228
CHAPTER 5: OSIRIS IN THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD
In her research for What This Awl Means, Janet Spector accessed the written records left by white settlers (traders, missionaries, government workers), which described to some extent the culture of the native peoples in the area she investigated. She also consulted members of remaining related tribes still living in the area. Comparable sources of information are obviously not available for the
Egyptians of 4000 to 3000 BCE. Instead, ethnographic data can be obtained only from obliquely
related sources, such as the Nilotic tribes discussed in the previous chapter. Historical, written data is found only in the records and iconography of the Dynastic Egyptians.
The first written material, the Pyramid Texts, separated from Predynastic mortuary culture by
approximately 400 years, provides the closest possible written link to the mortuary rituals and spells
of the Predynastic people. Their grave culture suggests the performance of well-established mortuary
rituals at the graveside, and these undoubtedly included spells, offering verses, incantations, and
professions — perhaps the precursors of the Pyramid Texts.
Using the example of Mesopotamia, Ucko stated that, in cases of continuity of culture from prehistoric
to historic times, the beliefs and practices of the historic culture "may be important and legitimate"
(Ucko 1962: 43). In the case of Egypt, the historic mortuary culture focused on a belief in the
immortality of the king, addressed frequently in the Pyramid Texts as an "Osiris" or intimately related
to Osiris, god of the Underworld. Evidence of the Osirian beliefs does not appear until the written
Pyramid Texts in the late 5th and 6th Dynasties. Symbols associated with Osiris, such as the djed
pillar, are not found amongst Badarian or Nagada iconography. Hence it seems as though the early
Dynastic priesthood developed the Osirian cycle as a religious framework and legitimation for the
rituals and beliefs surrounding the immortality and divinity of their dead king. In this chapter,
however, I argue the case for the presence of an Osiris-like mortuary deity and concomitant set of
beliefs and practices in the Predynastic as a prerequisite for placing at least some of the figurines
within the Osirian system. 229
PREDYNASTIC MORTUARY CULTURE
The Egyptian emphasis on mortuary beliefs forms the basis for much of their historic art, literature, and architecture. That the Minoans constructed elaborate palaces, the Mesopotamians massive temples, and the Egyptians extensive tombs and mortuary temples attests to their respective cultural differences and philosophical beliefs, at least at the official, state level. Only 7% of the
Mesopotamian figurines come from graves and the rest come from domestic circumstances, whereas nearly all of the Egyptian figurines are found in graves or the mortuary environment. Therefore, the method of interpretation for the figurines of each culture must be entirely different. For example, it would be illogical to examine the mortuary practices of the historic Mesopotamians for insight into the use of the hundreds of domestic figurines found throughout the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. All that can be tentatively concluded is that perhaps, like the historic Mesopotamian religion, the focus of prehistoric religion may have been on the living rather than the dead.
I n the case of Egypt, the historic religious pre-occupation with personal immortality and the after- death experience is prefigured in the Predynastic archaeological record. Little remains of the domestic environment of the Predynastic Egyptians, whereas thousands of graves have been excavated. The widespread presence of grave goods demonstrates a belief in some form of continuation in the afterlife, and with the increase of wealth and centralisation of power, these beliefs became so important that today we remember the resultant state-based culture more for its mortuary than for its secular accomplishments. Even for the average Egyptian during the historic period, the afterlife seemed of great importance, for they lived in mud brick housing but, if possible, were buried
in stone tombs. Anyone who could afford to, made elaborate preparations for the afterlife (Baines
1991c: 147) and built a tomb in the desert (ibid 144).
If any sense can be made of the Predynastic figurines, it must be within the context of mortuary
beliefs, and significant clues as to the nature of these beliefs should be evident in the religious beliefs and practices of the historic Egyptians. I emphasise the word "clue". The state-based mortuary
religion of historic Egypt converged, at least in the Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom, on the 230 elite, particularly the king. The Predynastic grave goods display a more egalitarian approach to the afterlife and demonstrate the enactment of rituals for perhaps all classes, with some differentiation of
burial practice for special individuals, such as those in the Armant bed burials. As class differences
became more pronounced when the various cultures approached unification and state-based hierarchy under one "divine" leader, the mortuary cult came to focus increasingly on the elite, as
reflected in the appearance of a small number of very wealthy brick-lined tombs by the end of
Nagada III. The end of the Predynastic saw a major shift of wealthy burials to Abydos, where later
Dynastic Egyptians believed Osiris to be buried.
Egyptologists widely hold the belief that only after the Old Kingdom were commoners admitted to the afterlife on their own merits. Certainly after the First Intermediate Period (2181-2040 BCE), the written texts begin to include nobles and other commoners and these texts begin to appear on their coffins and tombs. Perhaps even before this, during the late Old Kingdom, this process of
"democratisation" began (Lesko 1991: 101).
This process does not necessarily demonstrate that, after the First Intermediate Period, commoners themselves began to believe in the afterlife and take steps to ensure the necessary requirements for the preservation of their bodies and hence their souls. Rather it suggests that, for political reasons foIlowing the disturbances of the First Intermediate Period, the elite began to accept commoners into their version of the afterlife, perhaps in order to gain their support for their ruling position. For while kings built pyramids, nobles organised their tombs, and priests developed liturgies, spells, and rituals, the average person still lived in Predynastic style, with Predynastic-style graves (Baines 1991c: 132 n24), suggesting little had changed for ordinary Egyptians since the Predynastic period. Old
Kingdom documents regarding the power of the dead to inflict harm on the living (ibid 152-155) also testify to a more general, widespread belief in the afterlife than the elite texts would suggest. Since the royal cult served the king, his priests, and the elite (perhaps 5% of the population) (ibid 126-7), leaving the rest of the population to serve their own religious needs, these graves and documents of the ordinary Dynastic Egyptians demonstrate the continuation of Predynastic beliefs and practices, the predecessors of the royal mortuary cult. 231
Although the official rituals and beliefs grew out of those of the Predynastic, they did not mirror them, for the historic official rituals concentrated entirely on the soul of the king. Therefore, the historic texts, iconography and architecture can provide only clues to the possible reasons for the presence of grave figurines, as this study discovered them not to be found in the graves of ruling or elite members. The historic material might also provide clues to help explain the great variety of figurine styles, and some of the lesser emphasised iconography of the historic period can perhaps be traced to various figurine styles of the Predynastic, such as the sexually ambiguous fecundity figures and the
Nile god, Hapy.
The afterlife, for the Dynastic Egyptians, kings and commoners (at least after the First Intermediate
Period), focused on the eschatological beliefs surrounding the god Osiris. The deceased king, from the earliest records, was believed to be the god Osiris, while the living king was Osiris son, Horus.
As the "democratisation" process developed, everyone became an Osiris after death and gained immortality in the "Land of the Westerners".
The origins of Osiris are obscure, and no agreement has been reached on his existence prior to his appearance in the Pyramid Texts. The collection of spells and scraps of mythology from various sources including the Pyramid Texts52 tells a story of the god Osiris, who was murdered and dismembered by his rival, Seth. His sisters, Isis and Nephyths, found him lying by the river. Isis reassembled him, revived him, and engendered their son Horus by copulating with the revived god before he entered the Underworld as immortal king and judge. The elements of this collection of myths can be interpreted in a number of ways: a legitimation of inherited power; a demonstration of the divinity of the ruling king; a declaration of the immortality of the king and hence his divine authority; a metaphor for the resurrection of the human soul, particularly the king s, in the after-life; and a metaphor for the cycle of the seasons and vegetation as determined by the annual inundation of the Nile.
