your phallus and she being ready (spdt) as Sothis (spdt)” (Faulkner 1966: 159); see also Faulkner 1969: 120, Utterance 366 §632. See Wells 1985: 259 for mention of the pun identified by Roeder; see also Clerc 1978: 250. J. P. Allen (2005: 81; Teti, Spell 198), however, does not render the pun in his translation (“You have put her [Isis] on your phallus, so that your seed might emerge into her, sharp as Sothis”). 1261. Lenth´eric 1996: 190; Isis in a barque represents Sothis in the astronomical ceiling in the tomb of Senmut, architect of Hatshepsut (ca. 1475 bce) (see Parker 1974: 59). 1262. Faulkner 1966: 161. 1263. Clerc 1978: 254. 1264. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 99; Clerc 1978: 255 and pl. XXXI. 1265. London, British Museum EA 381511; Arslan 1997: 283, IV.325 and fig. on 282. 1266. Arslan 1997: 537 and fig. on 537. 1267. Rome, Vatican Gregoriano Egizio 15623. 1268. Specifically Salamuni 3A and 8A (Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: pls. 52 and 55, respectively); it is expected that the same motif applies in Bissing’s tomb

1269. 1270. 1271.

1272. 1273. 1274.

1275. 1276. 1277. 1278. 1279. 1280. 1281. 1282. 1283.

1284. 1285. 1286.

1287.

1288. 1289.

237

from 1897, but the precise form of the dog is difficult to make out. Clerc 1978: 264. Clerc 1978: 260. See Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 99, citing a study by Alf¨oldi 1937 (see ibid., specifically 22, and pl. XVI, 1–18). See Clerc 1978: 281. On the evolution of the zodiac, and for further bibliography, see LIMC VIII. 1 sv Zodiacus [F. Gury]. Which, in fact, do move, but which are so far from Earth that their movement is not immediately visible. This movement and the earth’s wobble on its axis means that the ancient zodiac used today by astrologers has no relationship now to the actual star formations seen ‘rising’ in the month the sign stands for (see Hannah 2005: 10–11; Van Brummelen 2009: 16–17). There is about a 30° discrepancy between the zodical sign and the constellation for which it was named (Van Brummelen 2009: 17, n. 23). Hannah 2005: 8–9. Neugebauer 1962: 90. Van Brummelen 2009: 34. M. Smith 2002: 242. Neugebauer and Parker 1960–1969, vol. III: 86–89 (Akhmim), cat. no. 65 and pl. 45. Hanna 2009: 45. Hanna 2005: 91; 1461 Egyptian years equal 1460 Julian years. See Hanna 2009: 46 for a translation of the decree. Hanna 2005: 91. The Julian calendar, too, was inaccurate over the long span, extending the year about one-tenth of one percent, which became unacceptable in the sixteenth century, when the Gregorian calendar, which dictates dropping a leap year in the century years in which the first two digits are not evenly divisible by four, was put into place (98). Hanna 2009: 48. On which see, e.g., Cauville 1990b and Cauville 1997. See, e.g., Kurth 1990: 23–24 for his statement concerning Tuna el-Gebel House-tomb 21 and the coffins he adduces (19–23). The substitution of a flying falcon above the body of the figure on the lion-bed in Persephone Tomb 2 in Alexandria, not mentioned in Chapter Two, might be another indication. Whitehouse 1998: 264 Much earlier, the Eighteenth-Dynasty tomb of Senmut, the vizier of Hatshepsut, also bore a map of the heavens, but Senmut’s relationship to his queen doubtless accounts for the depiction in a nonroyal tomb. Neugebauer (1962: 88– 89) notes that in the depiction of the firmament in Senmut’s tomb (which also contains a list of the decans) the images of the constellations presents pentimenti that attest to a number of changes, and he interprets these changes indicating that “artistic principles determined the arrangement of [Egyptian] astronomical ceiling decoration” instead of an adherence to a specific astronomical map, which

NOTES TO PAGES 198–200

1290. 1291. 1292.

1293. 1294.

1295. 1296. 1297.

underscores the difference between Egyptian and Greek zodiacs. Whitehouse 1998: 259. See, e.g., funerary shrouds and grave reliefs (see Chapter Five, and notes 1122 and 1211 above). Perdrizet 1941: 91. To the right of this scene, in a small naos with a triangular pediment, a nimbused mummy carries palms in his hands crossed in front of his chest. In the two photographs that form pl. XLIII in Gabra 1941 neither scene is visible. Whitehouse 1998: 261. See, e.g., the Augustan-period statue New York 04.15; the statue of Sophocles, Museo Gregoriano Profano 9973 (The Vatican Collections. The Papacy and Art 1982: 213, cat. no. 131 and fig. on 212). See Chapter Five and notes 1122 and 1211 above. East frieze IV and V; see, e.g., Delevorrias 2004: 162–165. The fifth-century relief is still unpublished but on view in the museum at Brauron. Fourth-century Greek votive reliefs regularly show the deities larger than their mortal votaries.

1298. An excellent example is Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Museum 7008 (Riggs 2005: 86, fig. 34), a coffin dating to the first century ce, which is of a figure in a draped mantle with a painted and gilded mummy mask bearing generic features. 1299. See Taylor 2001: 242 and caption on 243. The coffin is of Roman-period date. 1300. An exception might be figures on Roman ‘popular’ reliefs; see, e.g., Vatican, Lateran Museum, circus relief, possibly from Ostia (Bianchi Bandinelli 1970: 263, fig. 294). 1301. See Schreiber 1908, vii. The drawing is reproduced in Pagenstecher 1919, 168, fig. 104; see also Venit 2002: 124, fig. 102. 1302. See, e.g., Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology (Berkeley, California) 6-1907-1, a greywacke jackal sculpture found upright near the face of a woman in Tomb 226 at el-Ahaiwa (Patch et al. 2011: 248, cat. no. 46 and fig. on 51). 1303. Nekhbet and Wadjet on the interior entrance wall of the burial room of House-tomb 21 at Tuna el-Gebel can perhaps be added to these.

238

Bibliography of Modern Works Cited

(Abbreviations of journals and standard reference works are those proposed by the American Journal of Archaeology to be found online) Ahlqvist, A. 1990. Tradition och r¨orelse. Nimbusikonografin i den romerskantika och fronkristna konsten. Helsinki: SHA. Ahrensdorf, P. J. 2009. Greek Tragedy and Political Philosophy. Rationalism and Religion in Sophocles’ Theban Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aldred, C. 1998. The Egyptians, 3rd ed. (revised and updated by A. Dodson). New York: Thames and Hudson. Alf¨oldi, A. 1937. A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century. Budapest: Institute of Numismatics and Archaeology of the P´azm´any University. Allen, J. P., trans. 2005. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Allen, T. G., trans. 1974. The Book of the Dead: Or, Going Forth by Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter as Expressed in Their Own Terms. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Amelung, W. 1908. Die Sculpturen des vaticanischen Museums. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Anderson, M. L. 1987–1988. “Pompeian Frescoes in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” BMetrMus: 2–56. Andreou, A. 1989. Griechische Wanddekorationen. Michelstadt: Neuthor-Verlag. Andrianou, D. 2009. The Furniture and Furnishings of Ancient Greek Houses and Tombs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andronikos, M. 1994. Vergina II. ‘The Tomb of Persephone.’ Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens. Antonaccio, C. 2010. “(Re)defining Ethnicity: Culture, Material Culture, and Identity,” in Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World (S. Hales and T. Hodos, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 32–53. Armour, R. A. 2001. Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt. 2nd ed. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Arnold, D. 1999. Temples of the Last Pharaohs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arslan, E. A. 1997. Iside. Il mito, il mistero, la magia (Milano, Palazzo Reale, 22 febbraio–1° giugno 1997). Milan: Electa. Assmann, J. 2001. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt (trans. D. Lorton) (abridged and updated by the author). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

’Abbadi, M. el-. 1993. “The Problem of the Council of Alexandria: Can a Solution Be Found?” BSRAA 45 (Festschrift in Memoriam Daoud abdu Daoud; Nabil Swelim, ed.): 1–6. Abdalla, A. 1992. Graeco-Roman Funerary Stelae from Upper Egypt. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Abt, T., and E. Hornung. 2003. Knowledge for the Afterlife. The Egyptian Amduat – A Quest for Immortality. Zurich: Living Human Heritage Publications. Adams, J. N., M. Janse, and S. Swain, eds. 2002. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adams, W. Y. 1966. “The Vinification of Nubia,” Kush 14: 262– 283. Adriani, A. 1936. La N´ecropole de Moustafa Pacha. Annuaire du Mus´ee Gr´eco-Romain 2 (1933/34–1934/35). Alexandria: Whitehead Morris. Adriani, A. 1940. “Fouilles et d´ecouvertes. A). Alexandrie. IV. N´ecropoles. A) Fouilles dans la n´ecropole orientale. II. – N´ecropole de Ezbet El Makhlouf,” Annuaire du Mus´ee Gr´ecoRomain 3 (1935–1939). Alexandria: Soci´et´e de Publications ´ Egyptiennes, 83–122. Adriani, A. 1952a. “N´ecropoles de l’ˆıle de Pharos. I. Section de Ras el Tine,” Annuaire du Mus´ee Gr´eco-Romain 4 (1940– ´ 1950). Alexandria: Soci´et´e de Publications Egyptiennes, 48– 54. Adriani, A. 1952b. “N´ecropoles de l’ˆıle de Pharos. B) Section d’Anfouchy,” Annuaire du Mus´ee Gr´eco-Romain 4 (1940– ´ 1950). Alexandria: Soci´et´e de Publications Egyptiennes, 55– 128. Adriani, A. 1956. “Ipogeo dipinto della Via Tigrane Pasci`a,” BSRAA 41: 62–86. Adriani, A. 1961. Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto Greco-Romano, Series A, vol. I. Palermo: Fondazione “Ignazio Mormino” del Banco di Sicilia. Adriani, A. 1966. Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto Greco-Romano. Series C. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1971. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 32. G¨oteborg: ˚ om. P. Astr¨

239

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

´ Aufr`ere, S., J.-C. Golvin, and J. C. Goyon. 1994. L’Egypte restitu´ee. De la naissance de la civilisation pharaonique a` l’´epoque gr´ecoromaine, 1650 av. J.-C.–300 ap. J.-C., vol. 2: Sites et temples des ´ d´eserts. Paris: Editions Errance. Bagnall, R. S. 1988. “Greeks and Egyptians: Ethnicity, Status, and Culture,” in Cleopatra’s Egypt. Age of the Ptolemies. October 7, 1988 to January 2, 1989 (R. A. Fazzini and R. S. Bianchi, eds.). Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 21–25. Bagnall, R. S. 1997a. “The People of the Roman Fayum,” in Portraits and Masks. Burial Customs in Roman Egypt (M. L. Bierbrier, ed.). London: British Museum Press, 7–15. Bagnall, R. S. 1997b. “The Fayum and Its People,” in Ancient Faces. Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt (S. E. C. Walker and M. L. Bierbrier, eds.). London: British Museum Press, 17– 20. Bagnall, R. S. 2000. “The Fayum and Its People,” in Ancient Faces. Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt (S. E. C. Walker, ed.). New York: Routledge, 26–29. Bagnall, R. S., and B. W. Frier. 1994. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baines, J. 1983. “Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society,” Man, n.s. 18: 572–599. Baines, J. 2004. “Egyptian Elite Self-presentation in the Context of Ptolemaic Rule,” in Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece (W. V. Harris and Giovanni Ruffini, eds.). Leiden: Brill, 33–61. Baldassarre, I. 1970. sv Zetema. EAA, suppl. 1: 944–945. Bartsiokas, A., and E. Carney. 2007–2009. “The Royal Skeletal Remains from Tomb 1 at Vergina,” Journal of the History of Hellenic Medicine 34–36: 15–19. Bashendi, M. 2012. “Cemeteries in Dakhleh,” in The Oasis Papers 6. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project (R. S. Bagnall, P. Davoli, and C. A. Hope, eds.). Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bashendi, M. 2013. “A Roman Period Tomb with a Pyramidal Superstructure in Bir el-Shaghala (Mut, Dakhla Oasis),” BIFAO 113: 51–79. Bauchhenss-Th¨uriedl, C. 1971. Der Mythos von Telephos in der antiken Kunst. W¨urzburg: Beitr¨age zur Arch¨aologie. Baughan, E. P. 2004. “Anatolian Funerary Klinai: Tradition and Identity.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Bell, M. R. 1991. “The Tutankhamun Burnt Group from Gurob, Egypt: Bases for the Absolute Chronology of LH III A and B.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. B´erard, C. 1974. Anodoi. Essai sur l’imagerie des passages chthoniens. Rome: Institut Suisse de Rome. Bernab´e Pajares, A., et al. 2008. Instructions for the Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets. Leiden: Brill. ´ ´ 1969. Inscriptions m´etriques de l’Egypte Bernand, E. gr´eco-romaine. ´ Paris: Recherches sur la po´esie e´pigrammatique des grecs en Egypte. Belles lettres. ´ 1988. “P´elerins dans l’Egypte ´ Bernand, E. grecque et romaine,” in M´elanges Pierre L´evˆeque. 2 vols. (M.-M. Mactoux and E. Geny, eds.). Paris: Les Belles Lettres, vol. I: 49–59. ´ 1999. Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna et de Bernand, E. sa n´ecropole. Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale.

Bevan, A. 2003. “Reconstructing the Role of Egyptian Culture in the Value Regime of the Bronze Age Aegean: Stone Vessels and Their Social Contexts,” in Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (R. Matthews and C. Roemer, eds.). London: University of London Press, 57–73. Bezerra de Meneses, U., and H. Sarian, 1973. “Nouvelles pein´ tures litturgiques de D´elos,” in Etudes d´eliennes publi´ees a` l’occasion du centi`eme anniversaire du d´ebut des fouilles de l’´ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes a` D´elos, BCH suppl´ement I (A. Plassart, ´ ´ ed.). Athens: Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes; Paris: Editions E. de Boccard, 77–109. Bianchi, R. S. 1988. Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum. Bianchi, R. S. 1992. “Collecting and Collectors, Egyptian Style,” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 79, no. 5, May: 144–151. Bianchi, R. S. 1995. “Alexander’s Tomb . . . Not,” Archaeology May/June: 58–60. Bianchi, R. S. 1996. “Pharaonic Egyptian Elements in the Decorative Arts of Alexandria during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” in Alexandria and Alexandrianism: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by The J. Paul Getty Museum and by The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Held at the Museum April 22–25, 1993 (K. Hamma, ed.). Malibu, Calif: J. Paul Getty Museum, 191–202. Bianchi, R. S. 2007. “Images of Isis and Her Cultic Shrines Reconsidered. Towards an Egyptian Understanding of the interpretatio graeca,” in Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World: Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, May 11–14, 2005 (L. Bricault, M. J. Versluys, and P. G. P. Meyboom, eds.). Leiden: Brill, 470–505. Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1970. Rome. The Center of Power. 500 B.C. to A.D 200. New York: George Braziller. Bielfeldt, R. 2005. Orestes auf r¨omischen Sarkophagen. Berlin: Reimer. Bietak, M. 2005. “The Setting of the Minoan Wall Painting at Avaris,” in Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron (L. Morgan, ed.). London: British School at Athens, 83–90. Birge, D. 1984. “The Grove of the Eumenides: Refuge and Hero Shrine in Oedipus at Colonus,” ClJ 80: 11–17. Bissing, F. W. von. 1901. La catacombe nouvellement d´ecouverte de Kom el Chougafa (Les bas-reliefs de Kom el Chougafa) (drawings by E. Gilli´eron). Soci´et´e arch´eologique d’Alexandrie. Munich: J. B. Obernetter. Bissing, F. W. von. 1923. “Die Datierung des griechischa¨ gyptischen Grabes von Mellaui,” OLZ 26: cols. 1–4. Bissing, F. W. von. 1933. “Lettere al Prof. Breccia, Zu alexandrinischen Denkm¨alern,” BSRAA 28: 183–191. Bissing, F. W. von. 1946–1947. “Aus r¨omischen Gr¨abern zu Akhmim (Panopolis) in Ober¨agypten,” JdI 61–62: 1–16. Bissing, F. W. von. 1950. “Tombeaux d’´epoque romaine a` Akhmˆın,” ASAE 50: 547–576. Blanc, N. 1998. “Peintures fun´eraires d’Ostie et de Rome,” in Au royaume des ombres: la peinture fun´eraire antique: IVe si´ecle avant J.-C., IVe si`ecle apr´es J.-C.: Muse´e et sites arch´eologiques de SaintRomain-en-Gal, Vienne, 8 octobre 1998–15 janvier 1999 (N. Blanc, ed.). Paris: R´eunion des mus´ees nationaux, 103–107.

