Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 150

Melanie Wasmuth

An essential issue of the contribution at hand concerns the definition of “archeological.” The bulk of Egyptian artifacts classifiable as “archeological” may be labeled “art historical source,” “textual source,” “architectural source,” etc. with equal justification. The advantage as well as the difficulty provided by sources that may be classified as both archeological and textual characterize Egyptian artifacts and Egyptological research: a large amount of “archeological” findings from Egypt are inscribed, e.g. paintings and reliefs featuring legends or integrating figurative and textual elements, inscribed statuary, founding stones, and small finds (such as figurines, sistra), or even pottery inscribed with pottery marks or contents labels. For this brief survey, the corpus of sources is therefore comprised of anepigraph and inscribed artifacts and monuments with focus on their representational, infrastructural, or functional aspects.

A further general issue regarding Achaemenid Egypt is the current state of research: though the period covering the twenty‐seventh (i.e. first Persian dominion) to the thirty‐first dynasty (second Persian dominion) as well as the continuation into the Ptolemaic period has been the focus of several studies and excavations in recent years, these time spans continue to be a minor focus of Egyptology and are studied primarily by scholars from other disciplines (e.g. Ancient History, Classics, Graeco‐Roman Archeology). Therefore, the actual amount of data is comparatively scarce, and in the case of uninscribed objects, stratigraphic information and independent dating are often missing altogether. Even inscribed objects are not always easily dated when the reigning king's name is omitted – a practice starting already before the Achaemenid period. However, there is evidence from the first Persian dominion, the intermediate period (twenty‐eighth–thirtieth dynasty), and the second Persian dominion. Sources are preserved that were made within the Egyptian cultural tradition, within completely un‐Egyptian cultural traditions and mixing elements from two or more cultural traditions. Their geographical scope ranges from the region of the modern Suez Canal, northwestern Sinai, the Nile Delta and Valley to its adjacent desert areas and the oases. There are royal, “elite” and “non‐elite” sources; representational and functional sources; “state,” temple, and “private” sources; sources in situ, in progress of excavation, in collections, and lost sources (i.e. having been transferred or destroyed since antiquity). Moreover, the sources reveal sacral, funerary, profane, and representational activities. Still unrivaled collections of data are provided by Posener (1936) and Bresciani (1958).

Most of the known sources date, or are commonly dated, to the first Persian period (twenty‐seventh dynasty). This is due to the presence of the royal name of “Darius,” although that may refer to either Darius I, II, or III. Fortunately, some of the most monumental and longest‐known sources (e.g. the canal stelae), but also private stelae from the Serapeum in Saqqara, can definitely be attributed to Darius I because of the regnal year mentioned. Many other objects (e.g. handles of sistra, vessels, etc.) derive from insufficiently known stratigraphic contexts and should be given an ambiguous date, though they are likely to originate from the much longer first Persian dominion. Accurate dating of non‐royal art and architecture is particularly difficult as independent dating criteria are still to be established (e.g. Josephson 1997: p. 14). Statues composed within the Egyptian cultural tradition tend to be dated to the twenty‐sixth dynasty because of their “trueness to original”; statues incorporating foreign elements that cannot easily be assigned to a specific cultural tradition are usually thought to stem from the Ptolemaic period. However, without a major project that reevaluates the complete corpus of private statuary from the twenty‐fifth dynasty to the Ptolemaic period within its prosopographic context, an evaluation of private representational art under Persian rule remains impossible. Most dating criteria for the Persian period that focus on style or composition can be shown to be under‐determined: e.g. the so‐called “Persian gesture” and “Persian garment” are neither specifically Persian nor restricted to the Persian period, but can already be found on twenty‐sixth dynasty monuments (e.g. Schulman 1981; Vittmann 2009: p. 97). Persian period pottery and “small finds” like amulets pose similar challenges. Even though there is evidence from recent excavations (cf. the discoveries at Tell el‐Herr: e.g. Valbelle 1999, and Abusir: Bareš et al. 2005) suggesting a potential Persian period origin, the majority of comparative material is often generally dated to the Late Period (e.g. Müller‐Winkler 1987, who omits the twenty‐seventh to thirty‐first dynasties from her chronological table of artifacts; see also Aston 1999a with respect to the dating of tombs).