52 The most comprehensive collection of the Osirian myths was eventually compiled by Plutarch in his book, De !side et Ositide, in the second century AD. 232
This chapter demonstrates the possibility, or perhaps the probability, that Osiris, or a god very much
like him, was the focus of the Predynastic mortuary beliefs as well as those documented from the
Dynastic. In the absence of textual evidence directly from the period in question, and in the absence
of any material evidence which can be identified unequivocally as Osirian, my argument relies on
clues from the earliest mortuary texts, examples from comparative ancient and contemporary
religion, and the religious implications of the natural phenomena most significant for a settled,
agricultural people living along the upper Nile.
The Pyramid Texts and the Origins of Osiris
The earliest mortuary texts produced by the Dynastic Egyptians were the Pyramid Texts — a collection
of spells and myths which first appeared on the tombs of the late Fifth and Sixth Dynasty kings.
These texts sit the closest to the Predynastic period, although separated by at least 400 years. This
vast gap in time inhibits the assumption of a direct relationship between Predynastic mortuary beliefs
and these texts, but some hints may be gleaned from them, especially considering the overall
conservative nature of Egyptian culture and religion, in which key characteristics persisted despite the
fluctuations of 3000 years of Dynastic history.
In brief, and developed in detail further below, at least four sometimes apparently conflicting,
concepts of the afterlife of the king occur in the Pyramid Texts: (1) the deceased king becomes an
immortal spirit and travels with the sun-god Re in his solar barque for eternity; (2) the deceased king
ascends to the sky as an immortal star, sometimes alongside Re; (3) the deceased king becomes one with the god of the Underworld, Osiris, and goes to the Land of the Westerners (that is, the
Underworld) with Osiris; (4) the dead king becomes associated with the constellation Orion in some way.
These royal eschatologies focus on two separate astronomical regions of the sky: the Northern Sky and the stars surrounding the polar centre; and the Southern sky, including the Decanal belt and the path of Re along the ecliptic. The Northern Sky is composed of the circumpolar stars, which never 233 set and hence are considered immortal. The dead king ascends to this region of the sky and becomes an immortal star.
The Southern sky contains a band of constellations, the Decanal belt: a series of 36 constellations,
each taking 10 days to rise above the horizon (hence Decanal), and which the Dynastic Egyptians
used to calculate their calendar and clock. Among constellations are Orion, Sothis, the Morning Star
and the Lone Star (Faulkner 1966: 160-61), with Orion and Sothis being the first two constellations of the belt. In the eschatology focusing on Orion, the king joins Orion and ascends and descends with
him as the seasons change. The movements of Orion, rather than those of the sun, mark the seasons for the Egyptians, and Orion, as discussed below, becomes associated with Osiris, a god, who, like Orion, dies and is reborn with the seasons.
The system focused on Re, the sun god, follows the ecliptic, which is the path the sun takes across the Southern sky. In the beliefs surrounding Re, the king joins him in the solar barque and follows the immortal diurnal path of death and resurrection with the sun. But the region of the ecliptic, for the
Egyptians, was not inhabited with celestial deities taking form in the constellations of the ecliptic, as it was for the Babylonians and later the Greeks.
The beliefs focused on the king s becoming a Lone Star or travelling with Re are clearly part of a
celestial philosophy, while the Osiris myths have a chthonic element. Re is a sky god, while Osiris is
a chthonic god of the Underworld.
These various concepts exist side by side, for the most part, in the Pyramid Texts. The stellar and
Osirian beliefs rarely overlap (Faulkner 1966: 160-61), but more recent scholarship (Allen et.al. 1989:
1) tries to form a unity of apparently disparate beliefs, placing the Osirian aspect as the first stage of
the king s journey to the afterlife, where he rises in the east like the sun (Pyr. 1465). Earlier scholars,
also attempted to reconcile the Osirian and the Re elements. Wolfhart Westendorf, in his much
quoted essay, "Zu FrUformen von Osiris and Isis" concluded from references in the Pyramid Texts
that Osiris and Isis were originally cosmic deities in the service of the sun (Westendorf 1977: 96-103).
Osiris is the horizon from where the sun rises (Pyr. 585a, 621b), while Isis is the barque which bears 234
(gives birth to) the morning sun (Pyr. 210b). These cosmic associations, he argued (ibid 103-4) were not reflected in the historical image of Osiris as the dead king and partner to Isis as goddess of the throne.
Although the main eschatologies stand out in the Pyramid Texts, other solar and celestial conceptions of the afterlife "include an infinite variety" (Griffiths 1980: 64) of which those of Osiris and Re are only two. Re, as a Heliopolitan God, was preceded by other solar myths (ibid) to which Westendorf would place Isis and Osiris in service.
These attempts to amalgamate the myths of Osiris and Re into one, internally consistent belief about the afterlife of the king make the anomalous and contradictory elements in the Pyramid Texts stand out all the more starkly. The ubiquitous references to the king as Osiris are woven into the Pyramid
Texts along with accounts of the king as a star and as an immortal spirit under the protection of the sun-god, Re. Although the dead king is frequently called "Osiris", the Osirian eschatology appears to be the least developed in the Pyramid Texts, and occasionally at odds with the "king as a star" and the Re doctrines:
Re-Atum will not give you to Osiris, and he shall not claim your heart nor have power over your heart. ... 0 Osiris, you shall never have power over him, nor shall your son [Horus] have power over him. (Pyr. 145-147)
... you are the Lone Star ... look down upon Osiris when he governs the spirits, for you stand far off from him ... (Pyr. 251)
... he [Re] will never give me to Osiris, for I have not died the death. (Pyr. 350)
... you are this Lone Star which comes forth from the east of the sky, and who will never surrender himself to Horus of the Netherworld. (Pyr. 877)
May Osiris not come with this his evil coming; do not open your arms to him. (Pyr. 1267)
The Lone Star and Osirian beliefs, however, tend to overlap in another aspect which associates Osiris with Orion, who is, as is Re, "The God Who Crosses the Sky" (Neugebauer Parker 1960: 25): 235
O King, you are this great star, the companion of Orion, who traverses the sky with Orion, who navigates the Netherworld with Osiris; you ascend from the east of the sky, being renewed at your due season and rejuvenated at your due time. The sky has borne you with Orion, the year has put a fillet on you with Osiris. (Pyr. 882-4)
In this passage, the mortuary deity appears to be Orion when visible in the night sky, and Osiris when not visible, that is, in the Underworld. This is probably a reference to the behaviour of Orion, which disappears from the night sky for two months of the year. In reality, Orion is still "crossing the sky" during daylight hours, but cannot be seen and is deemed to be in the Underworld. The connection with Orion gives Osiris both sky and chthonic associations. Osiris at times is associated with the
earth (as the son of Geb), the Nile inundation (Pyr. 388, 589, 788, 848, 857, 868, 1944, 2007), the
Lnderworld (Griffiths 1980: 515-84; Otto 1968: 22-30), and vegetation. A spell from the Coffin Texts
(Faulkner 1973) characterises Osiris as an agricultural deity associated with the growth and
maturation of grain:
I live and I die, I am Osiris, I have gone in and out by means of you, I have grown fat through you, I flourish through you, I have fallen through you. I have fallen on my side, the gods live on me. I live and grow as Neper whom the honoured ones cherish, one whom Geb hides, I live and I die, for I am emmer53, and I will not perish (CT 330)
A text inscribed on the sarcophagus of Ankhnesneferibra characterises Osiris as a potent agricultural
deity who is "the maker of grain" and "who gives life to the gods with the water of his limbs, and bread
to every land". The inscription goes on to explain that "barley has taken form out of the limbs of
Osiris" (Quirke 1992: 57-58).