240

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Bleeker, C. J. 1973. Hathor and Thoth. Two Key Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion (Studies in the History of Religions; supplements to Numen, vol. 26). Leiden: E. J. Brill. BMI = The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 1874–1916. C. T Newton and E. L. Hicks, eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Boardman, J. 1978. Greek Sculpture. The Archaic Period. Norwich: Thames and Hudson. Boardman, J. 1980. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Boardman, J. 1994. The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bochi, P. A. 2003. “The Enigmatic Activity of Painting the Seasons at an Easel: Contemplative Leisure or Preemptive Measure?” JARCE 40: 159–169. Bohak, G. 1996. Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Bohak, G. 1997. “Good Jews, Bad Jews, and Non-Jews in Greek Papyri and Inscriptions,” in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.–19.8. 1995 (B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Maehler, et al., eds.). Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 105– 112. Bohak, G. 2002. “Ethnic Continuity in the Jewish Diaspora in Antiquity,” in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities ( J. R. Bartlett, ed.). London: Routledge, 175–192. Boll´ok, J. 1972. “Das Problem eines Grabgedichtes von Hermupolis,” Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando E¨otv¨os Nominatae. Sectio classica 1: 31–39. Bommas, M. 2004. “‘Du, der eintrittst, wirst das Seiende erkennen.’ Zur Verbreitung der Isisreligion in der Ag¨ais von den Anf¨angen bis zu ihrem Niedergang,” in Fremdheit – Eigen¨ heit: Agypten, Griechenland und Rom: Austausch und Verst¨andnis. Symposion des Liebieghauses, Frankfurt am Main vom 28.– 30. November 2002 und 16.–19. Januar 2003 (P. Bol, G. Kaminski, and C. Maderna, eds.). Stuttgart: Scheufele, 141– 154. Bommas, M. 2005. Heiligtum und Mysterium. Griechenland und seine a¨ gyptischen Gottheiten. Zaberns Bildb¨ande zur Arch¨aologie, Sonderb¨ande der Antiken Welt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Bommas, M. 2011. “The Mechanics of Social Connections between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Egypt,” in Living through the Dead: Burial and Commemoration in the Classical World (M. Carroll and J. Rempel, eds.). Oxford: Oxbow Books, 159–182. ¨ Borghouts, J. F. 1980. “Libation,” in Lexikon der Agyptologie, vol. III (W. Helck and W. Westendorf, eds.). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, cols. 1014–1015. Boriaud, J.-Y. 1997. Hygin Fables. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Borza, E. N., and O. Palagia. 2007. “The Chronology of the Macedonian Royal Tombs at Vergina,” JdI 122: 81–125. Bothmer, B. 1960. Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period, 700 B.C. to A.D. 100. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum. Bothmer, B. V. 1996. “Hellenistic Elements in Egyptian Sculpture of the Ptolemaic Period,” in Alexandria and Alexandrianism: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by The J. Paul Getty Museum and by The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Held at the Museum April 22–25, 1993

(K. Hamma, ed.). Malibu, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Museum, 215– 226. Botti, G. 1902a. “Premi`ere visite a` la n´ecropole d’Anfouchy a` Alexandrie,” BSRAA 4: 13–15. Botti, G. 1902b. “Description sommaire de la n´ecropole d’Anfouchy,” BSRAA 4: 16–36. Bowden, H. 2010. Mystery Cults of the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bowie, T., and D. Thimme, eds. 1979. The Carrey Drawings of the Parthenon Sculptures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bowman, A. K. 1989. Egypt after the Pharaohs: 332 BC–AD 642. Berkeley: California University Press. Bragantini, I., and M. de Vos. 1982. Museo Nazionale Romano. Le Pitture II, 1. Le Decorazioni della villa Romana della Farnesina. Rome: De Luca. Braun, T. F. R. G. 1982. “The Greeks in Egypt,” in The Cambridge Ancient History ( J. Boardman, ed.) 2nd ed., vol. 3, pt. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 32–56. Breccia, E. 1907. “La tomba dipinta di Such el-Wardian,” Le ´ Mus´ee Egyptien. Recueil de monuments et de notices sur les fouilles ´ d’Egypte II: 63–74. Breccia, E. 1932. “II. Fouilles et Trouvailles. 5. N´ecropole Occidentale,” Le Mus´ee 1925–31: 32–37. Breccia, E. 1976. Iscrizioni greche e latine. Catologues g´en´eral des antiquit´es e´gyptiennes du Mus´ee d’Alexandrie, nos 1–568. Cairo: L’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale, 1911; Osnabr¨uck: Otto Zeller (reprint). Breen, A. B. 1991. “The ‘Fabulae Hygini’ Reappraised: A Reconsideration of the Content and the Compilation of the Work.” Ph.D dissertation, University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign. Bremmer, J. N. 1983. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bremmer, J. N. 2002. The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife. The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at the University of Bristol. London: Routledge. Brenk, F. 1993. “A Gleaming Ray: Blessed Afterlife in the Mysteries,” in Studies in Honor of Miroslav Marcovich (D. Sansone, ed.). Illinois Classical Studies 18: 147–164. Bresciani, E. 1996. Il volto di Osiri: tele funerarie dipinte nell’Egitto romano. Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi. Bricault, L. 2004. “La diffusion isiaque: une esquisse,” in Fremd¨ heit – Eigenheit: Agypten, Griechenland und Rom: Austausch und Verst¨andnis. Symposion des Liebieghauses, Frankfurt am Main vom 28.–30. November 2002 und 16.–19. Januar 2003 (P. Bol, G. Kaminski, and C. Maderna, eds.). Stuttgart: Scheufele, 548–556. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World: Antiquity. 2002–2010. H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds. Leiden: Brill. Brouskari, M. S. 1974. Mus´ee de l’Acropole. Catologue Descriptif. ´ Athens: Edition de la Banque Commerciale de Gr`ece. Brown, R. B. 1975. “A Provisional Catalogue and Commentary on Egyptian and Egyptianizing Objects Found on Greek Sites.” Ph.D dissertation, University of Minnesota. Brunner-Traut, E. 1981. Gelebte Mythen. Beitr¨age zum alt¨agyptischen Mythos Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

241

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Brunner-Traut, E., H. Brunner, and J. Zick-Nissen. 1984. Osiris, ¨ Kreuz und Halbmond. Die drei Religionen Agyptens. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Bruno, V. 1969. “Antecedents of the First Pompeian Style,” AJA 73: 305–317. Bucchielli, L. 1985. “Una nuova lettura della facciata della grande tomba di Leukadia,” in Ricerche di pittura ellenistica: lettura e interpretazione della produzione pittorica dal IV secolo a.C. all’ellenismo (originally published in DialArch 1983, no. 2 and 1984, no. 1/2). Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 193–196. Buhl, M.-L. 1947. “The Goddesses of the Egyptian Tree Cult,” JNES 6: 80–97. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Burkert, W. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. B¨using, H. 1970. Die griechische Halbs¨aule. Weisbaden: F. Steiner. Calame, C. 1998. “Mort h´eroique et culte a` myst`ere dans l’Oedipe a` Colone de Sophocle: actes rituels au service de la cr´eation mythique,” in Ansichten griechischer Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium f¨ur Walter Burkert, Castelen bei Basel, 15. bis 18. M¨arz 1996 (F. Graf, ed.). Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 326– 356. Capponi, L. 2007. Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: identit`a politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia, c. 150 a.C.–73 d.C. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. Caskey, L. D., and J. D. Beazley, 1954. Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 2 vols. London: Oxford University Press. Cast, D. 1981. The Calumny of Apelles. A Study in the Humanist Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Castiglione, L. 1961. “Dualit´e du style dans l’art s´epulcral e´ gyptien a` l’´epoque romaine,” Acta Antiqua 9: 209–230. Cauville, S. 1982. “L’hymne a` Mehyt d’Edfou,” BIFAO 82: 105– 125. Cauville, S. 1990a. Le temple de Dendera. Guide arch´eologique. Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale. Cauville, S. 1990b. “77 g´enies de Pharbaithos,” BIFAO 90: 115– 133. Cauville, S. 1997. Le Zodiaque d’Osiris (a synopsis of the five volumes: S. Cauville, Dendara. Les Chapelles osiriennes. Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale du Caire, 1997) Louvain: Peeters. ´ Cenival, F. de. 1972. Les associations religieuses en Egypte d’apr`es les documents d´emotiques. Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale. Chadwick, H., trans. 1953. Origen: Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapouthier, F. 1954. “Les peintures murales d’un hypog´ee fun´eraire pr`es de Massyaf,” Syria 31: 172–211. Charles, R. H., trans. and ed. 1972. The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis. Jerusalem: Makor. ´ 1934. Le temple de Dendara. Cairo: Imprimerie de Chassinat, E. l’Institut franc¸ais de arch´eologie orientale. Cherpion, N., J. P. Corteggini, and J.-F. Gout. 2007. Le tombeau de P´etosiris a` Touna el-Gebel. Relev´e photographique. Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale.

Clairmont, C. 1955. “Greek Pottery from the Near East,” Berytus 11: 85–139. Clairmont, C. W. 1970. Gravestone and Epigram. Greek Memorials from the Archaic and Classical Period. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Clarke, J. 1998. Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art, 100 B.C.–A.D. 250. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clarysse, W. 1985. “Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic Army and Administration,” Aegyptus 65: 57–66. Clarysse, W. 1995. “Greeks in Ptolemaic Thebes,” in HundredGated Thebes. Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period (S. P. Vleeming, ed.) (Papyrologica Lugdano-Batava, vol 27). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1–19. Clerc, G. 1978. “Isis-Sothis dans le monde romaine,” in Hommages a` Maarten J. Vermaseren: recueil d’´etudes offert par les auteurs ´ de la s´erie. Etudes pr´eliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain a` Maarten J. Vermaseren a` l’occasion de son soixanti`eme anniversaire le 7 avril 1978 (M. B. de Boer and T. A. Eldridge, eds.). 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, vol. I: 247–281. Conrad, A. 1972. “The Development of the Frontal Face and the Three-quarter View in Attic Red-figure Vase-painting to the End of the Fifth Century.” M.A. thesis, New York University, Institute of Fine Arts. Cook R. M. 1937. “Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt,” JHS 57: 227–37. Corcoran, L. 1995. Portrait Mummies from Roman Egypt (I–IV centuries A.D.): With a Catalog of Portrait Mummies in Egyptian Museums. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Coulton, J. J. 1978. The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Daszewski, W. A. 1990. “Nouvelles recherches sur la cˆote Nord ´ ´ de l’Egypte. Un type m´econnu de chapiteaux,” EtTrav 15: 109–124. Daszewski, W. A., and A. Abd el-Fattah. 1990. “A Hellenistic Painting from Alexandria with Landscape Elements,” in Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses f¨ur Klassische Arch¨aologie Berlin 1988. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 441–442. Delevorrias, A. 2004. The Parthenon Frieze: Problems, Challenges, Interpretations (S. Maurommates, photographs). Athens: Melissa Publishing House and Benaki Museum. Delia, D. 1988. “The Population of Roman Alexandria,” TAPA 118: 275–92. Delia, D. 1991. Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Description de l’Egypte, ou, Recueil de observations et des recherches ´ qui ont e´t´e faites en Egypte pendant l’´exp´edition de l’arm´ee franc¸aise, publi´e par les ordres de Sa Majest´e l’empereur Napol´eon le Grand. 1809–1828. Paris: Imprimerie imperial. Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1989. Tutankhamen. Life and Death of a Pharaoh. London: Penguin Books. Dieleman, J. 2005. Priests, Tongues and Rites. The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100– 300 CE) (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World [formerly ´ EPRO], vol. 153). Leiden: Brill. Diels, H., and W. Kranz. 1906–1910. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Griechisch und Deutsch. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

´ Empereur, J.-Y. 2001. “Introduction,” in N´ecropolis I. Etudes alexandrines 5 ( J.-Y. Empereur and M.-D. Nenna, eds.). Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale, 1–24. Empereur, J.-Y., and M.-D. Nenna. 2001. “Conclusion g´en´eral,” ´ in N´ecropolis I. Etudes alexandrines 5 ( J.-Y. Empereur and M.-D. Nenna, eds.). Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale, 513–526. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 1971–1972. New York: Macmillan. Enklaar, A. 1985. “Chronologie et peintures des hydries de Hadra.” BABesch 60: 106–151. Evelyn-White, H. G., trans. 1943. Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and the Homerica. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Fabre, D., and F. Goddio. 2010. “The Development and Operation of the Portus Magnus in Alexandria,” in Alexandria and the North-Western Delta (D. Robinson and A. Wilson, eds.). Monograph 5. School of Archaeology, University of Oxford. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology, 53–74. Fairbanks, A. 1907. Athenian Lekythoi with Outline Drawing in Glaze Varnish on a White Ground. New York: Macmillan Company. Fakhry, A. 1942. The Egyptian Deserts. Bahria Oasis. Cairo: Government Press, Bulˆaq. Fakhry, A. 1944. The Egyptian Deserts. Siwa Oasis. Its History and Antiquities. Cairo: Government Press, Bulaq. Fakhry, A. 1950. The Oasis of Siwa. Its Customs, History and Monuments. Cairo: Wadi el-Nil Press. Fakhry, A. 1973. The Oases of Egypt, Volume One: Siwa Oasis. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Fakhry, A. 1990. Siwa Oasis. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press; reprint of The Oases of Egypt, Volume One: Siwa Oasis. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1973. Farag, R. el-, U. Kapiony-Heckel, and K. P. Kuhlmann. 1985. “Recent Archaeological Explorations at Athribis,” MDIK 41: 1–8. Faulkner, R. O. 1966. “The King and the Star-Religion in the Pyramid Texts,” JNES 25, no. 3: 153–161. Faulkner, R. O. 1969. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Faulkner, R. O., trans. 1994. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day: Being the Papyrus of Ani (Royal Scribe of the Divine Offerings), Written and Illustrated Circa 1250 B.C.E., by Scribes and Artists Unknown, Including the Balance of Chapters of the Books of the Dead Known as the Theban Recension, Compiled from Ancient Texts, Dating Back to the Roots of Egyptian Civilization (with additional translations and a commentary by O. Goelet; introduced by C. A. R. Andrews; edited by E. Von Dassow; in an edition conceived by J. Wasserman). San Francisco: Chronicle Books. Fazzini, R. A., J. F. Romano, and M. E. Cody. 1999. Art for Eternity. Masterworks from Ancient Egypt. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum of Art in association with Scala Publishers. Felton, D. 2007. “The Dead,” in D. Ogden, ed., A Companion to Greek Religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 86–99. Fewster, P. 2002. “Bilingualism in Roman Egypt,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text ( J. N. Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 220–245.

Dodson, A., and S. Ikram. 2008. The Tomb in Ancient Egypt: Royal and Private Sepulchres from the Early Dynastic Period to the Romans. London: Thames & Hudson. Donadoni-Roveri, A. M., et al. 1988. Il Museo egizio di Torino. Guida alla lettura di una civilt`a. Novara: Istituto geografico De Agostini. Doxiadis, E. 1995. The Mysterious Fayum Portraits. Faces from Ancient Egypt. New York: H. N. Abrams. ´ 1941. “La frise e´ nigmatique du tombeau de Drioton, E. Padykam,” in S. Gabra, Rapport sur les Fouilles d’Hermoupolis Ouest (Touna el-Gebel). Cairo: L’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie du Caire, 29–37. Du Mesnil du Buisson, R. 1939. Les peintures de la synagogue de Doura-Europos, 245–256 apr`es J.-C. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Dunand, F. 1969. “Les repr´esentations de l’agathod´emon a` propos de quelques bas-reliefs du Mus´ee d’Alexandrie,” BIFAO 67: 9–48. Dunand, F. 1973. Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la ´ M´editerran´ee (EPRO, vol. 26). 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. Dunand, F. 1975. “Les myst`eres e´ gyptiens aux e´ poques hell´enistique et romaine,” in Myst`eres et syncr´etismes (F. Dunand et al., ed.). Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 11–62. ´ Dunand, F. 1979. Religion populaire en Egypte Romaine. Les terres ´ cuites isiaques du Mus´ee du Caire (EPRO 76). Leiden: Brill. Dunand, F. 2007. “The Religious System at Alexandria,” in D. Ogden, ed. A Companion to Greek Religion. Oxford, Blackwell, 253–263. Dunand, F., and C. Zivie-Coche. 2004. Gods and Men in Egypt. 3000 BCE to 395 CE (trans. D. Lorton). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Dunand, M., and J. P. Rey-Coquais. 1965. “Tombe peinte dans la campagne de Tyr et note additionelle,” BMusBeyr 18: 5– 51. Dunbabin, K. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edgar, C. C. 1904. Greek Bronzes (Catalogue g´en´eral des antiquit´es e´gyptiennes du Mus´ee du Caire, vol. XI). Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale. Edgar, C. C. 1905. Graeco-Egyptian Coffins, Masks and Portraits (Catalogue g´en´eral des antiquit´es e´gyptiennes du Mus´ee du Caire, vol. XXVI). Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale. Edmunds, L. 1981. “The Cults and Legends of Oedipus,” HSCP 85: 221–238. Edmunds, L. 2006. Oedipus. New York: Routledge. EG = Kaibel, G. 1878. Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta. Berlin: G. Reimer. Ekroth, G. 2002. The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods. Li`ege: Centre international d’´etude de la religion grecque antique. Emery, W. B. 1970. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at North Saqqˆara, 1968–9,” JEA 561: 5–11. Empereur, J.-Y. 1995. A Short Guide to the Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa Alexandria. Alexandria: Serapis Publishing. Empereur, J.-Y. 1998. Alexandria Rediscovered. New York: G. Braziller.

243

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Fitts, D., and R. Fitzgerald, trans. 1949. Sophocles: The Oedipus Cycle. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Flores, D. V. 2003. Funerary Sacrifice of Animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period. Oxford: Archeopress. Flossmann, M., and A. Sch¨utze. 2010. “Ein r¨omerzeitliches Pyramidengrab und seine Ausstattung in Tuna el-Gebel. Ein Vorbericht zu den Grabungskampagnen 2007 und 2008,” in Tradition and Transformation: Egypt under Roman Rule: Proceedings of the International Conference, Hildesheim, Roemer- and PelizaeusMuseum, 3–6 July 2008 (K. Lembke, M. Minas-Nerpel, and S. Pfeiffer, eds.). Leiden: Brill. Foster, K. P. 1979. Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age. New Haven: Yale University Press. Foucart, P. F. 1918. Le culte des h´eroes chez des grecs. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Franken, N. 2013. “Ein a¨ gyptisches Bronzerelief der G¨ottin Mut aus dem Athena-Heiligtum von Milet,” AntK 56: 3–11. Franks, H. M. 2012. Hunters, Heroes, Kings: The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Fraser, P. M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Froidefond, C. 1971. Le mirage e´gyptien dans la litt´erature grecque d’Hom`ere a` Aristote. Aix-en-Provence: Imprimerie Louis-Jean. Frothingham, A. L., Jr. 1886. “Archaeological News,” American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 2, no. 2: 203–233. Frye, C. 2002. The Cannibal Hymn. A Cultural and Literary Study. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Fuchs, M. 1990. “Frauen um Caligula und Claudius: Milonia Caesonia, Drusilla und Messalina,” ArchAnz: 107–122. Gabra, S. 1932. “Rapport pr´eliminaire sur les fouilles de ´ l’Universit´e Egyptienne a` Touna (Hermopolis ouest),” ASAE 32: 56–77. ´ 18: 266– Gabra, S. 1934. “Les fouilles. Tounah el Gabal,” ChrEg 269. Gabra, S. 1941. Rapport sur les fouilles d’Hermoupolis ouest (Touna ´ Drioton, P. Perdrizet, el-Gebel) (with the collaboration of E. and W. G. Waddell). Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut francais d’arch´eologie orientale. Gabra, S. 1954. Peintures a` fresques et sc`enes peintes a` Hermoupolis´ Drioton). Ouest (Touna el-Gebel) (with the collaboration of E. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale du Caire. Garland, R. 1985. The Greek Way of Death. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gawlikowsky, M. 1985. Palmyre. Paris: Librarie d’Am´erique et d’Orient. Geissen, A. 1974–1983. Katalog alexandrinischer Kaiserm¨unzen der Sammlung des Instituts f¨ur Altertumskunde der Universit¨at zu K¨oln. 5 vols. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Giuliano, A., ed. 1987. Museo Nazionale Romano, I/9.1 Le Sculture. Rome: De Luca. Godley, A. D., trans. 1957. Herodotus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Goudriaan, K. 1988. Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt. Amsterdam: J. C. Geiben.