The old scientific paradigm notwithstanding, building and cultic activities in the king's name, continued in all regions of the Egyptian realm: in the canal region with a focus on Persian cultic activities, in the Nile Valley, the Delta, and northwestern Sinai with a focus on the continuation of Egyptian cultic traditions and fortification, and in the oases with boosting cultivation and settlement (see Wasmuth 2017a including the map on pl. I; see already Gamer‐Wallert and Schefter 1993). Apart from actual in‐situ finds, this can also be deducted from the Achaemenid period quarry inscriptions found in the Eastern desert (e.g. Bongrani Fanfoni and Israel 1994; Posener 1936: pp. 98–130).

One core area of royal monumental display is along the canal joining the Red Sea and the Wadi Tumilat and thus providing a navigable waterway from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. This waterway was reopened under Darius I and marked at strategic points – i.e. the gulf coast (Suez/Kubri), the southern edge of the Bitter Lakes (Kabret/Shallûf), and the junction between the north–south and east–west canal at the northern edge of the Bitter Lakes (Serapeum) – by a monumental stela (the so‐called “canal stelae”), but also by a fire altar, and at least one further monument. Accordingly, these locations did cater for Persian cultic/festive/representational functions besides being visible markers of a route of transport (Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 125–199, 263–269, pls. I–III; see also Tuplin 1991; Bresciani 1998; Posener 1936: especially pls. V–XV). At the first major town in the Wadi Tumilat, nowadays Tell el‐Maskhuta, a further monumental stela was placed (Posener 1936: pl. IV), which is based on a different master copy. The construction inscription is substantially shortened in favor of a more detailed comment on the legitimacy of the king's rule over Egypt (Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 144–146). While the Kabret and Kubri stelae combine predominantly “Persian” and “Egyptian” faces, the Maskhuta stela has only an “Egyptian” face (Figure 20.1). To date, there is no evidence for an additional stela featuring a “Persian” version (Schweiger 1998: pp. 184–185, 605–608).

Figure 20.1 Reconstruction of the “Egyptian” and “Persian” faces of the Kabret stela.

Source: From the Suez canal region; Wasmuth 2017a: Pls. II‐III.

Not a juxtaposition as on these stelae but a close combination of Persian and Egyptian elements within one monument or at least one distinct part of a monument occurs in the lists of toponyms on the “Egyptian” faces of the stelae (i.e. Kubri, Kabret, and Maskhuta) and on the base of the by now headless statue of Darius I that was produced in Egypt and transferred to Susa in antiquity (Kervran et al. 1972; Perrot et al. 1974; Trichet and Vallat 1990; here Figure 94.8). Rather than choosing the most characteristic gesture, posture, attribute, etc. within Achaemenid and/or Egyptian tradition, the artists went for elements of high representational value and of similar associations, meaning, and functions within both cultures (and, if possible, also within Mesopotamian royal tradition; for a detailed discussion see Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 101–124). Its original site of erection is still open to discussion; so far the temple areas of Tell el‐Maskhuta and Heliopolis have been suggested (see Bresciani 1998: pp. 103, 110). The same is true for the question of how explicitly the Persian nature of the king was given prominence on this monument: dress and attributes are Persian; the inscriptions are predominantly Egyptian; posture and gesture may derive from either tradition; the head is missing and the headdress can plausibly be reconstructed to have been in either Egyptian or Persian style (as on the coins with depictions of Artaxerxes III wearing Persian court dress and an Egyptian double crown, see Allotte de la Fuÿe 1928 and here Figure 20.2, or a Persian crown like several other monumental statues at Susa, see Luschey 1983; see also further reading).

Figure 20.2 Stater commemorating the reconquest of Egypt.

Source: From Susa; Wasmuth 2017a: p. 201 Abb. 50.