At the same time as Osiris is an agricultural earth deity, he is also a sky god — the father of a sky god
in the form of a falcon, Horus. Also, he is the son of the sky goddess Nut, and the spouse and sister
of a sky goddess Isis, whose association with a kite or hawk identifies her as a celestial deity. The
importance of Orion as a celestial visible metaphor for Osiris is developed later in this chapter. 236
Perhaps what the multiple and sometimes conflicting beliefs about the afterlife of the king in the
Pyramid Texts demonstrate is the amalgamation of a variety of doctrines taken from a number of
Predynastic religions. Suggesting that Osirian beliefs existed in the Predynastic is dangerous ground, for there does not seem to be any empirical evidence for the existence of Osiris prior to the Old
Kingdom. Also problematic is his anthropomorphism, for historic iconography depicts Osiris as a purely anthropomorphic deity. As discussed in Chapter 4, it has been argued that Egyptian anthropomorphism is an historic development and that Predynastic deities were conceived primarily in animal form (Hornung 1983: 100-142).
Some convincing arguments associate Osiris with theriomorphic Predynastic images. Griffiths (1980) extracted the many jackal references to Osiris from the Pyramid Texts (Hornung 1983: 143-146; Pyr,
2097-2098, 2103, 2108) to support his theory that Osiris "may have been originally a jackal-god in the necropolis of Abydos" (Hornung 1983: 105). Later Osiris merged with Khenthamenthis (ibid 106), a jackal god, whose name means "Foremost of the Westerners", a name commonly applied to Osiris.
Westendorf (1977: 105-6) picked out the passages in the Pyramid Texts describing Osiris, the king, as a fabulous beast with the head of a jackal and the body of "the celestial serpent" (Pyr. 1564, 1749,
1995, 2128). This composite creature with a panther s body, he argued, is the same as the snake- necked creatures on the Narmer (Fig. 4.5) and Hierakonpolis "animal" palettes and is the Predynastic depiction of Osiris as the dead king (Westendorf 1977: 106).
Another theory times Osiris association with Khenthamenthis to his introduction into the mortuary cult at Abydos (Otto 1968: 13). The Abydos Predynastic necropolis, originally protected by the jackal god
Khenthamenthis, became important when Abydos became the royal necropolis of Upper Egypt around the end of the 4th millennium BCE (ibid 13, 20-22). Osiris, Otto claimed, was the third factor in the complex beliefs and rituals practised here and united "the royal burial rites and the associated cult temple of Khenthamenthes" (ibid 22-24). He placed the merging of Osiris and Khenthamenthis in the sixth Dynasty (ibid 22), at the time of the Pyramid Texts, not during the Predynastic as did
Griffiths. The only Predynastic representation of Osiris that Otto could find is perhaps the ritual
53 Faulkner (1973: 255 n.17) comments that the word for emmer also means barley of Lower Egypt , it mh. 237 placement of grain in the graves – a practice common during the historic period to symbolise the rebirth of Osiris and hence the deceased (ibid 25). Otto stopped short of assigning any image to a
Predynastic Osiris, but the commonly held opinion prevails that Predynastic deities took animal forms and that anthropomorphism was an historical development.
ANTHROPOMORPHIC DEITIES IN THE PREDYNASTIC?
Eric Hornung, possibly the best known of Egyptologists specialising in mythology and religious beliefs, emphasised the absence of anthropomorphism in the Predynastic: "... in late Predynastic times the powers that determine the course of events were mostly conceived in animal form" (Hornung 1983:
105). He took an "evolutionary" view of the development of Egyptian religion from Predynastic to
Dynastic, claiming that "man (sic) ... achieved a new self-awareness... no longer feeling himself to be the plaything of incomprehensible powers. [Subsequently] their [the deities ] original animal or inanimate form changed into a human one" (ibid 105).
Hornung called on the many examples of Early Dynastic animal art originating from the Predynastic to support his conclusions: the Narmer palette cow goddess, the standards supporting bird and animal forms, as well as unidentifiable inanimate objects (ibid 103-107) (Figs. 4.5, 4.6, 4.9). These images most frequently have been understood as early animal forms of the Dynastic therianthropic deities, Hathor, Thoth, Anubis, and the falcon-god Horus. With the exception of the human face of the cow goddess on the Narmer palette, which he understood to be transitional (ibid 105), he concluded: "There is, therefore, no certain evidence for the worship of anthropomorphic deities in
Predynastic Egypt" (ibid 102-3).
The most obvious challenge to Hornung s conclusion comes from the abundance of purely anthropomorphic Predynastic figurines plus the inclusion of the therianthropic ones with bird and animal heads, but Hornung rejected these figurines as possible deities solely on the arguments presented by Peter Ucko in his major work (Ucko 1968). Ucko s conclusion that the Egyptian as well as the Near Eastern Neolithic and Chalcolithic figurines do not represent deities is based on his assessment that they do not look like deities and also that similar contemporary, mostly African, 238 societies use figurines for purposes other than icons of the divine. Therefore, the Egyptian figurines cannot qualify as anthropomorphic images of deities. Hornung summed up Ucko s argument in one page (Hornung 1983: 102), without any analysis of Ucko s position. Hornung simply took Ucko s position as the truth and as substantial enough evidence to dismiss the figurines without further discussion. The impact of New Archaeology on the interpretation of prehistoric religion eliminated the figurines from the discussion. With regard to Ucko s criteria that an image of a deity must be ornamented in a distinguishing way, Hornung and others do not question why unornamented
Predynastic falcon and baboon figurines suggest Horus and Thoth respectively, while an unornamented anthropomorphic figurine cannot represent a deity.
In discussing the relationship of these animal figurines to the deities they represent, Hornung claimed that each is not an image of a god as such, but the b3 of a deity, "the visible manifestation of an invisible power" (1983: 138). Referring to the historic period, he continued that sometimes this invisible power is conceived of anthropomorphically – human beings are the "likeness of god" (ibid), particularly the king. The "wind is the ba of the [anthropomorphic but invisible] air god Shu and the visible sun is the ba of the [anthropomorphic but invisible] sun god" as Re or Amun-Re (ibid).
Although Hornung confined this analysis to the historic period, only our preoccupation with the animal imagery of the Predynastic prevents us from assigning the same analysis to prehistoric conceptions cf deity. The Nuer and Dinka people, with a plethora of animal spirits and totems, conceive of many deities anthropomorphically, but identify natural phenomena, such as the wind, the river, the rain, a tree, a crow, or the spread of ox horns, as the expressions of a deity s presence in the world. In a similar way, the Dynastic Egyptians saw Re in the sun, Isis in a star, Hapy in the Nile, Shu as air,
Tefnut as moisture, Nut as sky, and Geb as earth, but mentally conceived of these deities
anthropomorphically. It is not clear why the Predynastic Egyptians could not have thought this way as well, and used animal motifs, as well as therianthropic figurines, to represent the b3(s) of
anthropomorphically conceived deities. Stretching speculation beyond evidence, we can postulate
that they were "bolder" than contemporary Sudanese people and used anthropomorphic figurines to
represent the more accessible, mediating entities of the spirit world. The Sudanese material, 239 however, can only suggest, not prove, that the Predynastic therianthropic images express more accessible, anthropomorphically conceived deities through their bird and animal associations.