Goudriaan, K. 1992. “Ethnical Strategies in Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (P. Bilde et al., eds.). ˚ ˚ Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 74–99. Graf, F., and S. I. Johnston. 2007. Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. London: Routledge. Graf, F., and S. I. Johnston. 2013. Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. 2nd ed. London: Routledge Graindor, P., and W. G. Waddell. 1932. “Inscriptions de la n´ecropole de Touna el-Ghebel (Hermoupolis),” BIFAO 32: 97–119. ´ Grandjean, Y. 1975. Une nouvelle ar´etalogie d’Isis a´ Maron´ee (EPRO, vol. 49). Leiden: Brill. ´ Grenier, J.-C. 1977. Anubis alexandrin et romain (EPRO, vol. 57). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Grenier, J.-C. 1978. L’autel fun´eraire isiaque de Fabia Stratonice ´ (EPRO, vol. 71). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Griessmair, E. 1966. Das Motiv der Mors immatura in den griechischen metrischen Grabinschriften. Innsbruck: Universit¨at Wagner. Griffith, F. L. 1909. “Herodotus II.90. Apotheosis by Drowning,” ¨ 46: 132–134. ZAS Griffith, R. D. 2008. Mummy Wheat: Egyptian Influence on the Homeric View of the Afterlife and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Griffiths, J. G. 1960. The Conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and Classical Sources, Liverpool: University Press. Griffiths, J. G. 1970. Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride. Cambridge: Wales University Press. Griffiths, J. G. 1973. “The Isiac Jug from Southwerk,” JEA 59: 233–236 Griffiths, J. G. 1975. Apuleius of Madaurus. The Isis-Book (Meta´ morphoses, Book XI) (EPRO, vol. 39). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Grimm, G. 1975. “Tuna el-Gebel 1919–73. Eine Grabung des deutschen Architekten W. Honroth und neuere Untersuchungen in Hermopolis-West (Tanis Superior),” MDIK 31: 221– 236. Gruen, E. S. 1998. Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gruen, E. S. 2002. Diaspora. Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 1999. “The Function of Funerary Iconography in Roman Alexandria. An Original Form of Bilingual Iconography in the Necropolis of Kom el Shoqafa,” in Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Amsterdam, July 12–17, 1998: Classical Archaeology towards the Third Millennium: Reflections and Perspectives (R. F. Docter and E. M. Moormann, eds.). 2 vols. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum: vol. I: 180–182. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 2002. “Architecture et d´ecor fun´eraires, ´ de la Gr`ece a` l’Egypte: l’expression du statut h´ero¨ıque du d´efunt,” in Identit´es et cultures dans le monde m´editerran´een antique (C. M¨uller and F. Prost, eds.). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 159–180. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 2003. “Les d´ecors de plafond dans les tombes hell´enistiques d’Alexandrie,” in N´ecropolis II. 2 ( J.Y. Empereur and M.-D. Nenna, eds.). Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale, 589–629.

244

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 2010. “D’autres croyances, d’autres practiques fun´eraires: les deux e´ tats de la tombe 2 dans la n´ecropole d’Anfouchi,” BCH 134: 153–175. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M., and M.-D. Nenna. 2003. “Le lit fun´eraire dans les n´ecropoles alexandrines,” in N´ecropolis II.2 ( J.-Y. Empereur and M.-D. Nenna, eds.) Cairo: Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale, 533–575. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M., and M. Seif el-Din. 1997. “Les deux tombes de Pers´ephone dans la n´ecropole de Kom el-Chougafa a` Alexandrie,” BCH 121: 355–410. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M., and M. Seif el-Din. 2001. “Les pein´ ements tures de la n´ecropole Kom el-Chougafa a` Alexandrie. El´ de m´ethode pour la lecture iconographique et l’interpr´etation du style ‘bilingue’,” in La peinture fun´eraire antique IVe si`ecle av. J.-C.–IVe si`ecle ap. J.-C. Actes du VIIe Colloque de l’Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique (AIPMA) 6–10 Octobre 1998. Saint Romaine-en-Gal-Vienne (under the direction of A. Barbet) Paris: Editions Errance, 129–136. Gummere, R. M., trans. 1934. Seneca ad Lucilium. Epistulae Morales. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Guralnick, E. 1982. “Profiles of Korai,” AJA 86: 173–182. Hani, J. 1974. “Les nymphs du Nil,” AntCl 43: 212–224. Hannah, R. 2005. Greek and Roman Calendars. Construction of Time in the Classical World. London: Duckworth. Hannah, R. 2009. Time in Antiquity. London: Routledge. Harris, J. R. 1998. “Appendix” to Helen Whitehouse, “Roman in Life, Egyptian in Death: The Painted Tomb of Petosiris in the Dakhleh Oasis,” in Life on the Fringe: Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and Early-Byzantine Periods (O. E. Kaper, ed.). Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University, 253–270. Harrison, T. 2003. “Upside Down and Back to Front: Herodotus and the Greek Encounter with Egypt,” in Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (R. Matthews and C. Roemer, eds.). London: University of London Press, 145–155. Hartwig, M., ed. 2013. “The Tomb Chapel of Menna (TT69),” in The Art, Culture, and Science of Painting in an Egyptian Tomb. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Hawass, Z. 2006. The Royal Tombs of Egypt. The Art of Thebes Revealed. London: Thames and Hudson. Hawwass, Z. 1979. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Kom Abou Bellou,” Studien zur alt¨agyptischen Kultur 7: 75–87. Hayes, W. C. 1959. The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, vol. II: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (1675–1080). New York: Harper in co-operation with the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Helbig, W. 1963–1972. F¨uhrer durch die o¨ffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altert¨umer in Rom. 4th ed., 4 vols. T¨ubingen: E. Wasmuth. Hild J.-A. 1899. sv H´eros, in DarSag, vol. III.1. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 139–155. Hiller, H. 1975. Ionische Grabreliefs der ersten H¨alfte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. T¨ubingen: Wasmuth. Hiller von Gaertringen, F. 1899. Thera I. Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1895–1898. Berlin: Georg Reimer.

Hodos, T. 2010. “Local and Global Perspectives in the Study of Social and Cultural Identities,” in Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World (S. Hales and T. Hodos, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–31. Hodske, J. 2010. “H¨auser und Mythenbilder in Pompeji als Spiegel der Gesellshaft,” BABesch 85: 179–192. Hoffman, H. 1997. Sotades: Symbols of Immortality on Greek Vases. Oxford: Clarendon Press. H¨olbl, G. 1999. “Funde aus Milet: VIII. Die Aegyptiaca vom Aphroditetempel auf dem Zeytintepe,” ArchAnz: 345–371. ¨ H¨olbl, G. 2014. “Agyptisches Kulturgut in Ionien im 7. Jh. V. Chr.: Der Beitrag Milets zu einem religionshistorischen Ph¨anomen,” in Der Beitrag Kleinasiens zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte der Griechisch-R¨omischen Antike. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Wien, 3.-5. November 2010 ( J. Fischer ¨ and E. Trinkl, eds.). Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hooper, F. A. 1961. Funerary Stelae from Kom Abou Billou. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. Hope, C. A., and H. Whitehouse. 2006. “A Painted Residence at Ismant el-Kharab (Kellis) in the Dakhleh Oasis,” JRA 19: 312–328. Hopkins, C. 1935. “Archaeological Notes. The Season 1934–35 at Dura,” AJA 39: 293–299. Horbury, W., and D. Noy, eds. 1992. Jewish Inscriptions of GraecoRoman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hordern, J. 2000. “Notes on the Orphic Papyrus from Gurˆob (P. Gurˆob 1; Pack² 2464),” ZPE 129: 131–140. Hornblower, S. 2002. The Greek World, 479–323 bc. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Hornung, E. 1982. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. The One and the Many (trans. J. Baines). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hornung, E. 1999. The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife (trans. D. Lorton). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hornung, E. 2002. “Exploring the Beyond” (trans. D. Roscoe), in The Quest for Immortality. Treasures of Ancient Egypt (E. Hornung and B. M. Bryan, eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 24–50. Horst, P. W. van der. 1994. “Jewish Poetical Tomb Inscriptions,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy ( J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst, eds.). Leiden: Brill, 129–147. Horst, P. W. van der, trans. 2003. Philo’s Flaccus. The First Pogrom. Leiden: Brill. Hughes, D. D. 1999. “Hero Cult, Heroic Honors, Heroic Dead: Some Developments in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” in Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, G¨oteburg University, 21– ˚ oms F¨orlag: 23 April 1995 (R. H¨agg, ed.). Stockholm: Paul Astr¨ 167–175. Huguenot, C. 2008. La tombe aux e´rotes et la tombe d’Amarynthos. ´ Eretria XIX. Ecole suisse d’arch´eologie en Gr`ece. 2 vols. Humphreys, S. C. 1981. “Death and Time,” in Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death: Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, in

245

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

June 1980 (S.C. Humphreys and H. King, eds.). London: Academic Press, 261–283. Iverson, E. 1957. “The Egyptian Origin of the Archaic Greek Canon,” MDIK15: 134–147. Jacobus a Voragine, and J. G. T. Graesse. 1965. Jacobi de Voragine Legenda aurea, vulgo historia Lombardica dicta ad optimorum librorum fidem recensuit Th. Graesse, 1843. Osnabr¨uck: Otto Zeller (reprint). Jan´ak, J., and H. Navr´atilov´a. 2008. “People vs. P. Turin 5501,” in Sex and Gender in Ancient Egypt. ‘Don Your Wig for a Joyful Hour’ (C. Graves-Brown and K. M. Cooney, eds.). Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 63–70. ¨ Jantzen, U. 1972. Agyptische und orientalische Bronzen aus dem Heraion von Samos (Samos VIII). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Johns, C. 1990. Sex or Symbol. Erotic Images of Greece and Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press. Jomard, E.-F. 1982. Voyage a` l’oasis de Syouah. R´edig´e et publi´e par M. Jomard . . . d’apr`es les mat´eriaux recueillis par M. le chevalier Drovetti, . . . et par M. Fr´ed´eric Cailliaud . . . pendant leurs voyages dans cette oasis en 1819 et en 1820. Paris: Imprimerie de Rignoux, 1823. Wiesbaden: LTR-Verlag (reprint). Jones, H. S. 1912. A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome. vol. II. The Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jørgensen, L. B. 2011. “Clavi and Non-clavi: Definitions of Various Bands on Roman Textiles,” in Textiles y tintes en la ciudad antigua: actas del III Symposium internacional sobre textiles y tintes del Mediterr´aneo en el mundo antiguo, N´apoles, 13 al 15 de noviembre, 2008 (C. Alfaro Giner, J.-P. Brun, P. Borgard, R. Pierobon Benoit, eds.). Valencia: Universitat de Val`encia; Naples: Centre Jean B´erard (CNRS-EFR): 75–81. Judeich, W. 1931. Topographie von Athen. Munich: Beck. K´akosy, L. 1956. “Das Krokodil als Symbol der Ewigkeit und der Zeit,” MDIK 20: 116–20. K´akosy, L. 1982. “The Nile, Euthenia, and the Nymphs,” JEA 68: 290–298. Kaltsas, N. E. 2002. Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (trans. D. Hardy). Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Kanawati, N. 1990. Sohag in Upper Egypt. A Glorious History. Giza, Egypt: Prism Publications. Kanawati, N. 2001. The Tomb and Beyond. Burial Customs of Egyptian Officials. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips. Kantorowicz, E. H. 1961. “Gods in Uniform,” PAPS 105: 368– 398 Kaper, O. E. 2003. The Egyptian God Tutu: A Study of the Sphinxgod and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Kaplan, I. 1999. Grabmalerei und Grabreliefs der R¨omerzeit. Wechselwirkung zwischen der a¨ gyptischen und griechisch-alexandrinischen ¨ der Kunst. Vienna: Institute f¨ur Afrikanistik und Agyptologie ¨ Universit¨at Wien. Beitr¨age zur Agyptologie, vol. 16. Kaplony, P. 1963. “4. Die Verschl¨usse aus der Zeit des W3d und des Dwn: e. Der Arbeit in der Dom¨ane und de Dom¨anenverwaltertitel hrp-nbj,” in Die Inschriften der a¨ gyptischen ¨ Fr¨uhzeit. 2 vols. Agyptologische Abhandlungen (W. Helck and E. Otto, eds.) vol. 8. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz: vol. I, 82–136.

Kelly, A. 2009. Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus. London: Duckworth. Kemp, B., J. R. S. Merrillees, and E. Edel. 1980. Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. ¨ Kessler, D. 1986. “Tuna el Gebel,” in Lexikon der Agyptologie, vol. VI (W. Helck and W. Westendorf, eds.). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, cols. 797–804. ¨ Kessler, D., and P. Brose. 2008. Agyptens letzte Pyramide: das Grab des Seuta(s) in Tuna el-Gebel. Haar: Verlag Patrick Brose. Killen, G. 2000. “Wood [Technology],” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 353–368. Klotz, D. 2012. “The Lecherous Pseudo-Anubis of Josephus and the ‘Tomb of 1897’ at Akhmim,” in Et in Ægypto et ad Ægyptum: recueil d’´etudes d´edi´ees a` Jean-Claude Grenier (A. Gasse, F. Servajean, and C. Thiers, eds.). 4 vols. Montpelier: Universit´e Paul Val´ery, vol. II: 383–396. Kockelmann, H. 2008. Praising the Goddess. A Comparative and Annotated Re-edition of Six Demotic Hymns and Praises Addressed to Isis. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Koenen, L. 1983. “Die Adaptation a¨ gyptischer K¨onigsideologie am Ptolem¨aerhof,” in Egypt and the Hellenistic World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24–26. May 1982 (E. Van’t Dack, P. Van Dessel, and W. Van Gucht, eds.). Louvain: Studia Hellenistica, vol. 27: 143–90. Korshak, Y. 1987. Frontal Faces in Attic Vase Painting of the Archaic Period. Chicago: Ares. ¨ Personificationen psychologischer Affekte in der K¨orte, G. 1874. Uber sp¨ateren Vasenmalerei. Berlin: F. Vahlen. Kosmopoulou, A. 1998. “A Funerary Base from Kallithea. New Light on a Fifth-Century Eschatology,” AJA 102: 531–545. Kuhlmann, K. P. 1983. Materialien zur Arch¨aologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Kuhlmann, K. P. 1988. Das Ammoneion: Arch¨aologie, Geschichte und Kultpraxis des Orakels von Siwa. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Kuhlmann, K. P. 1998. “Roman and Byzantine Siwa: Developing a Latent Picture,” in Life on the Fringe. Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and Early-Byzantine Periods. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Netherlands Institute for Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo 9–12 December 1996 (O. E. Kaper, ed.). Leiden: CNWS, Leiden University, 159–180. Kurth, D. 1990. Der Sarg der Te¨uris: Eine Studie zum Totenglauben ¨ im r¨omerzeitlichen Agypten. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Kurtz, D., and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Łajtar, A. 1999. “Three Funerary Stelae from Tell el-Yehoudieh,” ´ EtTrav 18: 172–178. Larkin, D. W. 1994. “The Broken-Lintel Doorway of Ancient Egypt and Its Decoration.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, Institute of Fine Arts. Larson, J. 1997. “Astacides the Goatherd (Callim. Epigr. 22 PF),” CP 92: 131–37. Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs. Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larson, J. 2011. “Bilingual Inscriptions and Translation in the Ancient Mediterranean World,” in Complicating the History