A third strategy of representing the king in his double role as Egyptian pharaoh and Persian Great King works by means of association. It is mainly attested in sacral art stylizing Darius not only as legitimate king of Egypt but also as a living god of the Egyptian pantheon (Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 245–249). On plaques from Karnak, his image evokes the god Hapi (Müller 1970: p. 178; here Figure 20.3), and several depictions from the twenty‐seventh dynasty temple front in Hibis (Charga oasis) present Darius as living Horus: Darius (identified by a legend) is shown as a falcon receiving “life (ankh)” from the gods (Davies 1953: pl. 39). Similarly, Darius in the form of a falcon is worshipped on the stela of Padiuserpare (Vittmann 2003: p. 139 Figure 60; Sternberg‐el Hotabi 2009).

Figure 20.3 Darius in the role of the god Hapi.

Source: From Karnak; Wasmuth 2017a: p. 248 Abb. 54a.

The most problematic representation of the king's cultural double role would have been the canonic scene of the Egyptian king slaying his (Nubian, Libyan, and Asiatic) foes on the pylon front of a temple. This was intentionally avoided at the temple of Hibis by omitting the pylon in the contemporary building plan; a screen wall featuring Darius embedded in the Egyptian pantheon occupies its place at the temple front (Davies 1953: pls. 38–43). However, the right‐hand panel conveys essentially the same message as the emblematic pylon scene (Figure 20.4): Darius – who appears in anthropomorphic form with falcon head and plumage – strikes the enemy par excellence (i.e. the serpent Apophis) with a lance evoking the weapon of the slaying scene (Sternberg el‐Hotabi and Aigner 2006: p. 543). Because of the setting and the accompanying legend, this last picture is associated with the god Seth (of the oases and in his function as a god of foreign countries) and is to be read: “Darius, the Persian, who guarantees maat by slaying his foes, the living foreign Horus” (Wasmuth 2017a: p. 238, see also pp. 235–238). Interestingly enough, the composition was adapted for Ptolemaic and Roman pylon decorations, where the originally Persian lion accompanies the slaying king (Sternberg el‐Hotabi and Aigner 2006: p. 543), and the hybrid depiction as anthropomorphic figure with falcon head and plumage becomes characteristic for “Seth of the Oases” (e.g. on the walls of the Roman temples at Dakhla oasis, see Kaper 1997).

Figure 20.4 Temple front of Hibis avoiding the emblematic “slaying of the foes” scene.

Source: Hibis, in situ; Wasmuth 2017a: p. 248 Abb. 54b.

Apart from these sources of mixed influences, sources within the Egyptian cultural tradition are known (cf. Bresciani 1958; Posener 1936; Willeitner 2003; Curtis and Tallis 2005: pp. 172–173; the series Excavations at North Saqqâra of the Egypt Exploration Society, London): for example, parts of Achaemenid Hibis and Ghueita temple decorations (both Charga oasis), evidence for building activities in several temples in the Nile Valley and Delta (Busiris, Karnak, Elkab), the religious epitaphs for Apis (Memphis), the stelae from the Serapeum (Saqqara), the mummies from the animal necropolis at Saqqara‐North, and cultic objects such as naoi (Tuna el‐Gebel), handles of sistra, vessels (Tanis, Tell Muqdam/Leontopolis, Memphis, Fayyum, Karnak). The only Persian aspect of these instances is a Persian royal name.

Meanwhile, objects of a predominantly Persian character are rare in Egypt. The few examples that point to a Persian background are hard to verify due to a lack of similar corpora of sources from the Persian heartland. Most small‐scale objects inscribed in Persian, namely an alabastron, a door socket, and a metal shoe of a carrying pole (Michaélidis 1943), are open to discussion regarding their genuineness due to their unknown provenance and the absence of comparable finds. Yet, there is evidence for Achaemenid metal vessels in the Tell el‐Maskhuta Hoard (for similar finds see, for example, Figures 95.2 and 95.3), some jewelry and lion vessels from Tell Muqdam/Leontopolis, and the fire altars in the canal region (see above and Cooney 1965).