More solid evidence for anthropomorphic Predynastic deities comes from other Predynastic images: anthropomorphic representations on Predynastic Nagada II and III decorated ware (Fig. 2.7). The most startling are the female figures with large round heads and upraised arms. Other human figurines include males, possibly ithyphallic, and other females with round heads, some who seem more important because of their large size. Males with raised arms appear on Nagada I Cross-lined pots (Figs, 3.2 a,b) and on the Nagada 11 rock paintings illustrated in Winkler (1938a: Plates XXII.1,
XIV, XV.2), and could have divine meanings.
A recent discussion of the pot imagery by another prominent Egyptologist, J. Gwyn Griffiths (1996:
11-16), implicitly challenged Hornung s conclusions about the lack of evidence of Predynastic anthropomorphic deities. More in keeping with older interpretations of Predynastic female iconography, Griffiths concluded that the female figure with upraised arms and the larger female figures are goddesses (ibid 13) (Fig. 2.7). Where the figures appear in groups of three on the vases,
Griffiths argued in favour of a "divine triad" (ibid 15), in which the "goddess in the triad is probably an early form of Hathor" (ibid). He based his conclusion on the presence of a standard depicting cow horns in conjunction with a falcon. The falcon represents Horus and the cow horns must therefore indicate Hathor, the original mother of Horus (ibid). The crook in the left hand of the male in the triad, he pointed out, could indicate the "eventual insignia of the dynastic Pharaoh and of Osiris" (ibid). He further suggested that the leading male figure is the "Horus chieftain" (ibid) and, while he did not specifically mention the Osirian triad (Osiris as father; Horus as son; Hathor, in this instance, as mother), Osiris as a possibility lurks in the background. Hornung did not consider these images at all.
Thus, on the one hand a prominent, influential scholar of Egyptian mythology, Eric Hornung, denies the existence of anthropomorphic deities in the Predynastic, while on the other, another Egyptologist, of the same stature, J. Gwyn Griffiths, supports the presence of anthropomorphism. Both refer to material evidence as confirmation. It is, however, notable that Griffiths did not include the
Predynastic figurines in his discussion, despite the presence of 37 female figurines with upraised 240 arms and falcon or hawk associations in their heads with large curved beaks, and with obvious similarities to the D-ware figures.
The exclusion of this category of iconography from the interpretation of Predynastic deities allowed
Hornung to arrive at the conclusion that neither anthropomorphic nor therianthropic deities existed in the Predynastic (Hornung 1983: 109). Thus, to Hornung, the familiar animal-headed, human-bodied iconography from the Dynastic period must have developed during the Dynastic: "Toward the end of the Second Dynasty the first gods in human form with animal heads ... appear on cylinder seal impressions of King Peribsen" (ibid 109). Hornung s position, in light of the symbols displayed by the figurines, seems incomplete. If the Predynastic grave figurines as anthropomorphic or therianthropic deities or spirits can be reintroduced into the discussion of the nature of Predynastic mortuary beliefs, then a reassessment of the possible role of an anthropomorphically conceived Osiris can also be considered.
THE FIGURINES AND THE OSIRIAN CULT: WHAT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE?
Without question, at least a few of the Predynastic Upper Egyptians used anthropomorphic figurines in their mortuary rituals. Of course, the ones we have access to are only those which survived up to
6000 years of interment. Not only time and the elements, but also grave robbers and early amateur archaeologists reduced the actual number.
In addition, we can only surmise that the Predynastic Upper Egyptians used a variety of more perishable materials besides unfired clay, such as wood, reeds, fabrics, other plant materials, and animal products such as leather. Of course we cannot assume that perishable materials were more readily used than durable ones, as the Egyptians were noted for their preoccupation with physical immortality, and this they could have extended to their choice of materials. However, the survival of some unfired clay and mud figurines cautions against drawing hard conclusions based on material evidence alone, for the archaeological record is probably far from comprehensive or complete. 241
The problem with a non-literate extinct culture is that we can only begin to know it through its material remains. The incorporation of the scientific method into archaeology (New or Processual
Archaeology) led to the assumed authority of the material culture and a resistance to interpretations unsubstantiated by material evidence. This attitude led Peter Ucko to assess the figurines largely on the basis of their material characteristics, that is, their findspots and physical attributes. Artefacts representing divinity should, therefore, be found in "divine" locations, such as shrines and temples, arid must possess "divine" attributes, such as headdresses and evidence of preciousness in material arid execution. In other words, they should conform to some notion of what is worthy to be treated as divine. Their divinity should be recognisable in the material record, otherwise no such attribution can be made.
This emphasis on material evidence led to the conclusion that some of the most important deities from the Egyptian pantheon had an historic origin and were not present in the Predynastic religion.
The Predynastic existence of Horus is accepted, based on the existence of falcon imagery which can be directly connected to the historic imagery of Horus, such as early pot marks depicting serekhs surmounted by a falcon, falcon standards on pots and palettes, and bird amulets found in graves.
Deciding which Predynastic image is Horus and which another falcon deity is problematic, because of the number of historic falcon-headed deities 54, but the associations with symbols of kingship, such as those on the Narmer palette (Fig. 4.5) and on serekhs (Fig. 4.8), are assumed to demonstrate the prehistoric existence of Horus, symbol of divinity in the form of kingship. 55 However, when it comes to the divinities associated with the historic mortuary cult, especially Osiris, Isis, and Nephthys, such a direct connection cannot be maintained. No symbols of Osiris earlier than a First Dynasty djed pillar, a column resembling a stylised sheaf of grain or series of vertebrae, have been found, and even this slim evidence was questioned by Griffiths (1980: 41), who claimed that the symbol was not associated exclusively with Osiris until the New Kingdom. The djed pillar possibly became associated with Osiris later than the First Dynasty, as was Andjety, a Lower Egyptian king. Osiris does not appear unequivocally until the Pyramid Texts of the late Fifth Dynasty.
54 For example, see Neugebauer and Parker (1969, PLS. 1,3,5) for illustrations of the deities of the Northern Sky and the Decans. Many falcon-headed deities are included among them. 5! See Arnett (1982) for illustrations and discussion of Predynastic imagery, including falcon and hawk imagery, preceding the development of hieroglyphs. 242
Based on material evidence alone, Osiris appears to be an historic deity. Despite J. Gwyn Griffiths
(1980) argument for the origin of Osiris as a jackal god of Abydos, based on extracts from the
Pyramid Texts (ibid 105ff), the connection of Osiris with a jackal, or any deified animal, is not part of the accepted theory on the origins of Osiris. The tendency to reject such hypothetical conclusions demonstrates New Archaeology and the scientific method at work — the legacy of the 1960s and
1970s. The scientific method requires hard evidence to support theories, and until recently, such
"hard evidence" had to take the form of material remains.