246

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Lhote, A. 1954. Les Chefs-d’oeuvre de la peinture e´gyptienne. Paris: Hachette. ´ Lichocka, B. 2004. N´em´esis en Egypte romaine. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Lichtheim, M. 1947. “Situla no. 11395 and Some Remarks on Egyptian Situlae,” JNES 6, no. 3: 169–179. Lichtheim, M. 1973–1980. Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lindner, R. 1984. Der Raub der Persephone in der antiken Kunst. W¨urzburg: Konrad Triltsch Verlag. Lindsay, H. 1998. “Eating with the Dead: The Roman Funerary Banquet,” in Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (I. Nielsen and H. S. ˚ ˚ Nielsen, eds.). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 67–80. Ling, R. 1991. Roman Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lippold, G. 1956. Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums III.2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Littauer, M. A., and J. Crouwel. 1975. “An Egyptian Wheel in Brooklyn,” JEA 69: 107–120. Lloyd, A. B. 1976. Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1–98. Leiden: Brill. Lloyd, A. B. 1988. Herodotus, Book II. Commentary 99–182. Leiden: Brill. Lloyd, A. B. 2000. “The Ptolemaic Period (332–30 bc),” in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (I. Shaw, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 395–421. Lloyd, A. B. 2007. “Book II,” in A Commentary on Herodotus. Books I–IV (O. Murray and A. Moreno, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Łukaszewicz, A. 2012. “Second Thoughts on the Beginnings of ´ Alexandria,” EtTrav 25: 205–211. Majcherek, G. 2010. “The Auditoria on Kom el-Dikka: A Glimpse of Late Antique Education in Alexandria,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007 (T. Gagos, ed.). American Studies in Papyrology. Ann Arbor: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library, 471–84. ¨ Mandel, U. 2004. “Agyptische Schemata in ostgriechischer Aneignung. Fig¨urliche Salbgef¨asse und Terrakotten des 6. ¨ Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,” in Fremdheit – Eigenheit: Agypten, Griechenland und Rom: Austausch und Verst¨andnis. Symposion des Liebieghauses, Frankfurt am Main vom 28.–30. November 2002 und 16.–19. Januar 2003 (P. Bol, G. Kaminski, and C. Maderna, eds.). Stuttgart: Scheufele, 47–70. Mangoldt, H. v. 2012. Makedonische Grabarchitektur. Die Makedonischen Kammergr¨aber und ihre Vorl¨aufer. T¨ubingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag. Markantonatos, A. 2002. Tragic Narrative: A Narratological Study of Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Marshall, Peter K. 2002. Hyginus: Fabulae. Munich: K. G. Saur. Martin, A., and O. Primavesi. 1998. L’Emp´edocle de Strasbourg (P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665–1666) (Introduction, e´dition et commentaire). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1999. “Reflections on Hero Cults in Early Iron Age Greece,” in Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized

of Western Translation. The Ancient Mediterranean Perspective (S. McElduff and E. Sciarrino, eds.). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 50–61. Lattimore, R. 1962. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ´ Lefebvre, G. 1910. “Egypte gr´eco-romaine II. Crocodilopolis (suite) et Th´eadelphie,” ASAE 10: 155–172. Lefebvre, G. 1920. “Textes du tombeau de Petosiris,” ASAE 20: 207–236. Lefebvre, G. 1923–1924. Le tombeau de Petosiris. 3 vols. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale. Lehmann, K. 1962. “Ignorance and Search in the Villa of the Mysteries,” JRS 52: 62–68. Lejeune, B. 2006. “A Study of pLouvre N.3125 and the End of the Book of the Dead Tradition,” in Totenbuch-Forschungen: gesammelte Beitr¨age des 2. Internationalen Totenbuch-Symposiums, Bonn, 25. bis 29. September 2005 (B. Backes, I. Munro, and S. St¨ohr, eds.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 197–202. ¨ Lembke, K., with C. Fluck and G. Vittman. 2004a. Agyptens sp¨ate Bl¨ute. Die R¨omer am Nil. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Lembke, K. 2004b. “Aus der Oase des Sonnengottes – Das ¨ Grab des Siamun in Siwa,” in Fremdheit – Eigenheit: Agypten, Griechenland und Rom: Austausch und Verst¨andnis. Symposion des Liebieghauses, Frankfurt am Main vom 28.–30. November 2002 und 16.–19. Januar 2003 (P. Bol, G. Kaminski, and C. Maderna, eds.). Stuttgart: Scheufele, 363–373. Lembke, K. 2010a. “The Petosiris Necropolis at Tuna el-Gebel,” in Tradition and Transformation: Egypt under Roman Rule. Proceedings of the International conference, Hildesheim, Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum, 3–6 July 2008 (K. Lembke, M. MinasNerpel, and S. Pfeiffer, eds.). Leiden: Brill, 230–254. Lembke, K. 2010b. “Terenuthis and Elsewhere – The Archaeology of Eating, Drinking, and Dying in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt,” in Alexandria and the North-Western Delta (D. Robinson and A. Wilson, eds.). Monograph 5. School of Archaeology, University of Oxford. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology, 259–267. Lembke, K. 2012. “City of the Dead. Tuna el-Gebel’,” in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt (C. Riggs, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–222. Lembke, K. 2015. Das Grab Des Siamun in Der Oase Siwa (with contributions by H. Felber and J. Moje, in collaboration with M. Sohn [drawings] and M. Al-Roumi) (Arch¨aologische Ver¨offentlichungen des Deutschen Arch¨aologischen Instituts, 115) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ` propos du zodiaque circulaire de DenLenth´eric, B. 1996. “A dera,” in Les Astres: actes du Colloque international de Montpellier, 23–25 mars 1995, vol. 1 (B. Bakhouche, A. Moreau, and J.C. Turpin, eds.). Montpellier: Publications de la recherche, Universit´e Paul Val´ery, 183–205. Lerstrup, A. 1992. “The Making of Wine in Egypt,” G¨ottinger Miszellen 129: 61–82. Lesher, J. H., trans. 1992. Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lesko, L. 2001. sv “Literacy,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (D. Redford, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 2, 297–299.

247

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, G¨oteborg University, 21–23 April 1995 (Robin H¨agg, ed.). Stock˚ oms F¨orlag, 9–36. holm: Svenska Institutet i Athen: P. Astr¨ McDonald, John K. 1996. House of Eternity. The Tomb of Nefertari. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust. McFadden, S. 2014. “Art on the Edge: The Late Roman Wall Painting of Amheida, Egypt,” in Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil. Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA 13.-17. September 2010 in Ephesos (N. Zimmermann, ¨ ed.) Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 359–370. McNally, S., and I. Dvorˇzak Strunk. 1993. Excavations at Akhm¯ım, Egypt. Continuity and Change in City Life from Late Antiquity to the Present. First Report. BAR International Series 590. Oxford: Tempus reparatum. McPhee, I., and A. D. Trendall. 1987. Greek Red-Figured FishPlates (Antike Kunst Beiheft 14). Basel: Freunde antiker Kunst, Arch¨aologisches Seminar der Universit¨at. Meer, L. B. van der. 1977–1978. “Etruscan Urns from Volterra. Studies in Mythological Representation,” BABesch 52–53: 57– 131. Menu B. 1994. “Le tombeau de P´etosiris, nouvel examen,” BIFAO 94: 311–327. Menu, B. 1995. “Le tombeau de P´etosiris (2). Maˆat, Thot et le droit,” BIFAO 95: 281–295. Menu, B. 1996. “Le tombeau de P´etosiris (3). Culpabilit´e et responsibilit´e,” BIFAO 96: 343–357. Menu B. 1998. “Le tombeau de P´etosiris (4). Le souverain de ´ l’Egypte,” BIFAO 98: 247–262. Merkelbach, R. 1967. “Der Eid der Isismysten,” ZPE 1: 55–73. Merkelbach, R. 1968. “Ein a¨ gyptischer Priestereid,” ZPE 2: 7–30. Merkelbach, R. 1995. Isis regina – Zeus Serapis. Die griechischa¨ gyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. Meyboom, P. 1995. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina. Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy (Religions in the Graeco-Roman ´ World [formerly EPRO], vol. 121). Leiden: Brill. Meyer, M. W., ed. 1987. The Ancient Mysteries. A Sourcebook. Sacred Texts of the Mystery Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean World. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Mielsch, H. 1981.“Funde und Forschungen zur Wandmalerei der Prinzipatzeit von 1945 bis 1975, mit einer Nachtrag 1980,” ANRW II. Principat, vol. XII.2 (H. Temporini, ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 158–264. Mikalson, J. D. 2003. Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Miller, S. G. 1993. The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles: A Painted Macedonian Tomb. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Minas-Nerpel, M. 2012–13. “Pebbles Inscribed in Demotic from a Burial in the Tomb of Padykem at Tuna el-Gebel,” Enchoria 33: 65–89. Minnen, P. van. 2004. “Hermopolis, Antinoopolis, and Cemeteries,” in Egypt from Alexander to the Copts (R. S. Bagnall and D. Rathbone, eds.). London: British Museum Press, 162– 172.

Mitchel, D. 1990. Casa dei Cei (I 6, 15), H¨auser in Pompeji, vol. 3. Munich: Hirmer Verlag. Modrzejewski, J. M. 1997. The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995 (trans. R. Cornman); reprint with corrections, Princeton: Princeton University Press. M¨oller, A. 2000. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mols, S. T. A. M. 1999. Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum: Form, Technique and Function (trans. Rob Bland). Amsterdam: Gieben. Moret, J.-M. 1975. L’Iliupersis dans la c´eramique italiote. Leur mythes et leur expression figur´ee au IV’e si`ecle. 2 vols. Geneva: Institut Suisse de Rome. Moret, J.-M. 1984. Oedipe, la sphinx, et les Th´ebains. Essai de mythologie iconographique. 2 vols. Geneva: Institut Suisse de Rome. Moursi, M. 1982. “Q¯aret el-Muzawwaqa. Der Ort,” in Denkm¨aler der Oase Dachla: aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry ( J. Osing et al., eds.). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 70–71. Moyer, I. 2011. Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Murnane, W. J. 1983. The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. New York: Penguin Books. Murray, A. T., trans. 1976. Homer. The Odyssey. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ¨ Murray, M. A. 1914. “The Cult of the Drowned in Egypt,” ZAS 51: 127–135. Murray, M. A. 2000. “Viticulture and Wine Production,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 577– 608. Musgrave, J., A. J. N. W. Prag, R. Neave, R. L. Fox, and H. White. 2010. “The Occupants of Tomb II at Vergina. Why Arrhidaios and Eurydice Must Be Excluded,” International Journal of Medical Sciences 7, no. 6: 1–15. My´sliwiec, K. 2004. Eros on the Nile (trans. G. L. Packer). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Naerebout, F. G. 2007. “The Temple at Ras el-Soda. Is It an Isis Temple? Is It Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or Neither? And So What?” in Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World: Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, May 11–14, 2005 (L. Bricault, M. J. Versluys, and P. G. P. Meyboom, eds.). Leiden: Brill: 506–554. Nassery, S. A. A. el-, and G. Wagner. 1978. “Nouvelles st`eles de Kom abu Bellou,” BIFAO 78: 231–258. Neugebauer, O. 1962. The Exact Sciences of Antiquity. 2nd ed. Providence: Brown University Press, 1957; New York: Harper & Brothers (reprint). Neugebauer, O., and R. A. Parker. 1960–1969. Egyptian Astronomical Texts (EAT). 3 vols. Providence: Published for Brown University Press by L. Humphries, London. Neugebauer, O., R. A. Parker, and D. Pingree. 1982. “The Zodiac Ceilings in the Tombs of Petosiris and Petubastis,” in Denkm¨aler der Oase Dachla: aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Papaconstantinou, A., ed. 2010. The Multicultural Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids. Farnham, England: Ashgate. Paribeni, R. 1910. “Divinit´a straniere in abito militare romano,” BSRAA 13: 177–183. Parker, R. A. 1974. “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy,” in The Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World: A Joint Symposium of the Royal Society and the British Academy (D. G. Kendall and F. R. Hodson, eds.). London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 51–65. Parkinson, R. 1999. Cracking Codes. The Rosetta Stone and Decipherment. Berkeley: University of California Press. Parkinson, R. 2008. The Painted Tomb-Chapel of Nebamun. London: British Museum Press. ¨ Parlasca, K. 1975. “Hellenistische Grabreliefs aus Agypten,” MDIK 31: 93–101. Parlasca, K., and H. Seemann, eds. 1999. Augenblicke. Mumienportr¨ats und a¨ gyptische Grabkunst aus r¨omischer Zeit. Munich: Klinkhardt and Biermann. Patch, D. C., et al. 2011. Dawn of Egyptian Art. New Haven: Yale University Press. Paton, W. R., trans. 1916–1918. The Greek Anthology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Payne, H. 1931. Necrocorinthia. A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Peek, W. 1955. Griechische Vers-Inschriften. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Pensabene, P. 1983. “Lastre di chiusura di loculi con naiskoi egizi e stele funerarie con ritratto del Museo di Alessandria,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani (N. Bonacasa and A. Di Vita, eds.). 3 vols. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider: vol. I: 91–119. Pensabene, P. 1993. Elementi architettonici di Alessandria e di altri siti egiziani. Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, series C, volume III. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Perdrizet, P. 1941. “Chapter VI. Temples and Funerary Houses of the Greco-Roman Era,” in Rapport sur les Fouilles d’Hermoupolis Ouest (Touna el-Gebel) (S. Gabra, ed.). Cairo: L’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie du Caire, 51–105. Pesce, D. 1982. La Tavola di Cebete: testo, traduzione, introduzione e commento di Domenico Pesce. Brescia: Paideia. Petrie, W. M. F. 1903. Abydos, part 2. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Petrie, W. M. F., J. H. Walker, and E. B. Knobel, 1908. Athribis. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt. Petsas, P. M. 1966. Ho Taphos t¯on Leukadi¯on. Athens: Biblioth¯ek¯e t¯es en Ath¯enais Archaiologik¯es Etaireias, no. 57. Pfanner, M. 1983. Der Titusbogen. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Pfrommer, M. 1999. Alexandria. Im Schatten der Pyramiden. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Piankoff, A. 1942. “Le livre des quererts. 1er tableau,” BIFAO 41: 1–11. Piankoff, A. 1946. Le livre des quererts. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale. Piankoff, A. 1947. “Les grandes compositions religieuses dans la tombe de P´ed´em´enope,” BIFAO 46: 73–92.

Fakhry ( J. Osing, et al., eds.). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 96–101. Nicholls, R. V. 1975. The Annual Reports of the Syndicate and of the Friends of the Fitzwilliam for the Year Ending . . . Cambridge: Fitzwilliam Museum: 6. Nicholson, P. T. 2000. “Egyptian Faience” (with E. Peltenburg) in: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177–194. Nock, A. D. 1986. “Nymphs and Nereids,” in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Z. Stewart, ed.). 2 vols. Oxford, vol. II: 919–27. Noshy, I. 1937. The Arts in Ptolemaic Egypt. A Study of Greek and Egyptian Influences in Ptolemaic Architecture and Sculpture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noy, D. 1994 “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy ( J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst, eds.). Leiden: Brill, 162–182. Oakley, J. H. 2004. Picturing Death in Classical Athens: The Evidence of the White Lekythoi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ogden, D. 2013. Drak¯on: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oldfather, C. H., trans. 1933. Diodoros Siculus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Omlin, J. A. 1973. Der Papyrus 55001 und seine satirisch-erotischen Zeichnungen und Inschriften. Turin: Edizioni d’arte fratelli Pozzo. Osing, J. 1982a. “Q¯aret el-Muzawwaqa. Die Gr¨aber des Petubastis und Petosiris,” in Denkm¨aler der Oase Dachla: aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry ( J. Osing et al., eds.). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 71–95. Osing, J. 1982b. “Ezbet Baschandi. Das Grab des Qtjjnws,” in Denkm¨aler der Oase Dachla: aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry ( J. Osing et al., eds.). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 58–69. Osing, J., et al., eds. 1982. Denkm¨aler der Oase Dachla: aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Østerg˚ard, U. 1992. “What Is National and Ethnic Identity?,” ˚ in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (P. Bilde et al., eds.). Aarhus: ˚ Aarhus University Press, 16–38. Pagenstecher, R. 1919. Nekropolis. Untersuchungen u¨ ber Gestalt und Entwicklung der alexandrinischen Grabenlagen und ihrer Malerien. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient. Pakkanen, P. 1996. Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion. A Study Based on the Mystery Cult of Demeter and the Cult of Isis. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens, vol. III. Helsinki: Suomen Ateenan-instituutin s¨aa¨ ti¨o. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2004. “Die ferne Nachbar. Der Ein¨ fluss Agyptens auf das minoische Kreta und das mykenische ¨ Griechenland,” in Fremdheit – Eigenheit: Agypten, Griechenland und Rom: Austausch und Verst¨andnis. Symposion des Liebieghauses, Frankfurt am Main vom 28.–30. November 2002 und 16.–19. Januar 2003 (P. Bol, G. Kaminski, and C. Maderna, eds.). Stuttgart: Scheufele, 33–46. Pantalacci, L., and S. Denoix, eds. 2009. “Travaux de l’Institut franc¸ais d’arch´eologie orientale en 2008–2009,” BIFAO 109: 520–698.

249

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Carratelli, ed.). Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato, 329–37. Rogal, R. 2005. “Tuna el-Gebel. The ‘Egyptian House’ Murals Conservation Project. First Season in 2005,” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean XVII Reports (Warsaw 2007): 235–240. Rohde, E. 1987. Psyche. The Cult of Immortality and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks (trans. W. B. Hillis). Chicago: Ares, 1925 (reprint of the 8th ed.). Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1913–1914. Antichnaia dekorativnaia zhivopis na iugie Rossii (Ancient Decorative Painting in South Russia). St. Petersburg: Izdanie Imperatorskoi arkheologicheskoi kommissii. Rostovtseff, M. I. 2003–2004. La peinture d´ecorative antique en Russie m´eridionale. Saint-Petersbourg 1913–1914 (trans. under the direction of A. Barbet et al.). 2 vols. Paris: Boccard. Rowe, A. 1942. “Excavations of the Graeco-Roman Museum at Kˆom el-Shukafa during the Season 1941–42,” BSRAA 35 (n.s. 11.2): 3–45. Rowlandson, J., and A. Harker. 2004. “Roman Alexandria from the Perspective of the Papyri,” in A. Hirst, and M. S. Silk, Alexandria, Real and Imagined. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 79–111. Rutherford, I. 2005. “Downstream to the Cat-Goddess: Herodotus on Egyptian Pilgrimage,” in Pilgrimage in GraecoRoman and Early Christian Antiquity. Seeing the Gods ( J. Elsner and I. Rutherford, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press 131–150. Sabottka, M. 1983a. “Tuna el-Gebel – Grab des Djed-Thothiw-ef-Ankh – Vorbericht,” ASAE 69: 147–151. Sabottka, M. 1983b. “Ausgrabungen in der West-Nekropole ¨ Alexandrias (Gabbari),” Das r¨omisch-byzantinische Agypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions 26.–30. September 1978 in Trier. Aegyptiaca Treverensia 2: 195–203. Sabottka, M. 1984–1985. “Gabbari 1975–1977 (Vorbericht),” ASAE 70: 277–285. Saleh, M., and H. Sourouzian. 1987. Official Catalogue. The Egyptian Museum Cairo. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Sandbach, F. H., trans. 1969. Plutarch’s Moralia. 16 volumes [1927– 2004]. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Sauneron, S., and J. Yoyotte. 1959. La naissance du monde selon ´ ´ l’Egypte ancienne. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Scheel, B. 1989. Egyptian Metalworking and Tools. Aylesbury, UK: Shire Egyptology Publications. Scheid, J. 2003. An Introduction to Roman Religion (trans. J. Lloyd). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Schmidt, S. 2003. Grabreliefs im Griechisch-R¨omischen Museum von Alexandria. Berlin: Achet Verlag. Schmidt-Colinet, A., ed. 1995. Palmyra. Kulturbegegnung im Grenzbereich. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schreiber, T. 1908. Expedition Ernst Sieglin. Ausgrabungen in Alexandria. Die Nekropole von Kˆom-esch-Schukˆafa. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient. Schwartz, D. R. 2009. “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (A. Kamesar, ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9–31. Seaford, R. 1994a. Reciprocity and Ritual. Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Piankoff, A. 1954. The Tomb of Ramesses VI. New York: Pantheon Books. Picard, C. 1931. “Les influences e´ trang`eres au tombeau de Petosiris: Gr`ece ou Perse?” BIFAO 30: 201–227. Pipili, M. 2000. “Wearing an Other Hat: Workmen in Town and Country,” in Not the Classical Ideal. Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (B. Cohen, ed.). Leiden: Brill. Pollitt, J. J. 1990. The Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poole, R. S. 1892. Catalogue of Coins of Alexandria and Its Nomes. London: Arnaldo Forni Editore. Popkin, M. L. 2012. “Roosters, Columns, and Athena on Early Panathenaic Prize Amphorae: Symbols of a New Athenian Identity,” Hesperia 81: 207–235. Poulsen, V. 1962. Les Portraits romains I. R´epublique et dynastie julienne. Copenhagen: Publications de la Glyptot`eque Ny Carlsberg. ¨ Priese, K.-H. 1991. Agyptisches Museum. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Quaegebeur, J. 1975. Le dieu e´gyptien Sha¨ı dans la religion et dans l’onomastique. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, vol. 2. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Quaegebeur, J. 1990. “P. Brux. Dem. E. 8258. Une lettre de recommendation pour l’au-del`a,” in Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, vol. II (S. Israelit-Groll, ed.). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 776–795. Quirk, S. 1999. “The Last Books of the Dead?,” in Studies in Egyptian Antiquities. A Tribute to T.G.H. James (W. V. Davies, ed.). London: British Museum Press, 83–98. Radt, S., ed. 1999. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Vol. 4, Sophocles. G¨ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Raimondi, V. 1998. “Gli Epigrammi per Isidora: una ripresa del mito di Ila in ambito egiziano,” Appunti Romani di Filologia. Studi e comunicazioni di filologia, linguistica e letteratura greca e latina: 93–120. Rehm, R. 1994. Marriage to Death: The Conflation of Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek Tragedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rice, E. E. 1983. The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richter, G. M. A. 1966. The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. London: Phaidon Press. Richter, G. M. A. 1988. Archaic Gravestones of Attica. London: Phaidon Press, 1961; Oak Park, Ill.: Bolgazy-Carducci Publishers (reprint). Riggs, C. 2005. The Beautiful Burial. Art, Identity, and Funerary Religion in Roman Egypt Oxford: Oxford University Press. ´ Robert, J., and L. Robert. 1954. “Bulletin e´ pigraphique,” REA 67: 95–193. Robertson, M. 1971. A History of Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robins, G. 1997. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Rodziewicz, M. 1992. “On Alexandrian Landscape Paintings,” in Roma e l’Egitto nell’Antichit`a Classica. Atti del I Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano, Cairo, 6–9 febbraio 1989 (G. P.