Surprisingly, there is no stratigraphic evidence in Egypt for a certain type of Achaemenid vessels usually associated with Egypt: vessels made of calcit alabaster inscribed with a royal label (see Posener 1936: pp. 137–151; Westenholz and Stolper 2002; Schmitt 2001). During the reign of Darius I and in the early years of Xerxes I, the inscriptions follow the Egyptian phraseology: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, royal name, he may live eternally; year X.” A different contemporary version adds the cuneiform inscription “royal name, the king” in Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian. During the reigns of Xerxes I to Artaxerxes III, the Egyptian phraseology is replaced by rendering the cuneiform formula into Egyptian, either as pr‐‘3 p3‐‘3 or only pr‐‘3, thereby transforming the Egyptian vessels into a Persian one with a “royal tag” in four official languages. In comparison with the evidence from the canal stelae and the headless statue of Darius, it is to be postulated that p3‐‘3 is the Egyptian rendering of the Persian title “Great King,” therefore labeling the king either as “(Egyptian) Pharaoh and (Persian) Great King” or solely as “Pharaoh” (Wasmuth 2015 : pp. 218–224; Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 207–214).

A diversity of cultural traditions as well as idiosyncratic combinations characterizes the non‐royal representational sources of the mid‐first millennium. Stelae (see e.g. Vittmann 2009; Bresciani 1958: pp. 177–178) and tombs (see the discussion in Aston 1999a and the series Abusir of the Czech Institute of Egyptology, Praha) within the Egyptian cultural tradition face the same difficulties as contemporary statues. When not dated with the reigning king's name, they tend to be dated to the twenty‐sixth dynasty or Ptolemaic period because of their unequivocally Egyptian character. However, at least with the statues of Ptahhotep (Figure 20.5) and Udjahorresnet (Figure 12.1), who are comparatively well‐known figures in twenty‐seventh dynasty Egypt (cf. Bareš 1999: pp. 31–43; Lopez 2015), it can be shown that non‐royal art production for the Egyptian “elite” could be of the finest quality. Less definite is the interpretation of the statues' significance: although the inscriptions appear to suggest only a partial acceptance of the ruler (Rößler‐Köhler 1991: pp. 270–275), Persian decorations are conspicuous. Ptahhotep actually wears a Persian torquet as well as an Egyptian pectoral (Figure 20.5). Albeit possible that wearing the Egyptian adornment was meant as a subtle hint of opposition to the foreign ruler, it seems more convincing to interpret the statue as an act of loyalty toward both rulers: the twenty‐sixth dynasty pharaoh who had advanced Ptahhotep in the early stages of his career as well as the foreign ruler who promoted him later on (Wasmuth 2017c).

Figure 20.5 Statue of Ptahhotep displaying Egyptian and Persian “gold of honor” (unknown provenance).

The amount and state of sources available for determining how the Persian population was represented or presented itself leave much to be desired. Though completely un‐Egyptian representations in the round featuring Mesopotamian/Persian elements are preserved, their exact provenance is unknown. Among these are a man carved in ivory, a woman in high relief made of terracotta, and several heads of stone (Traunecker 1995; Vittmann 2003: pp. 151–152). Whether they are to be interpreted as divine, royal or non‐royal representations is still a matter of contention. Similar questions surround the terracotta heads from Memphis that feature characteristics of foreigners and probably date from the Achaemenid period (Scheurleer 1974: pp. 83–84).

Much better, though not exhaustive data are available for persons of non‐Egyptian and non‐Persian extraction as well as for persons of mixed parentage: notably funerary stelae for Arameans, Carians, eastern Ionians, and Phoenicians (Vittmann 2003). At least one example of unquestioned authenticity is known of a person of mixed parentage featuring Persian elements: the stela of Djedherbes (Mathieson et al. 1995; here Figure 20.6), son of a Persian father and an Egyptian mother, which in all likelihood dates to the fourth century BCE (Wasmuth 2017b). Probably, the composition of different registers with a mummification scene and a scene of offering/feasting is characteristic for persons of mixed parentage and/or multiple cultural identities. On close examination, the stela reveals an amazing number of different influences – elements of Persian, Egyptian, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Carian cultural traditions have been identified (Wasmuth 2017b). As the outcome looks homogenous, it can be postulated that – at least from the middle of the first millennium onward – workmanship as a stone carver in Egypt could be learned in a variety of workshops that adhered to one or several different cultural traditions.