A more interpretative position, as encouraged by the methodology and philosophy of post-processual archaeology, can bring other evidence to the discussion. In the absence of any contemporary descendants of Egyptian culture, we can draw material from comparative religion, ethnography, historical records, and environmental factors. While Chapter 4 examined the available ethnography on Sudanese religions in an attempt to illuminate possible religious conceptions of the Predynastic
Egyptians not evidenced in the material remains, the following discussion draws from contemporary comparative knowledge of ancient religion and the natural environment experienced by the
Predynastic Upper Egyptians. Such less tangible evidence can demonstrate the possibility of the existence of Osiris prior to the Pyramid Texts, where material evidence cannot. If a convincing claim can be made for mortuary beliefs focusing on an Osiris-like deity, then perhaps some of the iconography found in a mortuary context can be applied to his cult. It would be unlikely, however, that this iconography represented supreme or cosmic deities, for reasons discussed in Chapter 4 and summarised below, and from the implications of a brief, wide-ranging exploration of this issue in comparative religion.
THE INVISIBLE GOD
Iconography and Divinity
One assumption underlying the attempts to locate material evidence for the existence of the
Predynastic mortuary deities is that cultures tend to embody their deities in physical form, creating 243 animal or human iconography upon which to focus their ritual. No doubt, the ancient and possibly prehistoric images have been used for such religious purposes, understood by some commentators as "idolatrous". The rich iconography of the polytheistic cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and
India seems to confirm an ancient and prehistoric pre-occupation with iconography and symbolic representation.
Statues of deities inhabited the naos of every ancient temple and shrine. Even if no material evidence can be found, as in the case of Mesopotamia (Lloyd 1975: 111), texts and illustrations describe and portray the daily ritual of bathing, dressing, and feeding the deity, plus the seasonal public festival parades of the statues on their way to visit the resident deities of other temples, providing a focus of worship for the public, who otherwise had little or no access to the divine images.
Examples of this ritual behaviour can be found in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Mesopotamia, and contemporary India. Such worship and display became the focus of contempt for the Hebrew tradition, in which Yahweh was far too holy and powerful to deign to be embodied in material form.
"Idolatry" and "iconography" became synonymous in the Hebrew mind, and consequently in the
Christian and Islamic mind as well.
Therefore, I suspect that, besides our emphasis on scientific, empirical evidence, biases inherited from Christianity influence interpretation. The supreme divinity of Christianity is too holy for
representation, but the "pagans", base in their worship, must have such false and degraded divinities that they give them a human or animal form. The Predynastic Egyptians, with their ancient, "pagan"
minds, therefore, must also be predisposed to divine iconography, and if such were not present,
particularly in the right places (temples, shrines), then these deities were deemed not to exist until their appearance in the historic record. To push back the existence of Osiris prior to the Pyramid
Texts, Griffiths felt it necessary to identify an embodiment for him, and only the jackal could be found
with a close enough association - Abydos, the centre of worship of the Predynastic jackal god,
Khenthamenthis, and later, the major centre for the worship of Osiris.
In contrast, even the most cursory examination of the many world religions, past and present, major
or small-scale, refutes any notion that divinity, particularly cosmic or supreme divinity, is always 244 embodied in some material form. For the Nuer, their highest divinity, Kwoth Nhial, is only suggested by the majestic spread of the horns of the ox. The Nuer are very careful to distinguish between a divine cosmic power which is suggested rather than embodied or represented by the ox horns, and a lesser power which takes tangible form. Kwoth Nhial is non-locatable – too ubiquitous and too powerful to be constrained by material form. For the Nuer, only the "spirits of the below", the totems, and fetishes take on a material aspect. The "spirits of the above" have a remote and omnipresent quality which cannot be "trapped" within localised and limited forms.
African tribal people, in particular, are loath to embody their higher deities in material form. Despite the rich iconography of African religion, these icons are invariably representations of ancestors, spirits, and demons rather than supreme divinities. In fact, John S. Mbiti (1969) in his exposition of
African religions implicitly responded to the common prejudice of African "idol" worship with the statement, "... no idols have been reported in African traditional societies" (Mbiti 1969: 71). Yet non- represented deities are often mentally conceived as anthropomorphic and mediated by human agents such as "priests, rainmakers, elders, diviners, medicine-men, Kings, chiefs and the living dead" (ibid
71).
Examples from other early religions confirm this tendency. The earliest Chinese cultures, such as the
Shang (c1700-1100 BCE), display a fascination with the animal world with their richly designed bronzes decorated with animal forms, predominantly the animal masks of water buffalo and rams.
Without any written texts, this evidence suggests the worship of divinity in animal form, but the written records on animal bones indicate differently. The focus of the ritual performed with these decorated vessels was Shang Ti, the supreme being or perhaps original ancestor. Although no representation of Shang Ti has been found, early inscriptions indicate that he was mentally conceived in human form. The scholars of the following Chou period devised a roughly human shape as the written character for their chief deity, Shang Ti (Fairbank Reischauer 1989: 17-32). Later figurative sculptural works depicted guardians or sages, rather than deities, and with the adoption of
Confucianism and its vague notion of divinity which bordered on agnosticism, coupled with the non- theistic Taoist religion, anthropomorphic deities faded from official religion. Because of this shift in the Chinese religious "imagination", we cannot know whether, for the purposes of state-religion, 245 deities such as Shang Ti would eventually have been given material representation in statues and other iconography, but the anthropomorphic character of his written name implies that similar iconic imagery might have followed,
Aside from being too powerful or omnipresent, the cosmic deities are often conceived as being too remote to warrant representation. In the case of Sumerian Mesopotamia, among the most frequently represented deities on cylinder seals are Inanna and Enki. Both are far from supreme, but both take an active role in the activities of humankind. Inanna (later as Ishtar) performs an annual sacred marriage with the king in order to ensure agricultural fecundity. Enki is famous for his interventions on behalf of humankind when a higher god, Enlil, threatens to destroy it. But the most supreme deity of all, An, is rarely depicted, rarely petitioned, and features in myths infrequently.56
To expand this tendency further, I would like to draw attention to the Hindu Tantric mythology of
Shiva and Shakti, particularly since a parallel can be made between the relationship of the god Shiva to the goddess Shakti and the relationship of Osiris to Isis. Like Osiris and Isis, Shiva and Shakti unite in a sacred marriage. Osiris and Shiva are both passive, dead gods, while Isis and Shakti represent the active female principle.
In the Tantric system, the ultimate, unmanifest, neuter godhead, Brahman, manifests as the Bindu, or primordial seed, from which the whole universe is born. Like the yin/yang symbol of Chinese philosophy, the Bindu contains the essence of the complementary opposites, male and female.
When the Bindu "sprouts", the male aspect, personified as Shiva, resides with Brahman, while the female aspect, Shakti, engages in the activity of creating the universe and the "ten thousand things".
Meanwhile, Shiva remains as though dead, and is represented as a corpse in some iconography.