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Seaford, R. 1994b. “Sophokles and the Mysteries,” Hermes 122: 275–288. Seaford, R. 2006. Dionysos. New York: Routledge. Seeber, C. 1976. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Totengerichts ¨ im alten Agypten. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag. Segal, C. 1974. “Death by Water: A Narrative Pattern in Theocritus Idylls (1, 13, 22, 23),” Hermes 104, no. 1: 20–38. Segal, C. 1981. “‘Since Daphnis Dies’: The Meaning of Theocritus’ First Idyll,” reprinted in C. Segal, Poetry and Myth in Ancient Pastoral. Essays on Theocritus and Virgil. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 25–46. Segal, M. 2010. sv Jubilees, Book of, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism ( J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, eds.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Seiler, F., et al. 1992. Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI 16, 7.38), H¨auser in Pompeji, vol. 5. Munich: Hirmer Verlag. Seyrig, H. 1970. “Les dieux arm´es et les Arabes en Syrie,” Syria 47: 77–112. Shapiro, H. A. 1993. Personifications in Greek Art. The Representation of Abstract Concepts 600–400 B.C. Zurich: Akanthus. Shaprio, H. A. 2012. “No Longer Banned in Boston,” AJA 116: 369–375. Shaw, I. 2002. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shedid, A. G., M. Seidel, and M. Eaton-Krauss. 1996. The Tomb of Nakht. The Art and History of an Eighteenth Dynasty Official’s Tomb at Western Thebes. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Shenouda, S. 1976. sv Hermopolis Magna, in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (R. Stillwell, ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Shore, A. F. 1971–1972. “A Drinking Cup with a Demotic Inscription,” BMQ 36: 16–19. Sichtermann, H. 1976. “Der schlafende Ganymed,” Gymnasium 83: 534–550. ´ 65: 122– Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1990. “Inscriptions from Egypt,” ChrEg 25. Simon, E. 1962. “Zur Bedeutung des Greifen in der Kunst der Kaiserzeit,” Latomus 21: 749–780. Sismanid¯es, K. 1997. Klines kai klinoeideis kataskeues t¯on Makedonik¯on taph¯on. Athens: Ekdos¯e tou Tameiou Archaiologik¯on Por¯on kai Apallotri¯ose¯on. ´ Sliwa, J. 1983. “Egyptian Bronzes from Samos in the Staatliche ´ 13: 379– Museen (Antike-Sammlung) in Berlin,” EtTrav 392. Smith, A. C. 1997. “Political Personifications in Classical Athenian Art.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Smith, M. 2002. “Aspects of the Preservation and Transmission of Indigenous Religious Traditions in Akhmim and Its Environs during the Graeco-Roman Period,” in Perspectives on Panopolis. An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Acts from an International Symposium Held in Leiden on 16, 17 and 18 December 1998 (A. Egberts, B.P. Muhs and J. van der Vliet, eds.). Brill: Leiden, 233–247. Smith, R. R. R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon Press and New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, R. R. R. 1991. Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Smith, R. S., and S. M. Trzaskoma, trans. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae. Two Handbooks of Greek Mythology. Indianapolis: Hackett. Smith, W. S. 1998. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (revised with additions by W. K. Simpson). New Haven: Yale University Press. Souvaltzi, L. 2002. The Tomb of Alexander the Great at the Siwa Oasis: The History of the Archaeological Excavation and Its Political Background. Athens: Georgiadis. Sparkes, B. A. 1971. “The Trojan Horse in Classical Art,” GaR 18: 54–70. Spencer, A. J. 1989. Excavations at El-Ashmunein II. The Temple Area. London: British Museum. Starkey, L., and M. Gawlikowsky. 1985. Palmyre. Paris: Librarie d’Am´erique et d’Orient. Steingr¨aber, S. 1985. Etruskische Wandmalerei. Stuttgart: Belser. Stephens, S. A. 2003. Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press. Straten, F. T. van. 1995. Hiera Kala. Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Religions in the Graeco-Roman ´ vol. 127). Leiden: E. J. Brill. World [formerly EPRO], SEG = Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum. 1923–. H. W. Pleket and R. S. Stroud, eds. Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff & Noordhoff. Swain, S. 2002. “Bilingualism in Cicero? The Evidence of CodeSwitching,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text ( J. N. Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 128–167. Taylor, J. 2000. “The Third Intermediate Period (1069–664 bc),” in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (I. Shaw, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 330–368. Taylor, J. H. 2001. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Taylor, J. H., ed. 2010. Journey through the Afterlife. Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Termini, C. 2009. “Philo’s Thought within the Context of Middle Judaism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (A. Kamesar, ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 95–123. The Athenian Agora. A Guide to the Excavation and Museum. 1990. 4th ed. Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. The Vatican Collections. The Papacy and Art. 1982. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Harry N. Abrams. ThesCRA = Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum. 2004–2012. 8 vols. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum; Basel: Fondation pour le lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Thomas, T. K. 2000. Late Antique Egyptian Funerary Sculpture. Images for this World and the Next. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thompson, M. L. 1992. “Hypothetical Models of the Dura Paintings,” in The Dura-Europos Synagogue. A Re-evaluation (1932–1992) ( J. Gutmann, ed.). Atlanta: Scholars Press, 31– 52. Tin`e Bertocchi, F. 1964. La pittura funeraria apula. Naples: Macchiaroli. Tiradritti, F. 2007. Egyptian Wall Painting. New York: Abbeville Press.

251

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Alexandria: A Cultural and Religious Melting Pot (G. Hinge and ˚ ˚ J. A. Krasilnikoff, eds.). Arhus: Arhus Studies in Classical Antiquity, 42–65. Venit, M. S 2010a. “Egypt as Metaphor – Decoration and Eschatology in the Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria,” in Alexandria and the North-Western Delta (D. Robinson and A. Wilson, eds.). Monograph 5. School of Archaeology, University of Oxford. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology, 243–257. Venit M. S. 2010b. sv Alexandria, Jews and Judaism in, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism ( J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, eds.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Venit, M. S. 2010c. “Referencing Isis in Tombs of GraecoRoman Egypt: Tradition and Innovation,” in Isis in Egypt: Egyptian Gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Isis Studies, Li`ege, November 27–29 2008. Michel Malaise in Honorem (L. Bricault and M. J. Versluys, eds.). Leiden: Brill, 89–119. Venit, M. S. 2012a. “Chapter 7, Alexandria,” in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt (C. Riggs, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 102–121. Venit, M. S. 2012b. “Oedipus in Egypt: An Oedipus Cycle ´ in Graeco-Roman Tuna al-Gebel,” EtTrav 25 (Festschrift for Zsolt Kiss): 402–416. Venit, M. S. Forthcoming (a). “Greek Funerary Architecture,” in DeGruyter’s Handbook of Greek Architecture (M. Tr¨umper, ed.). Venit, M. S. Forthcoming (b). “Alexandria,” in the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Late Antiquity (O. Brandt, J. Magness, and L. Rutgers, eds.). Vermeule, E. 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. 2000. “Textiles,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 268–298. Wace, A. J. B. 1945. “Recent Ptolemaic Finds in Egypt,” JHS 65: 106–109. Wace, A. J., A. H. S. Megaw, and T. C. Skeat (with the assistance of S. Shenouda). 1959. Hermopolis Magna, Ashmunein. The Ptolemaic Sanctuary and the Basilica. Alexandria: University Press. Walker, S. E. C., and M. L. Bierbrier. 1997. Ancient Faces. Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008. Rome’s Cultural Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walters, E. J. 1988. Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Women in the Dress of Isis. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Webb, V. 1978. Archaic Greek Faience. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Weitzmann, K. 1959. Ancient Book Illumination. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Wells, R. A. 1985. “Sothis and the Satet Temple on Elephantine: A Direct Connection,” Studien zur Alt¨agyptischen Kultur 12: 255–302. Whitehouse, H. 1998. “Roman in Life, Egyptian in Death: The Painted Tomb of Petosiris in the Dakhleh Oasis,” in Life on the Fringe: Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the

Tomlinson, R. 1995. “The Town Plan of Hellenistic Alexandria,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano: i centenario del Museo Greco-Romano: Alessandria, 23–27 novembre 1992; atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano (N. Bonacasa, ed.). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 236–240. Totti, M. 1985. Ausgew¨ahlte Texte der Isis- und Serapis-Religion. Hildesheim: G. Olms. Tovar, S. T. 2010a. “Greek in Egypt,” in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Langauge (E. J. Bakker, ed.). Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 252–266. Tovar, S. T. 2010b. “Linguistic Identity in Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in The Multicultural Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids (A. Papaconstantinou, ed.) Farnham, England and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 17–46. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London: Thames and Hudson. Tran Tam Tinh, V. 1972. Le culte des divinit´es orientales en Campanie ´ en dehors de Pomp´ei, de Stabies et d’Herculanum (EPRO, vol. 27). Leiden: Brill. Trendall, A. D., and T. B. L. Webster. 1971. Illustrations of Greek Drama. London: Phaidon. Trendall, A. D., and A. Cambitoglou. 1978–1982. The RedFigured Vases of Apulia. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Turcan, R. 1996. The Cults of the Roman Empire (trans. A. Nevill of Les cultes orientaux dans le monde Romain, Soci´et´e d’´edition Les Belles Lettres, 1992, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Van Brummelen, G. 2009. The Mathematics of the Heavens and the Earth: The Early History of Trigonometry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Van de Mieroop, M. 2011. A History of Ancient Egypt. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Vanderlip, V. F. 1972. The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis (American Studies in Papyrology, vol. 12). Toronto: A. M. Hakkert. Vassilika, E. 1989. Ptolemaic Philae. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Venit, M. S. 1982. “The Greek Pottery,” in Mendes. Preliminary Report on the 1979 and 1980 Seasons (K. L. Wilson, ed.). Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications, 27–29. Venit, M. S. 1984. “Early Attic Black Figure Vases in Egypt,” JARCE 21: 141–154. Venit, M. S. 1985a. “Laconian Black Figure in Egypt,” AJA 89: 391–398. Venit, M. S. 1985b. “Two Corinthian Alabastra in the GraecoRoman Museum in Alexandria,” JEA 71: 183–189. Venit, M. S. 1988. Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in Egyptian Museums (American Research Center in Egypt Catalogs, volume 7; Ancient Naukratis Project, vol. 6). Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, for the American Research Center in Egypt. Venit, M. S. 2002. Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead. New York: Cambridge University Press. Venit, M. S. 2003. “A Reconsideration of the ‘Relief of the Gods’ from Brauron,” AntK 46: 44–55. Venit, M. S. 2009. “Theatrical Fiction and Visual Bilingualism in the Monumental Tombs of Ptolemaic Alexandria,” in

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF M ODERN WORKS CITED

Roman and Early-Byzantine Periods (O. E. Kaper, ed.). Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University, 253–270. Wilkinson, R. H. 1992. Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. London: Thames and Hudson. Wilkinson, R. H. 2003. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames & Hudson. Wilkinson, T. A. H. 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London: Routledge. Winston, D. 2010. sv Greek Philosophy, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism ( J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, eds.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Witt, R. E. 1971. Isis in the Graeco-Roman World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Wittenburg. A. 1990. Il Testamento di Epikteta. Trieste: Giulio Bernardi. Wulleman, R., M. Kunnen, and A. Mekhitarian. 1989. Passage to Eternity. Knokke, Belgium: Mappamundi. Wypustek, A. 2013. Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Periods. Leiden: Brill. ´ Yoyotte, J. 1960. “Les p`elerinages dans l’Egypte ancienne,” in ´ Les P`elerinages. Egypte ancienne, Isra¨el, Islam, Perse, Inde, Tibet, Indon´esie, Madagascar, Chine, Japon ( J. Yayotte, ed.). Paris: ´ Editions du Seuil. Zandee, J. 1960. Death as an Enemy According to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions (Studies in the History of Religions; Supplements to Numen, vol. 5). Leiden: Brill.

253

Index

faience tiles, 57–58, 213 founding of, 50 Jewish population in, 87–88 massacre of Jews, 203 status of ‘citizen,’ 108 Alexandrian tombs, 50–86 bilingualism, 81–83 heroization, 83–85 mystery cults, 80–81 from Ptolemaic period, 51–63 from Roman period, 51, 63–80 Ali, Mohamed, 204 Aline, 88–89 Allen, T. G., 233 ‘all-subduer’, 219 al-Salamuni, tombs at, 156, 157, 183, 192. See also Akhmim Bissing’s 1897 tomb, 185–187, 189, 192 Bissing’s 1913 tomb, 183–184 Kaplan’s Tomb VI, 185 Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, 185 patron portraiture, 199 Salamuni Tomb 8, 184 Amasis, 133 Amaunet, 7 Amazons, 223 Amduat, 16, 46, 110, 118, 164, 171–172, 197, 231, 234 Amenhotep III, 7 Ament, 118–119 Amheida, 157 Ammit depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–167, 177–179 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 163 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 151 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 142 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 183–184, 190 Ammonios, 84 Amphiarios, 83 Amphipolis, 213 Amun, 7, 117–118, 133, 134, 139, 227 oracle of, 133, 228 Amyrtaeus, 2–3, 6 Andromache (Euripides), 192 Andronikos, Manolis, 64–65 Anfushy, tombs at, 55–58, 59, 84, 197. See also Pharos Island, tombs of Ani, 228

Abramos, 219 Abydos, 126–127, 158, 160–161, 162–163, 190, 232 Achilles, 42 Achoris, 6 acroteria, 88, 218 Ad Osiris et Isis (Plutarch), 192 Adams, W. Y., 208 Adonis, 103–104, 225 Adriani, Achille, 56, 58–59, 80, 82, 212 Aelian, 211 Aeneas, 99–100 Aeneid (Virgil), 99–100, 223 Aeschylus, 101, 106, 192, 223–224, 226 Agamemnon, 100, 101, 102, 223 Agamemnon (Aeschylus), 192 Agatha Tyche, 79 Agathodaimons, 82, 199–200, 232 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 69, 71–72, 79, 214 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 175, 176–177 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 159 Agnoia, 102, 103, 105–107, 225 agriculture. See also names of specific types of agriculture depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 60 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 10, 15, 16, 25–38 representation of seasons in funerary decoration, 94 Ah-hotep II, 12 Ahrensdorf, Peter J., 106, 226 Aiakos, 82 Aigisthos, 192 Akhmim (Panopolis), 148–149, 182–192, 205 Bissing’s 1897 tomb, 185–186, 187, 188, 189, 192 Bissing’s 1913 tomb, 183–184 Kaplan’s Tomb VI, 185 Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, 185 Salamuni Tomb 8, 184 al-’Ara˘g Oasis, 230 Alcamenes, 42 Alexander (brother of Philo), 203 Alexander the Great, 48, 133, 228 conquest of Egypt, 2–3 depiction of in Tomb of Philip at Vergina, 40 founding of Alexandria, 50 Alexandria Classically inspired layout and elements of, 50–51 ethnic diversity in, 211