Figure 20.6 Funerary stela of Djedherbes showing a combination of several cultural affiliations.

Source: From Saqqara; Mathieson et al. 1995: p. 27 Figure 3; reproduced by permission of Elizabeth Bettles.

A continuation of Persian period settlements can be postulated throughout the Egyptian realm. For a preliminary compilation of archeological sites including settlements dating to the twenty‐seventh to thirty‐first dynasties in Egypt see Wuttmann and Marchand 2005, esp. pp. 102–119. Nonetheless, research of specifically Persian period settlement strata is still mainly restricted to the site of Tell el‐Herr in northwestern Sinai and to Elephantine at the first Nile cataract. However, pottery comparable to the Persian period levels from Tell el‐Herr have been found in Naucratis, Saïs, and Buto in the western Delta; Mendes, Tanis, Tell Defenneh, and Tell el‐Balamun in the Eastern Delta; Tell el‐Farama and Kedua in northwestern Sinai; Tell Muqdam/Leontopolis in the southern Delta; Tell el‐Maskhuta in Wadi Tumilat; Tebtynis in the Fayyum; Giza, Abusir, Saqqara, Memphis, Mostagedda, Karnak, Thebes, and Elephantine in the Nile Valley; as well as ‘Ayn Manawir in the Charga oasis (Defernez 2001: pp. 5–25, passim; Defernez and Marchand 2006: pp. 63–74; Aston 1999b: pp. 213–278, Figure 4). Similarly widespread are the coin hoards dating to the period from the twenty‐seventh to the thirty‐first dynasty and featuring Athenian and Levantine silver coins (Elayi and Elayi 1993: pp. 282–295; Colburn 2014: pp. 356–358).

Evidence that settlement and cultivation might even have been actively promoted has been unearthed in the Charga oasis. Building and decoration activities at several temples (Hibis, Ghueita, ‘Ayn Manawir) indicate increased administrative and cultic importance of the oasis (Willeitner 2003: pp. 22–53; Darnell 2007). Even more revealing are the findings of qanat systems, i.e. above‐ and below‐ground irrigation canals and galleries tapping the artesian water reservoir beneath the Libyan desert. Though the structures themselves still have not been securely dated, the textual evidence from ‘Ayn Manawir suggests their construction to have taken place in the early twenty‐seventh dynasty. With the exception of only a few texts documenting earlier settlement activity (but not the use of qanats), the texts administrating the use of these irrigation systems do not date before the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II (Chauveau 2001: p. 137). Assuming that this is not due to a research deficit, it can be postulated that qanats were in use only then because of preceding construction work (probably during the reigns of Darius I and Xerxes I).

To sum up: the archeological sources from Egypt display a highly strategic approach to royal art. Either Persianhood is not expressed at all (e.g. objects and monuments that follow the Egyptian cultural tradition mentioning the foreign name rendered into Egyptian), or it is expressed through a combination of Egyptian and Persian (and to some extent also Mesopotamian) concepts of royal (or at least highest “elite”) representation. This may be deducted from the conspicuous use of attributes, gestures, and postures denoting similar ranges of meaning in both (or even all three) cultural traditions at the expense of solely royal imagery. Additionally, there is evidence for continuing cult and building activities carried out explicitly in the king's name in the Suez Canal region, the Delta, the Nile Valley, and the oases in the western desert.

With regard to “elite” self‐representation, definite assertions are impossible due to the current state of research. No object of representation can be securely attributed to a Persian official even though representational monuments of persons of mixed parentage and of foreign, non‐Persian extraction are known. We may presume that quite a number of Egyptian “elite” monuments are in existence but misdated to the twenty‐sixth dynasty or early Ptolemaic period. The few statues that definitely represent Egyptian officials in the service of the Persian administration or the court were fashioned within the Egyptian cultural tradition. They do, however, clearly state the owner's loyalty by means of specific attributes or inscriptions.

While further research is needed for objects of the “non‐elite” population living during the Persian period, the evidence from pottery and irrigation systems suggests a widespread continuation or even promoting of settlements throughout Egypt under the Achaemenians.