Inactive and powerless, he rests inert, awaiting the return of Shakti when she finishes her creative task. When she returns to Shiva, there is great joy and rejoicing; the ultimate union takes place; the universe dissolves into its primordial unity; and then the whole process starts up again.57
56 For accounts and discussions of Mesopotamian myths, see especially Jacobsen (1976) and Kramer (1961 b). 67 For a discussion of the relationship of Shiva and Shakti in the Hindu Tantric tradition, see, for example, Beck (1993: 121-147); Avalon (1972: xix-xxxi; 1974: 25-48); Mahadevan (1960: 203-215). In the Tantric tradition, Shiva is an otiose deity, in contrast to mainstream Hindu tradition, where he is best known for his extremely active role as a dancer. 246
The prehistoric iconography of the Indus Valley Civilisation (c2600 BCE) indicates the possible existence of the Tantric system at that time. 58 Small clay female figurines have been found throughout the cities, towns, and villages and suggest the early worship of a Shakti-like deity, who represents the creative powers of nature. 59 The male aspect finds representation mainly in the form of a phallus - a form which characterised Shiva until much later in Indian history when he took an anthropomorphic form as well. Only on three stamp seals do we find an image that can be interpreted as an early anthropomorphic depiction of Shiva as an ascetic deity performing yogic disciplines, and this evidence is far from conclusive (Fairservis 1992: 63).
For the Neolithic village culture prior to the rise of the Indus Valley Civilisation, limited iconographic evidence of a male deity has emerged, whereas female figurines, which appear stylistically to be related to the Indus Valley and later historic figurines, are plentiful. Not until India approached the
Christian Era did anthropomorphic images of high male deities appear, and these in temples, sculptural complexes, and caves, rather than the domestic environment. Anthropomorphically conceived cosmogonic deities older than writing - Surya, Rudra, lndra, Vishnu, Brahma - finally found material expression. Even the Buddha, representative of the empty essence of the phenomenal world and founder of a non-theistic religion, became the anthropomorphic focus of Buddhism, contradicting the basic philosophy of the religion. This evidence suggests a tendency towards historic anthropomorphic representation of prehistoric, non-represented, anthropomorphic male high gods.
The relationship of the active goddess to the inert god in both Egyptian and Indian mythology startles with its many similarities. The emphasis on the erect but stationary phallus, the active creative role of the female, the dead or inert male aspect, and the divine marriage, or hierosgamos, are four major conjunctions. As well, in both India and Egypt, anthropomorphic Shiva and Osiris iconography only convincingly occurs in the historic periods. Rather, female imagery dominates the prehistoric iconographic record in all European and Near and Middle Eastern countries, and this dominance has led to the assumption that humanity first conceived high divinity as female. Dominant male deities, it
58 For details on Indus Valley iconography, see, for example, Agrawal (1984) and Allchin and Alchin (1968). 247 is postulated, arrived later, with the rise of state enforced patriarchy. These same claims have been made about Predynastic Egypt (Baumgartel 1970b; David 1982; Hassan 1992; Hornblower 1929;
Murray 1934) because of the preponderance of female iconography over male.
A more detailed and comprehensive study could be made of the nature of iconographic
representation of various kinds of deities in other contemporary religious systems. Certainly many exceptions can be found to the general tendency illustrated above. Higher, cosmic male and female deities do enter the iconic record in small scale religions of the Pacific Islands and some North
American Inuit and Indian cultures, alongside "lesser" divinities such as ancestors, spirit guides, totems, demons, etc. The Inuit goddess Sedna, often carved in soapstone, and the Mississippi Earth
Mother, modelled in clay (Prentice 1986) are good examples, although I could argue that these
"higher" female deities fall within the immanent and accessible rather than remote, cosmogonic
category. Despite the occasional exception, the religious sensibility of many small-scale forager and
village societies shies away from confining cosmic spiritual entities in localised, limiting material
forms. Purely anthropomorphic forms are particularly avoided, even though worshippers might
mentally conceive these deities in human terms and approach them, through mediation, as superior
human-like beings. Only in centralised, state-based religions does iconography of higher deities tend
to become important, as in the case of the sedentary, centrally-ruled Shilluk culture of the Sudan.
The following section applies these observations to specific Egyptian deities, especially Osiris.
Osiris: An Invisible God?
To find Osiris in the Predynastic is like finding an invisible needle in a haystack. If Osiris, a major
mortuary deity of Upper Egypt at Abydos, qualifies as a "cosmic", or higher, deity, hence prone to lack
of representation, then arguments must be based on something more nebulous and slippery than the
surety of material remains.
59 See Banerji (1994) for illustrations and a concise description and analysis of Indian terracotta figurines. The Indian goddess Shakti and her various manifestations could be the only "Mother Goddess" easily traced through iconography to prehistoric roots. 248
The Predynastic Egyptians, like the Nuer, Dinka, Chinese, and Indian peoples, among others, probably conceived of deities in anthropomorphic terms without expressing them through material images, but we cannot prove this. Comparative evidence suggests the likelihood, reinforced by the historic emergence of anthropomorphically represented deities such as Osiris, Ptah, Atum, Nut, Geb,
Nephthys, Min, and Hapy, and some forms of Hathor, Isis, and later, Amun. To deny the possibility of their pre-literate, pre-state existence is to postulate their invention by priests, rather than their gradual development out of the religious needs and conceptions of the people.
Eric Hornung (1983), in his study of the nature of Egyptian deities, stressed the invisible nature of the
Egyptian gods: "their true form is hidden and mysterious , as Egyptian texts emphasize continually"
(ibid 117):60
A god may be sensed and seen not only in his attributes of fragrance, radiance and power, but also and more forcefully in the way he affects men s hearts ... In these cases the invisible god may be grasped as a subjective reality, whereas he can be made visible to the believer only in images ... (ibid 134-5)
As discussed above in the section on comparative religion, the need for deities to be visible to the
believers arises when the priests and rulers of an institutionalised religion wish to focus the support
and allegiance of the wider community on a unified and centralised authority. Non-centralised
cultures, such as the village cultures of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, had little need to embody their
deities in official statues, for their worship would often be conducted in small village gatherings or
home shrines, as in today s tribal Africa. Even in modern rural India, people still prefer home worship to temple worship, despite the prevalence of temples in their communities.61
Because of the belief in the "invisibility" of the major deities and the need to make these deities tangible to the Egyptian population, the priests created a representation which combined and
reconciled these two conflicting concepts. They placed the anthropomorphic image within a dark
sanctuary and restricted access only to those officiating priests who looked after it (ibid 135). Even
during public processions, they retained the concept of "invisibility" by concealing the image in a
60 It seems contradictory that he would not extend the same attitude to the Predynastic Egyptians. 249 shrine, which was paraded before the public. The general population knew the statue was there and
could focus their worship on it, but it remained invisible, hidden in its portable shrine (ibid 136; Baines
1991: 148).
The embodiment of cosmic divine power is dangerous, hence the reluctance to create and display
imagery of the most powerful divine forces. Embodied deities in Dynastic Egypt, as elsewhere, were
surrounded by the limiting controlling factors of ritual, special priesthoods, sanctuaries, and
inaccessibility. In a less complex culture, to simply not embody cosmic forces would protect the
people from their dangerous intrusion. Tradition, handed down orally, and rituals practised by
succeeding generations of shamans, priests, and prophets, as in Nuer and Dinka culture, sustain the
knowledge of the deities and their powers and provide the necessary focus for communal worship and
continuance of tradition.