255

INDEX

ankhs depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 111, 112–113, 123–125 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 141, 142, 143–144 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 185 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 152 antae, 67–68 Antigone, 223 Antino¨opolis, 50 Antinous, 69 Antiphilos, 225 Antoninus Pius, 64–65, 92 Anubis, 83, 196, 199–200, 215 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113, 120–121, 123, 126–128, 132–133 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 69–71, 79 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–167, 170, 172–173, 177–179 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–164, 232 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 136–137, 141, 143 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 186, 190, 191 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 152–154 Apelles, 105, 225 Aphrodite (Venus), 64, 65–66, 225 Aphrodite Anadyomene, 85 Aphytos, 229 Apis, 72–74, 77–78, 79, 197, 200 Apollo, 104–105, 106–107, 192, 223 Apollodorus, 105–106 Apollonius Rhodius, 93, 220 Apopthis, 136 Apuleius, 77–78, 80, 192 Aquarius, 155–156 Arch of Titus, 98, 222 arcosolia in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 95 in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 60 in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 63, 78, 79 in tomb of Isidora, 94 Arimasps, 100–101 Aristion, 48–49 Aristotle, 46 Armant (Hermonthis), 109 Arnold, Dieter, 8–9 Arsinoe, 88–89, 90 Artaxerxes III, 2–3, 6 Artemis (Diana), 64, 65–66, 199, 214 Asclepios, 148–149 Asklepiades, 90 Assurbanipal, 2–3 Assyria, 2–3 Astyanax, 99–100, 192 Aswan, 87–88 atef crowns, 155–156 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 111, 118–119 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 70–71 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166, 177–178, 180–181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 17–18 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 145–147 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 189 Athena (Minerva), 64, 65–66, 82, 214

Athens, 6, 89 bovine sacrifice, 42 Egyptian military alliances to repel the Persians, 6 Athribis, 148–154 tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150, 151, 152, 156 Zodiac Tomb (Tomb of the Brothers), 151–153, 154, 155, 156 Attica, 106 Atum, 116, 118–119, 186 Aufr`ere, Sydney, 135 Augustus, 50, 66, 222 Aurelios P¯etes¯e, 198–199 Avaris, 5–6 Ay, 182–183 ba. See life force ba-birds, 85, 112–113, 213 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 121–122, 131–132, 197–198 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 60–62, 213 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 63 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–168, 170, 177–178, 180–181, 233 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 16–18 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–163, 164 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 136–137 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 154 baboons, 127–128, 141, 145, 172, 177, 181 baboon-headed Hapy, 11, 75–76 baboon-headed Osiris, 18–19 daemon in form of, 173 Hapy in form of, 166–167 solar baboons, 16, 127–128, 228 Thoth as, 7, 12, 18–19 Bagnall, Roger, 3 Bahariya Oasis, 229 Baines, John, 207 Bakchos, 93 baldachins, 84, 85 Baldassarre, Ida, 106, 226 basileion crowns, 193 Baths of Caracalla, 80 battle of Gaza, 87–88 Ben Sira, 89 Benu-bird, 143, 148 ´ Bernand, Etienne, 49, 84, 88, 94–95, 222 Bes, 159, 172, 208, 232 Bianchi, Robert, 3 bilingualism, 3–4 in Alexandrian tombs, 51–80, 81–85 origin of term, 64 in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 19, 46–48 biography, in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 8, 12–14, 48 Bir el-Shaghala, 157, 203, 226 Bissing, Friedrich Wilhelm von, 183, 190, 205, 214, 236 Bissing’s 1897 tomb, 185–187, 189, 192 daemonic protection, 200 layout of, 186 patron portraiture, 198 zodiac ceiling of, 188 Bissing’s 1913 tomb, 183–184 Boardman, John, 42, 209 Boeotia, 99, 102

256

INDEX

cista mystica (cylindrical basket), 95, 221 Clarysse, Willy, 3 clavi, 160–161, 168–170, 185, 233 Clerc, Gis`ele, 193 cocks, 16, 100–101, 112–113, 114, 223 code-switching, 4, 64, 203 Coffin Texts, 191–192 Colonus, 106 Contest between Horus and Seth, 118–119 conveyance. See transportation and conveyance Corfu, 65, 66 ‘Couch of Serapis,’ 215 Creon, 106–107 Crocodile Tomb daemonic protection, 200 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197–198 crocodiles, 16, 161, 174, 181, 200 crocodile-headed Ammit, 142 crocodile-headed daemons, 149, 190 depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 135 Crocodilopolis, 109, 135 Croesus, 133 crook and flail, 123, 128–129, 141, 166, 170–171, 178–179 cuirass, 70 Cupid, 82 cylindrical basket (cista mystica), 95, 221 Cyrene, 6

Bommas, Martin, 80–81 Book of Caverns, 110, 190, 236 Book of Gates, 110, 164, 171–172, 226, 231 Book of Hours, 155 Book of Job, 219 Book of Jubilees, 90 Book of the Day, 144–145 Book of the Day and of the Night, 144–145 Book of the Dead, 10, 16, 110, 117–118, 128–129, 135–136, 137, 138–139, 141, 144–145, 155, 163–164, 166, 170, 171, 189, 228, 233, 236 Book of the Earth, 190 Books of Breathing, 110, 116, 117–118, 131–132 Boriaud, Jean-Yves, 65–66 Bothmer, Bernard, 3, 210 Botti, Giuseppe, 63 Braun, T. F. R. G., 229 Brauron, 199 Brenk, Frederick, 79 bricolage, 3–4 in tomb of Petosiris, 24–25 in tombs at al-Salamuni, 183–192 in tombs of Dakhla Oasis, 157–181 broken lintels, 18–19, 58, 84, 85, 197 Brooklyn-Budapest Painter, 224 Brunner-Traut, Emma, 190, 191–192, 236 Bubastis, 2 bulls, 16, 171, 172, 174, 175 agricultural scenes, 10–12, 15, 28 Apis bulls, 72–74, 77–78, 79, 197, 200 bull-headed daemons, 190 sacrifice of, 42–46, 48 Burkert, Walter, 80–81, 221 Busiris, 158

daemons depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134, 135–136 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 172, 173, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 158–159, 163–164 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 136, 139–140, 148 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 185, 187, 190, 191–192 protection of the tomb by, 199–200 Dakhla Oasis, 157–181, 226, 229, 232 tomb of Petosiris, 157–158, 165–181 tomb of Petubastis, 157–159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 Darius, 40 Daszewski, Wiktor, 82, 85 Delia, Diana, 87–88 Delos, 84 Delphi, 82, 192, 223, 229 Demeter, 90, 107 Demetrios of Phaleron, 211 Dendera, 149–150, 152, 155–156, 194 Diana. See Artemis Didymos, 97 Dieleman, Jacco, 3 dining clubs, 215 Dio Chrysostom, 211 Diocletian, 191–192 Diodorus, 6 Diodorus Siculus, 65, 69 Dionysiaka (Nonnos), 182–183 Dionysos, 34, 39–40, 69, 82–84, 100–101, 220 Dionysiac ritual, 51, 69, 107 house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel with Dionysiac imagery, 95–96, 97 djed pillars depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 115, 116 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 176–177, 180–181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 16–17, 25–28

caduceus (kerykeion), 69 Calame, Claude, 106 Caligula, 193 Calumny (Apelles), 105, 225 Cambyses, 6, 228 Cambyses II, 2–3 Campus Martius, 193 canopic jars, 149–150, 172–173, 185, 186 Canopus Decree, 194 Caracalla, 213 Cassandra, 99–100, 192 Castiglione, L´aszl´o, 148, 170, 188, 199, 229 cattle husbandry, depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 25, 28, 29, 30, 47 cauldrons, 166–167, 177–179, 180–181, 190 Cauville, Sylvie, 18, 232 ´ Centre d’Etudes Alexandrines, 63 Cerberus, 82, 228 Chalcidike, 229 Charon, 69, 82 Charun, 81 Chatby, 51–52, 83. See also Hypogeum A checker-pattern decoration, 56–57, 62, 189, 190–191 Cherpion, Nadine, 8 chitons, 19–21, 22, 28, 32–34, 35–38, 47, 70, 105–106, 121–122, 187–188 chlamys, 70–71, 98, 102–103, 105–106, 144, 231 choachytus, 215 Choephoroi (Aeschylus), 101

257

INDEX

Empereur, Jean-Yves, 76, 214 Endymion, 103–104, 225 Enklaar, Arnold, 211 ennead, 16, 116, 118–120 Enoch, 89, 219 Epicurus, 228 Erasmus, 191–192 Eros, 65, 93, 98 Eteonos, 106 Ethiopia and Ethiopians, 14 ethnicity depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 14–15, 16, 34 identification, 1–2 Etruscan tombs and funerary art, 81, 99 Eudaimon, 97 Euergetes, 221–222 Euripides, 65, 101–102, 192 Exakon, 90 exedrae, 66–67, 91–92 exomis, 19–21, 28 Eye of Re, 138–139, 170, 172 Ezbet Baschandi, 232

djed pillars (cont.) depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 164 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 143 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 184, 185, 186 Djedhor. See Teos Djedthothiufankh II, 8–9, 16, 48, 205 chapel walls of tomb of Petosiris devoted to, 9, 15–16, 17, 18, 47 tomb of, 226 Djehuty. See Thoth dogs, 161 Isis-Sothis and, 183–184, 186–187, 193 Domus Lucretii Frontonis, 103–104 doors as entrance to underworld, 81, 82 Doric architectural elements, 42, 52, 54 Dositheos, 203 Dositheus, 88 Dra’ Abu el-Naga, 12 Duamutef, 11, 143 Dura Europus, 99, 103–104, 188, 193, 198, 199, 235–236 Earth (Ge), 98 Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Ben Sira), 89 Edmunds, Lowell, 106 eggs, 7, 80, 145, 216 Egypt and Egyptians afterlife religion, 196–197 consideration of the life force or ‘soul,’ 3 disparity of style between pronaos and chapel in tomb of Petosiris, 9 efficacy of imagery, 200–201 expression of as connection to past, 110 Greek recognition of primacy of Egyptian, 51 Greek versus, 3 preservation of the body, 3 during Roman period, 110 calendar of, 237 conquest by Rome, 109–110 daemonic protection of tombs, 199–200 disintegration of historically unified state, 109–110 early Greek interchange with, 5–6, 204 early Greek military alliances with, 6 second-class citizenship, 109–110 social positioning, 197–198 Egyptian Astronomical Texts (Neugebauer and Parker), 154, 183 eidolon, 112–113 Ekroth, G., 209 el-Ashmunein, 7 el-Din, Mervat Seif, 63 Electra, 100–102, 107, 223–224 Electra (Euripides), 101–102 Electra (Sophocles), 101–102 Elephantine, 87–88 Eleusis, 106, 107, 214 cult of, 106 Eleusinian mysteries, 89, 90, 107 el-Hawawish, 183 Elijah, 219 El-Kab, 12 el-Muzawwaqa, 157, 229. See also Dakhla Oasis elongated figures, 16, 28, 47–48 Elysian Fields, 81, 82, 83, 103, 192, 201 Empedocles, 211–212

“fabric bands that signify rebirth”, 74, 216 faience, 6 beaded shroud, 127–128 tiles, 57–58, 62, 213 Fakhry, Ahmed, 133, 134, 135–138, 139, 141, 142–143, 144–145, 148, 157–158, 229, 230, 231 falcons, 152–154, 170, 171, 177, 181, 185, 188, 233, 237 as ba-birds, 112–113, 121–122, 131–132, 150, 197–198 crown of Imentet, 116 falcon-headed daemons, 163–164, 190 falcon-headed Horus, 59, 119–120, 121–122, 126–127, 172, 173 falcon-headed Osiris-Sokar, 192, 230 falcon-headed Qebehsenuef, 11, 74–75 falcon-headed Re, 163–164 falcon-headed Re-Harakhty, 142 falcon-headed souls of Pe, 129 Horus falcons, 67–68, 79, 80, 85, 123, 144, 145–147, 166 Khonsu with hindpart of a falcon, 159 sun god in form of, 166 Fattah, Ahmed Abd el-, 82 Fayum, 135 Felton, D., 209 First Idyll (Theocritus), 62–63 Fitzgerald, R., 226 flail. See crook and flail flax production, depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 25, 34, 35–37, 38, 39 Fort Saleh, 84 Four Sons of Horus depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 74–76 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 170, 172–173, 177–178 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 11 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 143 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 186

258

INDEX

preservation of the body, 3 recognition of primacy of Egyptian, 51 weighing of the soul versus weighing of the heart, 236 bovine blood sacrifice, 42–45, 48 daemonic protection of tombs, 199–200 depiction of, 14 early Greek interchange with Egypt, 5–6, 204 early Greek military alliances with Egypt, 6 pilgrimage to tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 48–49 representation of corporeal volume, 38, 47 social positioning, 197–198 wine-making techniques, 32 Gregorian calendar, 237 Grenier, Jean-Claude, 70 griffins, 100–101, 200 Griffith, F. L., 93 Griffiths, J. G., 192 Grimm, G¨unter, 111–112 Guimier-Sorbets, Anne-Marie, 63, 65, 83, 85 Gurˆob, 95–96

Franks, H. M., 208 frontal-faced figures, 233 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 80 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 172, 174, 175, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 16, 22, 28, 34, 35, 38, 208 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–161 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 184, 185, 187–188 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 152–154 funerary carts, 160, 161, 162–163 furniture manufacture, depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 24–25, 27, 47 Gabbari, 85, 200 Gabra, Sami, 91–92, 113–115, 116–117, 118–119, 205, 223, 226, 227, 228 Ganymede, 103–104, 225 Garland, R., 221 garland sarcophagi, 71–72 garments. See also names of specific garments depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134–135 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 98, 102–103, 105–106, 116–117, 119–122, 123–125, 126–127, 128–129, 198, 223 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 59, 60–61 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 69–71, 72, 74–76, 77–78, 79, 80, 215–216 depiction of in tomb at Moustapha Pasha, 55 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166, 168–170, 172–173, 176–177, 178–179, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 9–10, 14–15, 16, 19–22, 23, 28, 32–34, 35–40, 42, 47, 210 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–161, 163–164, 232 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 137–138, 139, 141, 142–143, 144, 148, 231 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 185, 186, 187–188, 189, 191 Ge (Earth), 98 Geb, 118–119, 227, 231 Gebel el-Mawt¯a, 133. See also Siwa Oasis genies, 16, 18 The Golden Legend, 191–192 gorgoneions, 71–72, 79, 199–200, 227 Gospel of John (Nonnos), 182–183 Goudriaan, Kurt, 3 grain production, 208 association with Isis, 217 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 25, 34–35, 36, 38, 40, 47, 208 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 163–164 Graindor, Paul, 93, 222 grape and wine production, depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 25, 28–30, 31, 33, 34, 47 grape vines, 113, 114, 135, 159–160, 161–162, 233 Great Cackler (Great Honker), 7 Great Tomb at Lefkadia, 82 Greece and Greeks, 1–2 afterlife religion bilingualism of Alexandrian tombs, 81–83 consideration of the life force or ‘soul’ (psyche), 3 disparity of style between pronaos and chapel in tomb of Petosiris, 9 efficacy of imagery, 200–201 Egyptian versus, 3 mystery cults and, 80–81

Hades (destination of the deceased), 63–64, 81, 88–89, 226 Hades (Pluto), 82, 223 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 98, 107 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 64–66 Hadra, 82, 83 Hadrian, 50, 64–65, 69, 78–79, 92, 232 hairstyles depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134–135 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113, 120–121, 123–126, 227 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 213 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 68, 74, 77 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 173–174, 232 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 9, 14–15, 16, 28, 34, 37–39, 42, 47–48 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 137–138, 142–143, 144, 148 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 187–188 ‘Hall of Caracalla’, 63, 213. See also ‘Nebengrab,’ tombs in halos (nimbuses), 98, 222 Hani, J., 94–95 Hapy, 11, 75–76, 77, 180–181 Harpocrates, 81, 129, 145, 146, 184, 235 Harris, J. R., 175, 234 Harrison, Evelyn B., 144, 216 Hathor, 208 depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 115, 117–118, 119–120, 131–132 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 177 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 12–13 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 163–164 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 137, 230 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 236 Hauhet, 7 Heh, 7 Heket, 152 Helios, 222 hem-hem crowns, 75, 76 henu pose of jubilation, 129 Hera Ammonia, 229 Herakles, 45, 51, 60, 83, 84, 85, 93, 106, 210

259

INDEX

House-tomb 18, Tuna el-Gebel, 111, 112 House-tomb 20, Tuna el-Gebel, 111–113, 114, 156, 197–198 House-tomb 21, Tuna el-Gebel, 113–133 anteroom of, 115–127 lower frieze, 115–116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 upper zones, 120–122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 burial room of, 127–128, 133 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197–198 patron portraiture, 198 House-tomb 23, Tuna el-Gebel, 99–100, 107 Humphreys, S. C., 62–63, 94 Hut-repyt, 148–149. See also Athribis Hyginus, Gaius Julius, 65–66 Hylas, 93, 94, 221 Hypogeum A, 52–53, 211 dating of, 51–52 Egyptian influence in, 53, 81 Greek influence in, 52–53, 81 layout and decoration of, 52, 212 location of, 51–52 style and decoration of, 52–53 Hypsicles, 194

Herakles Soter, 84 Hermaios, 49 Hermanubis, 81 Hermaphrodite, 224 Hermes, 7, 49, 65, 69, 82, 98, 144, 222 Hermes Chthonios, 101 Hermes-Thoth, 222 Hermias, 97 Hermonthis (Armant), 109 Hermopolis Magna, 6–7, 90, 108. See also Petosiris, tomb of at Tuna el-Gebel; Tuna el-Gebel, house tombs of Hermopolis Parva, 7 Herodes, 90 Herodotus, 6, 34, 51, 133, 182–183, 211–212, 228 heroization and hero cults, 42–45, 71 blood sacrifice, 42, 44, 45 democratization of the afterlife, 83–85 Oedipus as hero, 106 Petosiris (Tuna el-Gebel) as hero, 48–49 Hesiod, 81 hieroglyphs, 110, 197–198 exclusion of under Roman rule, 110 in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 111, 112–113 in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 157–158, 167, 233 in tomb of Petubastis, 157–158, 160–161, 233 in tomb of Psenosiris, 149, 156 in tomb of Siamun, 139–140 in tombs at al-Salamuni, 185, 186 in Zodiac Tomb, 151–152, 154, 156 hierogrammatos, 74, 77–78 hierophant, 95, 221 hieros logos, 95–96 himations, 21–22, 39–40, 42, 47, 103, 105–106, 121–122, 187–188 Hippolytos, 103–104, 225 Histories (Herodotus), 51 Hodske, J., 224 Hoffmann, Herbert, 40 Homer, 5–6, 99, 211 “Homeric Hymn to Demeter”, 65 Horbury, William, 88–89, 219 Horus, 76–77, 85, 118–119 depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 135 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113, 119–120, 121–122, 126–127, 129 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 58–59 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 67–68, 79 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–167, 172, 173, 177–179, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 16 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 161–162, 163–164, 232 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 136–137, 141, 144, 145–147 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 186, 189, 190 Horus-Re, 138–139 hours of the night, 16, 155, 171–172, 194, 231 House-tomb 3, Tuna el-Gebel, 96–99, 107 House-tomb 4, Tuna el-Gebel, 95–96, 97, 107 House-tomb 11, Tuna el-Gebel, 95–96, 97, 107 House-tomb 13, Tuna el-Gebel, 198 House-tomb 14, Tuna el-Gebel, 95–96, 97, 107 House-tomb 16, Tuna el-Gebel, 100–101, 102, 103, 104, 107

Iliad, 42, 81 Iliou Persis, 99–100 Imentet, 116, 118–119, 139 Imsety, 11, 75–76 Inaros, 6 ´ Inscriptions m´etriques de l’Egypte Gr´eco-Romaine (Bernand), 88 Ionic architectural elements, 54 Iseum, 193 Isidora, tomb of, 4, 91–92, 95, 107 dating of, 92 decoration of, 91 discussion of possible drowning, 93–94 inscriptions, 91, 93–95 layout and construction of, 91 Isidorus, 217 Isis, 6, 81, 83, 85, 193, 200, 204, 237 cult of, 74, 77, 78–79, 80, 107, 188–189, 216–217 depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134, 135 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 111–113, 115, 119–120, 126–128, 129, 132–133 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 76–78, 79 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166, 172–173, 176–177, 179, 180–181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 12, 16–17, 18–19, 25–28 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–161, 163–164 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 139, 141, 143, 145, 148 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190–191, 192 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 152–154 with nimbus, 222 Isis knots (tiets), 16–17, 115, 116, 176–177, 180–181 Isis-Ma’at, 72 Isis-Sothis, 183–184, 186–187, 188, 189, 192–193 Isis-Thermouthis, 79, 215, 217 Isles of the Blest, 62–63, 82 Ismene, 51 Ixion, 82

260

INDEX

jackals, 16, 56–57, 58–59, 60, 70, 80, 135, 152, 163–164, 170, 180–181, 200, 233 jackal-form Anubis, 161–162 jackal-headed Anubis, 80, 120–121, 123, 127–128, 172–173, 233 jackal-headed ba-birds, 167–168 jackal-headed daemons, 159, 190, 232 jackal-headed Duamutef, 11 jackal-headed souls of Nekhen, 129 jackal-headed Wepwawet, 136–137 Jesus, 88 Jews, 2. See also Leontopolis afterlife imagery, 200 in Alexandria, 87–88, 211 epitaphs describing the immortality of soul, 89–90 epitaphs using Greek metaphor describing the afterlife, 88–89 gravestones from Leontopolis, 4, 108 immigration and integration into Egypt, 87–88 in Leontopolis, 87–88, 218 resentment at their treatment under Roman rule, 109–110 secondary burials, 3 social status of, 203 Jomard, Edme-Franc¸ois, 145–147 Josephos, 219 Jouguet, Pierre, 205 Judgement of the Dead, 110, 190 depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 135–136 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–167, 168, 177–179 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 16, 46 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 161–162, 163 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 141, 142, 143, 148 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 183–184, 189, 190 Julian calendar, 237 Julius Caesar, 194

Kimon, 6 klinai as biers, 211 in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 91–92, 95, 96, 97–98, 113 in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 51, 53–54, 56, 60–61, 212 in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 63, 71, 80, 84 in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 24–25, 27, 48 in tombs at al-Salamuni, 183–184 Klotz, David, 191 Knidian Lesche at Delphi, 82 Koenen, Ludwig, 229 Kom el Kazui, 85 Kom el-Shoqafa, Main Tomb in Great Catacomb at, 66–78, 84, 116–117, 119. See also ‘Nebengrab,’ tombs in burial chamber (naos) of, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 burial room of, 69–77 daemonic protection, 199–200 Egyptian influence in, 67–68, 69–71, 72, 74–77 Graeco-Roman influence in, 66–68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77 imagery of, situated within Alexandria tomb design, 77–78 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197 layout of, 66–67 patron portraiture, 198, 199 pronaos of, 67–68, 69 Kore. See Persephone Kosmopoulou, Angeliki, 82 kraters, 95, 221 Krenaia, 93, 220 Kuhlmann, Klaus Peter, 133, 144, 183, 185–186, 188, 228, 229, 231 Kurth, Dieter, 112–113, 128–129, 226, 227, 228 Kyane, 64–65 Kyme, 217 Kyparissos, 103–104, 225 Laconia, 229 Lagina, 209 Laios, 102, 103, 104, 105–107 Lake Mareotis, 50 Laocoon, 99–100 Larkin, Diana Wolfe, 84 leafless trees, 40, 158, 208 Leclant, Jean, 70 lector priests, 74, 77, 125–126 lectus cubicularis, 51 lectus triclinaris, 51, 211 Lefebvre, Gustave, 7, 8–9, 10, 17–18, 19, 35, 39–40, 42, 205, 208, 209 Lefkadia, 82 Lehmann, Karl, 102–104, 225, 226 Lehmann, Phyllis, 224 Lembke, Katja, 136, 139, 141, 142, 220, 229, 230, 231 Leontopolis, 4, 87–90, 108 origin of, 87, 218 tombstones of, 88 dating of, 88 Greek literary mode, 88 Greek metaphor and the afterlife, 88–89 Greek visual model, 88 Leos, 209 Lerstrup, A., 208 Lesche of the Knidians, 223 Lethe, 88–89 Leto, 104–105

ka, 11, 170 Kadmos, 220 K´akosy, L´aszl´o, 94 kalathos, 193 Kallixeinos, 69 Kanawati, Naguib, 183, 185–186 Kantorowicz, Ernst H., 70 Kaper, Olaf, 226 Kaplan, Irene, 183, 185, 191, 215 Kaplan’s Tomb VI, 185 Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, 185, 198 Kauket, 7 Kek, 7 Kelly, Adrian, 106 kerykeion (caduceus), 69 Kessler, D., 216 Khafaga, Youssef, 97–98 kheker friezes, 16–17, 25–28, 139–140, 152, 164, 197–198 Khemenu (Khmun), 7, 12–14, 18–19, 38 Khemmis, 182–183. See also Akhmim Khentiamentiu, 200 Khent-Min, 182–183. See also Akhmim Khepri, 17–18, 126–127, 180–181 Khepri-Re, 129 Khmun. See Khemenu Khonsu, 119–120, 159

261

INDEX

depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 189, 190 feather of, 72, 75, 164, 166–167, 173–174, 177–178, 179, 181 Macedonian tomb at Amphipolis, 213 maenads, 95 Mafrousa, 84, 209 Mahes, 136, 139–140, 148, 230 Malaise, Michel, 191 Marea, 6 Markantonatos, Andreas, 106 Marsa Matruh, 85 Marshall, Peter K., 214 masks, 95, 127–128, 143, 199 Massyaf, 98 McPhee, I., 223–224 Meer, L. B. van der, 99, 222 Megalopolis, 229 Mehet-Weret, 137, 138–139, 170, 172 Mehyt, 152–154 Meketre, 45 Melos, 223–224 Memphis, 119–120 Assyrian control over, 2–3 early Greek pottery, 6, 204 Menander, 105 Menelaos, 81, 97 menit, 163–164, 166, 197–198 Menu, Bernadette, 205, 210 Merkelbach, Reinhold, 81 Merneptah, 190 Mertz, Barbara, 226 Meshent (Meskhenet), 123, 162–163 metalworking, depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 19–20, 21–22, 23, 47, 207 Metamorphoses (Apuleius), 192 metopes, 54 Miletus, 6, 212 million-year (rempet) signs, 126–127 Min, 148–149, 182–183, 187, 194 Minas-Nerpel, M., 226 Minerva. See Athena Minoan art, 5–6 Minya, 8 Mithras, 49, 234 Mithron, 49 Mols, S. T. A. M., 211 Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria (Venit), 63, 76 Moret, Jean-Marc, 106–107, 226 Moses, 188, 193, 198, 199, 235–236 Mothis, 157 Mount Kithairon, 102, 104, 106, 224 Moustapha Kamel, 53. See also Moustapha Pasha, tombs at Moustapha Pasha, tombs at, 53–54, 55, 56, 209, 211 daemonic protection of tombs, 199–200 dating of, 53 Egyptian influence in, 55 Greek influence in, 54 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197 layout and decoration of, 53–54 location of, 53 Murray, M. A., 93, 208 Mut, 139, 141 Mut el-Kharab, 157

L’Hˆote, Nestor, 185 Libya and Libyans bifurcated rulership by Libyan immigrants, 2 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris, 14 Libyan-immigrant kings and priests, 2 Siwa Oasis and, 133 Lichtheim, Miriam, 5, 12 life force (soul; ba; psyche), 3, 11, 158 association of shadow with, 228 differences between Greek and Egyptian views, 3, 61 immortality of, 51 Jewish epitaphs describing the immortality of soul, 89–90 transmigration of soul, 211–212 weighing of the soul versus weighing of the heart, 236 Lindner, Ruth, 65, 213, 214, 222, 223 Ling, Roger, 98, 102 lion-beds depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113, 127–128, 129–131 depiction of in tomb of Isidora, 91–92 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 172–173, 179–180 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 24–25, 27, 47, 48 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160, 163–164 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 143 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 185 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 152–154 lion-headed rhyta, 21–22 lions, 171, 172, 177–178 Ammit as, 142 lion-daemons, 149, 185 lion-headed daemons, 136, 139–140, 150, 190 lion’s-head spouts, 34, 208 Little Iliad, 99, 223 Lloyd, Alan B. 109, 211–212 Locri, 223 loculi, 53, 63, 78, 81, 136, 141, 142, 196, 229 origin of, 51 slabs covering, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 197 Lucania, 223–224 Lucian, 105, 225 Lucius, 192 ‘Lung’s rule’, 214 lustration of the mummy, 1–2, 59, 76–78 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 129 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 63–64, 72, 74, 76 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 173, 175–177, 179 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 10–12 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 150 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 186 Luxor, 81 Lydia, 133 Lysippos, 28, 47–48, 207 ma’at, 9, 15, 46–47, 109 Ma’at depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 135 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 119–120, 128–129 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 167, 171–172 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 11–12, 16 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–162

262

INDEX

Nock, A. D., 94 Nonnos, 182–183 North Stoa of Miletus, 212 Noy, David, 88, 219 Nubia and Nubians, 208 annexation of reunited Egypt, 2–3 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 14 Nun, 7 Nut, 154–155, 208, 230 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 115, 127–128, 129–132 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 9–10, 16–17 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 150, 197–198 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 143–145, 148 Nymphalia, 94–95 nymphs, 93, 94–95, 102, 103–104, 220, 225

Mycenaean pottery, 5–6 Mycillus, Jacobus, 65–66 Mykonos, 99 My´sliwiec, Karol, 191 Nabatean columns, 85 Naqada III, 200 Narcissus, 103–104, 106, 225 natron depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 170, 172–173, 176–177 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 10–12 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 186 Naukratis, 6, 50, 204 Naunet, 7 neb signs, 141 ‘Nebengrab,’ tombs in, 63–64, 66 dating of, 66 Egyptian influence in, 63–64 Graeco-Roman influence in, 63–66 layout and decoration of, 63 nebu signs, 180–181 Nectanebo I, 7, 8–9, 48, 204 Nectanebo II, 6, 48 nefer signs, 159 Neferet-her, 141 Nefer-renpet, 8 Nefertari, 115, 232 Nehemet-’awy, 7, 12–13 Nekhbet depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 119, 127, 128 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 17–18 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150, 197–198 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 137–138, 144, 145–147 Nekhen, 129 nemes, 55, 60–61, 79, 80, 112–113, 191, 199–200 Nemesis, 100–101 Neoptolemos, 192 Nepherites II, 7 Nephthys, 115, 200 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 111, 112–113, 115, 117–118, 119–120, 126–128, 129, 143 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 76–77, 79 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166, 172–173, 176–177, 179, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 12, 16–17, 18–19 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–161, 163–164 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 142, 145 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 184, 186, 189, 190–191 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 152–154 Nero, 64–65, 203 Neshu, 8, 48, 205, 228 chapel walls of tomb of Petosiris devoted to, 9–10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 47 funerary procession of, pictured in tomb of Petosiris, 10–11, 12, 13 Neugebauer, Otto, 156, 157–158, 165, 174, 183, 185, 232 Nikai, 45, 200 Nike, 45–46 Nikomachos, 64–65, 213 Nile, drowning in, 93 Nilo, 93 nimbuses (halos), 98, 222 Niperpathot, 133

Odyssey (Homer), 81, 82, 99 Oedipus, 55, 107 house tomb at Tuna el-Gebel depicting, 102, 103, 104, 107 Oedipus (Aeschylus), 106, 226 Oedipus at Colonus (Sophocles), 106 Oedipus the King (Sophocles), 106–107 offerings. See sacrifices and offerings Ogden, D., 214 ogdoad, 7, 145, 204, 231 Olbia, 100 Olmos, Ricardo, 223 On the Rising of the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac (Hypsicles), 194 Onias, 203 Onias IV, 87–89 Onnophris, 49 opening of the mouth ceremony, 137–138, 142–143 Oreades, 93 Orestes, 107, 192 house tomb at Tuna el-Gebel depicting, 100–101, 102 Orpheus, 69 ‘Orphic’ texts, 69 Osing, J¨urgen, 157–158, 161–164, 166, 167–168, 171–172, 173–174, 181, 229, 232, 233 Osiris, 93, 94, 200 depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134–135 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 111, 112, 119–120, 127–129 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 58–59 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 63–64, 76–77, 80, 215, 216 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 177–179 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 11–12, 16, 17–18 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–161, 163–164 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 141 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 184, 186, 189, 190–191 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 152–154 djed pillars and, 115 Osiris Khentiamentiu, 18–19 Osiris the Cynocephalus, 18–19 Osiris the Ibis, 18–19 Osiris-Sokar, 18–19, 118, 141, 189, 191, 192, 230 Osorkon, 2 Østerg˚ard, U., 3 Ovid, 40, 65, 66, 98, 103–104 Oxford, 99 Oxyrrynchos, 225

263

INDEX

importance of, 5 plan of, 8 pronaos of, 18–46 setting of, 6–7 as site of pilgrimage, 48–49 visual biography in, 48 Petrie, Flinders, 148–149, 151–152, 231 Petubastis, tomb of, 157–159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 229 daemonic protection, 200 dating of, 158 layout and decoration of, 158 Pfanner, Michael, 222 Phabeis, 89 Phameis, 88 Phanias, 97 Pharbaithos, 18 Pharos Island, tombs of, 55–56, 57, 58, 59 dating of, 55–56 Egyptian influence in, 56–59 Greek influence in, 56 layout of, 56 location of, 55–56 Phibis, 48–49 Philip, Tomb of at Vergina, 40, 208 Philip II, 208 Philip III Arrhidaios, 208 Philo, 90, 109–110 phoenixes, 162–163, 164 Phrasikleia, 90, 94 Phyllis, 40 Picard, C., 205 pilos, 32–34, 35, 37–38, 47 Pindar, 89, 133 Pingree, David, 157–158, 175 Piraeus, 6, 83–84, 204 Plaque of Kebes, 225 Plataea, 42 Plato, 19, 89, 90 Plinthine, 85 Pliny, 7, 64–65, 225 Plutarch, 98, 107, 192, 234 Pluto. See Hades Poetics (Aristotle), 46 Pollina, Octavia, 82, 83 Polyxena, 99–100 Pompeii, 103–104, 223 Popkin, Maggie, 100–101 Priam, 99–100, 192 Proclus, 223 Prokne, 42 Proserpina. See Persephone Proteus, 81 protomes, 19–21, 48, 174 Psamtik (Psammetichos I), 2–3, 6 pschent crowns, 74–75, 116, 126–127, 132–133 Psenosiris, tomb of, 149–150, 151, 152, 156 daemonic protection, 200 dating of, 149 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197–198 layout of, 149 walls of, 149–150 zodiac ceilings of, 149, 150, 151, 152 Psenthotis, 48–49

Padiamun, 115 Padikem. See Petekakem Padykam. See Petekakem Pagenstecher, Rudolf, 57 Palatine Anthology, 90 pallium, 168–170, 185 palm branches, 79, 80, 216–217 Pan, 60, 62–63, 182–183, 220 Panopolis. See Akhmim papyrus-column amulets, 166, 233 Paribeni, Roberto, 70 Parker, Richard A., 156, 157–158, 165, 174, 183, 185, 232 Parlasca, Karl, 229 Parthenon, 42, 199 Patroklos, 42 patron portraiture, 198–199 Pausanias, 133 Pe, 129 Pelias, 42 Penelope Painter, 223–224 peplos, 38–39 Perdrizet, Paul, 90, 91–92, 95, 99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 111–112, 198, 205, 221, 222, 223, 225, 227 perfume manufacture, depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 19, 22–23, 24, 25 Perikeiromene (Menander), 105 Per-iu.u, 141 Persephone (Proserpina; Kore), 82 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 96–98, 99, 107, 223 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 63–65, 66, 213, 214 depiction of in tomb of Isidora, 94 Jewish epitaph referencing, 90 Perseus, 106, 182–183 Persia and Persians, 19–20, 21, 23, 93 conquest of Egypt, 2–3 Greco-Egyptian military alliances to repel, 6 Persian elements in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 48 Persian pilgrimage to tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 49 Persian-style decoration, 24–25 wrapped garments, 210 Petekakem (Padykam; Padikem), 8–9, 38, 110–111, 205, 226 Peter¯es, 158 Peters, Elizabeth, 226 Petosiris, 5, 7, 8, 12–14, 48, 149. See also Petosiris, tomb of at Dakhla Oasis; Petosiris, tomb of at Tuna el-Gebel Petosiris, tomb of at Dakhla Oasis, 157–158, 165–181 daemonic protection, 200 dating of, 158, 232 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197–198 layout and decoration of, 158, 165–166 layout of, 166 patron portraiture, 198, 199 Room I, 166–167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174–175 Room II, 175–176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 Petosiris, tomb of at Tuna el-Gebel, 5–49, 84, 196, 201 bilingualism in, 46–48 biography of Petosiris, 8, 12–14 as centerpiece for other tombs, 49, 210–211 chapel of, 9–18 dating of, 8, 205 discovery and excavation of, 8 disparity of style between pronaos and chapel, 9, 46, 47 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197