To assume that such a powerful deity as Osiris, a cosmic divinity of the sky and the underworld,
rather than temporal deity of the earth or air, could not have existed in the Predynastic because of a
lack of material evidence contradicts the nature of religious iconography. For priests to invent a
powerful and popular deity such as Osiris for the purposes of a royal mortuary cult early in the
Dynastic period, just prior to the written evidence of the Pyramid Texts, would be an incredible feat of
propaganda in a period without mass communication in which only the elite were literate. Also, such
a self-conscious, contrived form of religious development is unlikely considering the conservative
nature of religion, especially that of Egypt, the widespread popularity of Osiris among illiterate people
after the First Intermediate period, and the inherent contradictions among the myths and textual
references to him. If one or two organised centralised priesthoods had invented Osiris, for whatever
purpose, surely there would be greater consistency and uniformity in the religious texts.
The Pyramid Texts display characteristics which can be more sensibly explained to result from a
collection of pre-existing creation and cosmological myths, as well as spells and myths surrounding
the death and rebirth of the king, rather than newly invented theologies, cosmologies, and
cosmogonies. These texts contain plural, rather than singular, accounts of creation, eschatology, and
61 For a discussion of contemporary popular religion in India, see Fuller (1992). 250
cosmic organisation and principles. Furthermore, accrediting the early historic period with the original development of texts, deities, and mortuary rituals is to presuppose that either: (1) the Predynastic
mortuary rituals and accompanying deities and beliefs ceased and new systems and deities came into existence with the rise of the unified state; or (2) the Predynastic peoples had no set of beliefs, rituals
and deities which accompanied the elaborate mortuary material remains and, therefore, suitable ones
had to be invented.
Neither of these options is plausible. More likely, the earliest mortuary deities, rituals, and beliefs of the historic period descended from the mortuary cultures of the Predynastic. As elsewhere in Africa, those responsible for the institution of Divine Kingship probably "took over" pre-existing popular cults in order to focus, legitimate, and stabilise power. Perhaps they did not conceive of these deities in exactly the same terms or assign them their Predynastic names. We know that deities, even in the
historic period, merged or altered their identities. The historic confluence of deities helps to diffuse any argument that their prehistoric counterparts retained their identical names and functions as they moved into their well-recognised positions under the efforts of the Dynastic priests and theologians.
Hathor and Isis became indistinguishable iconographically and only identifiable by the presence of their hieroglyphs. Amun and Re merged into Amun-Re. Hathor appears to have been the original mother of Horus, leaving open the question as to the origin of Isis and why she took over that position. Sopdet (Greek Sothis), possibly Satis, and Isis - three distinct deities - each became associated with the star Sirius. Osiris, named Wsir, is historically identified with the constellation
Orion, called Sah (S3) (Faulkner 1966: 157; Neugebauer Parker 1969: 112-115), possibly in much the same way as Re is symbolised by the celestial body of the sun as Aten.
In Egyptian mythology, the heavenly bodies rather than earthly beings embody the natures of cosmic deities. Egypt s cosmic deities, such as Atum, Amun, Shu, Tefnut, and Nut, are invisible to the eye, but their presence is demonstrated by the elemental forces they embody: the ability to create (Amun,
Atum), the air (Shu), moisture (Tefnut), and the sky (Nut). These cosmogonic deities avoid direct involvement with humanity, except through priests, and instead concern themselves with the more remote activities of creation and maintenance of the universe. Like the invisible Kwoth Nhial, Atum and Amun are mentally conceived anthropomorphically as fathers (Pyr. 151), but the Egyptian gods 251 are not depicted as such until the development of official tomb wall iconography. Even Geb, although the earth god, is cosmogonic and primordial rather than involved in human affairs. Each of these deities, including Osiris, takes on an anthropomorphic representation with the formulation of official state religion and iconography. None appears to have been represented iconically in the
Predynastic.
In the Pyramid Texts, the physical sun represents Re. Possibly such an implicit relationship between
Osiris and Orion exists as well, although Sah is not mentioned. Osiris, as a cosmic deity, could have fcund his earliest expression in the evocative presence of Orion in the celestial rather than earthly realm, in much the same way as the spread of ox horns evokes Kwoth Nhial to the Nuer.
The gods of human affairs, the temporal gods, Horus, Hathor, Isis, Thoth, Anubis, Nekhbet, Wadjt,
Sekhmet, among others, directly involve themselves in the political and personal lives of the people who worship them. Like the totemic spirits and the "spirits of the below" of the Nuer people, they find immanent expression in familiar animals and objects of the terrestrial world. These immanent deities who border the celestial and earthly realms often have wings, enabling them to inhabit both earth and sky, for example, Horus, Isis, Nephthys, and Thoth, in his ibis form. Also the b3, that aspect of the human soul which flies out of the tomb, does so as a human-headed, swallow-like bird.
References to the king with wings of many different birds - goose, duck, falcon, heron - appear in the
Pyramid Texts (Pyr. 461-463, 250, 387-79). The wings enable the king to fly up to the stars and become immortal. In the Pyramid Texts, the king flies up to the sky as a swallow (Pyr. 1770, 1216), the image most closely related to the concept of the b3 bird, and takes his place among the other swallows, which become the Imperishable Stars (Pyr. 1216). So too, the Nuer lesser spirits of the above, such as the Kwoth cuekni (twins) spirits and Buk, as a female crow, have bird associations which allow them dual roles as spirits of the earth and the sky. Buk as a crow is also a river spirit - both celestial and chthonic. Horus, as falcon, rules the earth, but with the power and authority of the sky. 252
Osiris, as a cosmic deity, remote from earthly life, cannot act directly in the world. But, like the ancestor spirits of many cultures, removed from human activity, he is still responsible for earthly fertility. Osiris acts indirectly, so he needs a medium to engage with the world of the living. That medium is Isis, a winged deity of celestial and earthly capabilities. Through Isis, Osiris fathers the king (Horus) from the other world, the realm of the "ancestors". The Pyramid Texts indicate that in her cosmogonic form of Sothis, Isis engenders Horus (Pyr. 632-33, 1636), but in more frequent references to her, she is a kite, attendant at Osiris funeral. In Dynastic iconography, she hovers over Osiris phallus in her bird, rather than anthropomorphic, form. Her wings make possible her mediation between the two realms.
Osiris, as an invisible celestial cosmic god, and the other cosmic deities, would attract no symbolic material expression in the Predynastic other than their cosmogonic forms of elements, phenomena, celestial bodies, and constellations. In the art and iconography of the Dynastic period, their mental rather than symbolic forms become their representations. Nut, Geb, Tefnut, Shu, Amun-Re, Isis, and
Osiris all take anthropomorphic forms, while simultaneously retaining their celestial/cosmogonic associations with the sky, earth, moisture, air, sun, Sothis, and Orion respectively, although the occasional exception can be found, for example, with the late appearance of a ram-headed Amun-Re.
Although I emphasise the evidence that characterises Osiris as a cosmic god with celestial connotations, I cannot deny that contrary evidence can be found. As the Predynastic community consisted of a collection of disparate cultures which grouped around the Nile, understandably they would come to share some religious beliefs and customs, but not all. To identify Orion as a form of
Osiris does not preclude the possibility that some Predynastic peoples envisaged their god of the dead in the form of a jackal or a fabulous beast, as suggested by certain passages in the Pyramid
Texts (Griffiths 1980, Westendorf 1977). Even the basically anthropomorphic shape of Orion does not exclude the possibility that his head may have been conceived in jackal rather than human shape
(Eaton-Krauss 1987: 235). References in the Pyramid Texts describe the deceased king s face as that of a jackal (Pyr. 1235, 1299, 2026-7, 2108, 2241); in one passage he even has the face of Seth
(Pyr. 1935). 253
More specific references to Osiris as Orion are, however, in anthropomorphic terms. In Pyr. 18 the k3 of the king is described as a man in full stride, arms swinging, suggesting the shape of Orion. Pyr.