264

INDEX

Psusennes II, 2 psyche. See life force Psyche, 82 Ptah, 76–77, 119–120, 170, 205, 216 Ptah-Tatenen, 119–120 pterophoros (wearer of feathers), 74, 216 pteryges, 70 Ptolemais, 50 Ptolemy I Soter, 4, 7, 50–51, 83, 87–88, 133, 211, 225 Ptolemy II, 69, 93 Ptolemy III Euergetes, 194, 222, 225 Ptolemy IV Philopator, 95–96, 221–222 Ptolemy V, 3–4, 222 Ptolemy VI Philometer, 87, 203 Ptolemy VIII, 109 Ptolemy IX Soter II (Physkon), 148–149 Ptolemy X Alexander I, 148–149 Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos (Auletes), 148–149 Pylades, 100, 101, 223–224 Pyramid Texts, 237 pyramidions, 91, 160, 232 Pythagoras, 211–212

depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 173–174, 177, 233 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 10–12, 14–15, 16, 18–19, 38–40, 42–46, 48, 209 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160, 162–163 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 230 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 188, 192, 235 heroization and hero cults, 83, 84 mentioned in inscription in tomb of Isidora, 93, 94–95 preserved ashes in Ptolemaic-period Alexandrian tombs, 53–54, 83 Sagittarius, 155–156 sail-signs, 110, 117–118, 142–143, 163–164 Sais, 2–3, 6 Salamuni Tomb 3A, 183. See also Bissing’s 1913 tomb Salamuni Tomb 8, 184 Samos, 6 s¯aqiya, 60, 62–63 S¯aqiya Tomb, 60–61, 62, 63, 82 Egyptian influence in, 60–63 Greek influence in, 60, 62–63 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197 Saqqarah, 6 Satis (Satet), 192–193, 237 satyrs, 34, 38, 71–72 Savaria, 193 scales, 161–162 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–167, 177–178 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 163 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 141 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 185, 190 scarab beetles, 126–127, 129, 145 Schreiber, Theodor, 63 scrolls, 198–199 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 118–119, 125–126 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 74 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 168–170 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 10–12 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 187–188 Seaford, Richard, 102, 106, 107, 226 seals of the necropolis, 56–57 Second Book of Breathing, 131–132 Seeber, C., 236 Segal, Charles, 62–63, 221 sekhem-scepters, 171 Sekhmet, 119–120 Selene, 172, 174 sema-tawy signs, 125, 141, 197–198 Semele, 89 sem-priests, 11, 77, 125–126, 137–138, 142–143, 228 Seneca, 228 senet, 19 Serapion, 149 Serapis, 79, 81, 83, 222 Serapis-Agathodaimon, 215 serekh, 17–18, 197 Sethirdais, 133 Seti I, 190 Seti II, 229 sexual interaction, depiction of, 113, 114, 191, 192, 236 Seyrig, Henri, 70 Shabaqo, 2–3 shadows, 121–122, 123–125, 190, 228

Qebehsenuef, 11, 74–75, 76, 77, 143 Qtjjnws, 232 quadriga of Hades, 98, 222 Quaegebeur, Jan, 233 Raimondi, V., 220 Rait, 142–143 Rameses II, 7, 205 Rameses VI, 144–145, 190 Rameses XI, 2 Ras al-Soda, 81 Ras el Tin, 55–57, 60, 61, 84, 85, 197. See also Pharos Island, tombs of Re, 77, 137 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 115, 118, 126–127 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 11–13, 16, 38, 208 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 163–164 Eye of Re, 138–139, 170, 172 Re-Harakhty, 142, 160–162 rempet (million-year) signs, 126–127 Repyt, 148–149 resurrection, 89, 149–150, 152–154, 219 Nut as deity of, 131–132, 143–144 Osiris-Sokar as deity of, 118 Rhadamanthus, 81, 82 rhyta, 48 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 16, 19–20, 21–22, 23, 48 Riggs, Christina, 3, 121–122, 227, 228 Rodziewicz, Mieczyslaw, 82–83 Roman calendar, 194 Rosalia (Roman Feast of the Roses), 91 roses, 91, 220 Rosetta Stone, 3–4, 110 Rostovtseff, M. I., 234 Rowe, A., 75–76, 77, 214, 215–216 Rutilius Lupus, 193 saccos, 39–40 sacrifices and offerings, 42, 209, 210 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 118, 128–129, 130

265

INDEX

Shai, 214 Shedet, 135 shen knots, 17–18, 25–28, 145–147 shendyt-kilts, 69, 75 She’ol, 89, 219. See also Hades (destination of the deceased) shepherding, depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 60, 62–63 Sheshonq I, 2 Shu, 116, 119–120, 129, 150, 173–174 Siamun, tomb of at Siwa Oasis, 12, 204 daemonic protection, 200 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197–198 patron portraiture, 198 Sieglin Tomb from Gabbari, 200 silhouette figures, 190 silicernium, 66–67 Sinhue, 44–45 Siphnian Treasury, 214 sirens, 60–62, 199–200 Sirius, 192–193 Sisyphus, 82, 228 situlae, 79, 134, 185, 187–189, 192, 197, 235–236 Siwa Oasis, 133–148 Crocodile Tomb, 134, 135, 136 oracle of Amun, 133, 228 settlement of, 133 tomb of Siamun, 136–148 ceiling, 144–145, 146, 147 dating of, 136, 229 east side of north wall, 136–137 east wall, 137–138, 139, 140, 141 layout and decoration of, 136 pictorial structure of, 147–148 west wall, 141–142, 143, 144 skeletons, 190, 236 Smith, R. S., 214 snakes. See also uraeus-serpents cult of Isis, 79 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 127 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 79–80 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–173, 174, 175, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 7 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 158–159 serpent-headed daemons, 69, 149, 190 Sobek, 135 social positioning, 197–198 Sohag, 183 Sokar, 170, 233 Sokar-Osiris, 158 solar baboons, 16, 127–128, 228 solar boats depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 129, 131 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 171–172, 177, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 163–164 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 136–137, 144, 145, 146, 231 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 154 solar discs (sun-discs), 84, 85 depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 134 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 111, 112–113, 115, 116–117, 119, 123, 126–127, 227 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 67–68, 70, 74–76, 77, 79, 80

depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 170, 171–172, 177, 179, 180–181 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 161–162 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 137, 142, 143, 145–147 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 184, 185, 186, 190 Solon, 42 Sopdet, 192–193 Sophocles, 89, 101–102, 106–107 Sosigenes, 194 Sotades Painter, 40 Sothis, 192–193, 237 Souchos, 222 soul. See life force Sparkes, B. A., 223 Sparta, 6, 106, 229 sphinxes, 85, 197, 199–200 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 102–103, 105, 106–107, 224 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 55, 212 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 63, 79 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 24–25 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 232 St. Peter’s basilica, 214 Stagni Tomb, 70, 71, 200 Stephens, Susan, 3, 229 Straten, F. T. van, 209 St-w3h, 158 Styx, 69 Suetonius, 65–66 sun-discs. See solar discs swty crowns, 164 symmetry in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 101, 106, 115–116, 126–128, 135 in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 71–75, 76–77 in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166, 175–176, 177–179, 180 in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 18–19, 37–38 Tachos. See Teos Tanis, 2 Tantalus, 82, 98 Tatenen, 119–120 Taueret, 176–177 Taylor, J. H., 216 Tefnet, 116 Tel Defenneh, 6 Tel el-Yehoudieh, 87, 219. See also Leontopolis Telephos, 192 Telephos (Euripides), 192 Telphousa, 104–105 Temple of Amun, 145–147 Temple of Hathor, 152, 155–156 Temple of Min, 194 Temple of Minerva, 64–65 temple prostitution, 51 temple tombs, 90, 220 Teos (Djedhor; Tachos), 6, 10, 38, 48 Testament of Epikteta, 83 Testament of Job, 219 thalamos, 88–89, 93, 94 Thanatos, 103 Thebaid, 109 Thebe, 103–104, 105, 106, 225

266

INDEX

Troy, 192 Trzaskoma, S. M., 214 Tuna el-Gebel, 7, 90–107, 108. See also Petosiris, tomb of at Tuna el-Gebel Tuna el-Gebel, house tombs of, 91, 95–107 dating of, 90 with Dionysiac imagery, 95–96, 97, 107 with Egyptian content, narrative, and style, 110–133 House-tomb 18, 111, 112 House-tomb 20, 111–113, 114, 156 House-tomb 21, 113–133 with Greek myth narratives, 96–107 House-tomb 3, 96–99, 107 House-tomb 16, 100–101, 102, 103, 104, 107 House-tomb 23, 99–100, 107 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197 temple tombs versus, 90 tomb of Isidora, 91–92, 95, 107 dating of, 92 decoration of, 91 discussion of possible drowning, 93–94 inscriptions, 91, 93–95 layout and construction of, 91 Turin, 85 Turin Papyrus, 191, 236 Tutu (Tithoes), 166, 181, 232 Tydeus, 51 Tyre, 82, 98

Thebes, 102, 105, 106, 116, 226, 227 Assyrian control over, 2–3 bifurcated rulership by Libyan-immigrant priests, 2 early Greek pottery, 6 tomb of Ah-hotep II, 12 Theocritus, 62–63, 93, 220 Theodosius, 88–89 Thera, 83–84 Theseus, 106 Thmuis, 149 tholoi, 100, 223 Thoth depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 135 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113, 119–120, 121–122, 129, 227 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 76–77 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–167, 172, 177–178 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 7, 8, 11–14, 18–19, 46–47, 48, 49, 204, 205, 208 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 160–161, 163 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 136–137, 141, 145 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 186, 189, 190 priests of, 158 three-quarter view figures depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 120–122 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 60 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 77 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 170, 175, 233 in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 98, 105–106 in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 35, 38–40, 42, 47–48 thyrsoi, 69, 95, 221 Tiberius Julius Alexander, 203 tiets (Isis knots), 16–17, 115, 116, 176–177, 180–181 Tigrane Pasha Street, tomb from, 78–79, 80 daemonic protection, 199–200 dating of, 78–79 Egyptian influence in, 78, 79–80 Graeco-Roman influence in, 79, 80 imagery to enhance social status of occupants, 197 layout of, 78 Tithoes (Tutu), 166, 181, 232 Tomb of the Brothers. See Zodiac Tomb Tomba dei Caronti, 81 Totenmahl reliefs, 71 Toynbee, Jocelyn, 91 Trajan, 64–65, 193 transportation and conveyance celestial boats, 150 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 129, 131 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 12 funerary boats, 164 funerary carts, 136–137, 160, 161, 162–163 solar boats, 136–137, 144, 145, 146, 154, 163–164, 171–172, 177, 181, 231 trapeza, 53–54, 212 triclinium, 56, 66–67, 71, 78, 211, 215 Tridacna-shell-shaped decoration, 66–68, 91–92, 94 Trimithis, 157 Tripheion, 148–149. See also Athribis Triphis, 148–149 Trojan Horse, 99–100, 107 Trojan War, 5–6

Unas, 232 unguent cones, 160, 163–164 uraeus-serpents, 84, 85 depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 112–113, 115, 116, 129 depiction of in Ptolemaic-era Alexandrian tombs, 60–61 depiction of in Roman-era Alexandrian tombs, 74–75 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 180–181 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 16, 17–18 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 161–162 depiction of in tomb of Siamun, 145 depiction of in Zodiac Tomb, 154 Vatican, 99, 105, 106 Venus. See Aphrodite Vergil, 93 Vergina, tomb at, 64–65, 213, 222 Vespasian, 76, 193 Via Portuensis, 64–65, 222 Vibia, tomb of, 214 Villa Corsini, 99 Villa of the Mysteries, 226 Virgil, 99 vultures, 17–18, 111, 149–150, 177–178 Nekhbet in form of, 137–138, 144 vulture crown, 143 vulture headdress, 117–118, 134 vulture-headed Nekhbet, 119 Wadjet depiction of in house tombs of Tuna el-Gebel, 116–117, 127, 128 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 176–177 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 17–18 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 159 depiction of in tomb of Psenosiris, 149–150, 197–198

267

INDEX

Xenophanes, 104–105

wadjet eyes, 159, 232 Wadj-wer, 234 Wardian, 60, 84. See also S¯aqiya Tomb was-scepters, 111, 141, 142, 166, 170 wearer of feathers (pterophoros), 74, 216 weighing of the heart depiction of in Crocodile Tomb, 135 depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 166–167, 177–179, 181 depiction of in tomb of Petubastis, 161–162 depiction of in tombs at al-Salamuni, 190 Greek weighing of the soul versus, 236 Weitzmann, K., 223 Wells, R. A., 237 Wepwawet, 136–137 Wer-Hekau, 137–138 Whitehouse, Helen, 170, 174, 198, 232, 233, 235 Wilkinson, R. H., 232, 233 wine production. See grape and wine production Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), 89 woodworking, depiction of in tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel, 19, 23–25, 26, 27, 207 Wypustek, Andrzej, 94

Youssef, Antun, 8 Zetema, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106–107 Zeus, 51, 106 Zeus Ammon, 133, 229 Zivie-Coche, C., 227 zodiac ceilings, 154–156, 193–194, 198 in tomb of Petosiris at Dakhla Oasis, 174, 175, 181, 182 in tomb of Petubastis, 165, 233 in tomb of Psenosiris, 149, 150, 151, 152 in tombs at al-Salamuni, 183 Bissing’s 1897 tomb, 186–187, 188, 189 Bissing’s 1913 tomb, 183–184 Kaplan’s Tomb VI, 185 Kaplan’s Tomb VIII, 185 Salamuni Tomb 8, 184 in Zodiac Tomb (Tomb of the Brothers), 154, 155 Zodiac Tomb (Tomb of the Brothers), 151–153, 154, 155, 156, 197–198 layout of, 152 zodiac ceilings of, 154, 155

268

I. Tuna El-Gebel, the Tomb of Petosiris (Author Photo)

II. Tuna El-Gebel, the Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel Relief, Nut and the Parents of Petosiris (IFAO NU 2003 5007)

III. Tuna El-Gebel, the Tomb of Petosiris, Chapel Relief, Petosiris and Neshu (IFAO NU 2003 5008)

IV. Alexandria, Anfushy Tomb II, a Refashioned Wall in the Anteroom (Author Photo)

´ V. Alexandria, Anfushy Tomb V, Room 4, Checkers and the Doric Embrasure (Centre d’Etudes Alexandrines)

VI. Alexandria, the S¯aqiya Tomb, the S¯aqiya (Author Photo)

VII. Alexandria, the S¯aqiya Tomb, the Facade of the Sarcophagus (Author Photo)

VIII. Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, the Central Niche (Author Photo)

IX. Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, the Left Niche (Author Photo)

X. Alexandria, the Tigrane Tomb, the Right Niche (Author Photo)

XI. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 3, the Abduction of Persephone (after Gabra 1954: pl. 14)

XII. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 23, the Trojan Horse (after Gabra 1954: pl.16)

XIII. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 16, the Oedipus Cycle (after Gabra 1954: pl. 15)

XIV. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, the Anteroom, the West Wall, the Lower Figured Frieze (after Gabra 1954: pl. 25, Below)

XV. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, the Anteroom, the East Wall, the Lower Figured Frieze (after Gabra 1954: pl. 28, Below)

XVI. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, the Burial Room, the South Wall (after Gabra 1954: pl. 29)

XVII. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, the Burial Room, the East Wall (after Gabra 1954: pl. 26)

XVIII. Tuna el-Gebel, House-Tomb 21, the Burial Room, the West Wall (after Gabra 1954: pl. 27)

XIX. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the East Wall, Siamun before Osiris (Copyright Katja Lembke)

XX. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the West Wall, Upper Register, Osiris and Thoth (Copyright Katja Lembke)

XXI. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the West Wall, Lower Register, Lustration of the Mummy (Copyright Katja Lembke)

XXII. Siwa Oasis, Tomb of Siamun, the West Wall, Lower Register, Siamun, Isis, and the Benu-bird (Copyright Katja Lembke)

XXIII. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the Wall East of the Entrance. (Ancient World Image Bank [New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 2009–] https://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/4546289498/in/ album-72157623916994596/, used under terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License)

XXIV. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the Wall West of the Entrance. (Ancient World Image Bank [New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 2009–] https://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/4546292004/in/ album-72157623916994596/, used under terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License)

XXV. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petubastis, the View to the Northeast (ARCE 96-602-32; Reproduced by Permission of the American Research Center in Egypt [ARCE])

XXVI. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the View toward the South (ARCE 96-602-02; Reproduced by Permission of the American Research Center in Egypt [ARCE])

XXVII. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the South and East Walls, the Lower Register (Copyright G¨unther H¨olbl)

XXVIII. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room I, the North End of the East Wall (Copyright G¨unther H¨olbl)

XXIX. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the West Wall, South Section, the Lower Register (ARCE 96-602-27; Reproduced by Permission of the American Research Center in Egypt [ARCE])

XXX. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the Center of the Ceiling Zodiac (Copyright G¨unther H¨olbl)

XXXI. Dakhla Oasis, Tomb of Petosiris, Room II, the Ceiling Zodiac and Winged Figures (Copyright G¨unther H¨olbl)

XXXII. Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb from 1897, Wall D-E, the Patron of the Tomb (after Kanawati 1990: pl. 40)

XXXIII. Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb from 1897, Wall A-B, Upper Register, the Judgement Scene (after ASAE 1950: pl. I)

XXXIV. Akhmim, Bissing’s Tomb from 1897, Wall E-F, Lower Register, the Scene on the Altar (after Kanawati 1990: pl. 42)