364 describes Osiris anthropomorphically through direct references to his arms and legs. More specifically in Pyr. 959, Osiris as Orion, "long of leg and lengthy of stride" presides over Upper Egypt.
A more ecumenical declaration covers a number of options:
... O King ... you having appeared to them as a jackal, as Horus ... as Geb, ... and as Osiris ... (Pyr. 2103-4)
This last reference allows us to include many forms for the conception of the dead king and Osiris.
However, the jackal form and composite forms of jackal, snake, and panther (Westendorf 1977: 105) are absorbed into an anthropomorphic Osiris. These animal associations do not cling to him as the
non-human forms of other deities cling to them throughout the Dynastic period. Rather, the
anthropomorphic form, as suggested by Orion, comes to represent Osiris, both in his role of judge of the dead and Decanal deity (Neugebauer Parker 1960, 1969).62
The persistence of the anthropomorphic form over other allusions supports the option for an
anthropomorphically conceived, but invisible, Predynastic Osiris, who may have found his most
popular and widespread representation in Orion. The following discussion details the relationship
between Orion and Osiris in the Pyramid Texts and the importance of Orion to the Predynastic Nile
dwellers of Upper Egypt.
Orion and Osiris
In the Dynastic period, the association of Osiris with Orion was fixed. Isis was associated with Sothis
(Sirius), the star which appeared with the rising sun at the Egyptian New Year, indicating the imminent
inundation of the Nile. How far back these deities and constellations shared their identities is
impossible to gauge.
62 Repeatedly I see a reference to the shape of the constellation Orion in the conventional shape of Dynastic royal iconography — squared shoulders and characteristic kilt, the shape of which parallels the shoulders from front or side view. 254
The Pyramid Texts mention the relationship between Isis and Sirius as Sothis in conjunction with the impregnation of Isis as Sothis by Osiris (Pyr. 632-3, 1635-7) and the birth of Horus-Sopd:
Your sister Isis comes to you rejoicing for love of you. You have placed her on your phallus and your seed issues into her, she being ready as Sothis, and Har-Sopd has come forth from you as Horus who is in Sothis. (Pyr. 632-3)
Repeatedly, however, Sothis is part of the Re religion as the sister of the king. Pyr. 2126 parallels the king and Re, with Orion as brother and Sothis as sister. In one instance, Sothis is the mother of the king (Pyr. 458). In others Orion, as father of the gods, is also father of the king as a god (Pyr. 408,
2180). The king, Orion, and Sothis relationships of these passages mirror the Horus, Osiris, and Isis relationships and may be a symbolic version of this triad. But, Orion and Osiris occur together only occasionally. For this reason, and because of the lack of material evidence, the Osiris-Orion connection has been assumed to be a Dynastic development.
In Pyr. 819-20, a rare clear connection is made: "Behold, he has come as Orion, behold, Osiris has come as Orion". Yet other passages distinguish between Orion and Osiris (Pyr. 882-3):
O King, you are this great star, the companion of Orion, who traverses the sky with Orion, who navigates the Netherworld with Osiris ...
As discussed earlier, this apparent differentiation could be due to two aspects of Osiris/Orion: one aspect which is visible in the night sky as Orion, the other aspect in which Orion disappears in the west and traverses the Underworld as Osiris before appearing in the east. Further in Pyr. 820-22,
Orion appears to be a guide or companion to the dead king, rather than his b3 or k363:
63 My impression from the Pyramid Texts is that the b3 is the swallow-like part of the soul which, as a Lone Star, takes its place among the Imperishable Stars, while the k3 or double may be modelled on Orion as an anthropomorphic shape:
O King, the arm of your double is in front of you! 0 King, the arm of your double is behind you! 0 King, the foot of your double is in front of you! 0 King, the foot of your double is behind you! (Pyr. 18)
Faulkner comments that this passage may mean that the k3 strides, swinging its arms and legs (Pyr. 18, n. 4), reminding me of the striding of Orion over Upper Egypt (Pyr. 959). 255
O King, the sky conceives you with Orion, the dawn-light bears you with Orion. ... You will regularly ascend with Orion from the eastern region of the sky, you will regularly descend with Orion into the western region of the sky ...
This relationship is supported by other spells in which Orion appears to be a helper, a guide, or an abode, which protects and assists the dead king on his ascent:
In your name of Dweller in Orion, with a season in the sky and a season on earth. 0 Osiris, turn your face and look on this King ... (Pyr. 186)
May Orion give me his hand, for Sothis has taken my hand. (Pyr. 1561)
I have gone up upon the ladder with my foot on Orion (Pyr. 1763)
Be young, be young beside your father, beside Orion in the sky. (Pyr. 2180-1)
The ladder of Pyr. 1763 appears elsewhere in the Pyramid Texts as a ladder to the sky (Pyr. 971-80), and possibly the shape of Orion, to some Predynastic Egyptians, suggested a celestial ladder connecting heaven and earth, on which the souls of the dead ascend. Another passage refers to a stairway in association with Orion (Pyr. 1717), perhaps also a description of Orion s shape.
In one anomalous Utterance (Pyr. 722-723), Orion and Osiris oppose each other. Orion is the dead
King, while Osiris represents death and mortality rather than immortality:
O flesh of the King, do not decay, do not rot, do not smell unpleasant. Your foot will not be over- passed, your stride will not be overstridden, you shall not tread on the corruption of Osiris. You shall reach the sky as Orion, your soul shall be as effective as Sothis,
The conflicting passages in the Pyramid Texts demonstrate simultaneous myths which equate Osiris and Orion and myths which do not. Some solar myths in which the king goes to Re or becomes a star obviously include Orion as a guide or a location in the afterlife, while others exclude Orion from the solar and stellar myths. Therefore, although Osiris clearly manifests as Orion during the Dynastic
period, contrasting Predynastic mortuary beliefs could also equate Osiris (or a similar deity) and
Orion, while others do not. Despite these contradictions, the following discussion argues for a 256
Predynastic conflation of Orion and Osiris, or similar underworld and vegetation deity, based on the
importance of Orion to the spiritual and, subsequently, material life of the community.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ORION TO THE PREDYNASTIC UPPER EGYPTIANS
As mentioned earlier, one brief passage in the Pyramid Texts mentions Orion in connection with the
Osirian resurrection as a "deity" who is "long of leg and lengthy of stride, who presides over Upper
Egypt" (Pyr. 959). Later Dynastic Decanal calendars portray Osiris as Orion just so (Fig. 5.1). 64 In these Decanal calendars, the New Year begins with the heliacal rising of Sothis (as Isis). The best
examples of the Decanal progression come from New Kingdom tombs, such as that of Seti I (Pyr.
1303-1290 BCE), but the earliest fragments come from the First Intermediate Period tomb of Heny
(Pyr. 2134-1999 BCE). A fragment of Osiris as a Decanal deity has been identified from the Old
Kingdom funerary temple of Djedkare-lsesi (Eaton-Krauss 1987: 234).
Predynastic life in Upper Egypt followed the cycles of the Nile. Sothis brought in the New Year
around the summer solstice, announcing the imminent inundation of the Nile after two months of