THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ACHAEMENID RULE IN EGYPT by Henry Preater Colburn A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Art and Archaeology) in the University of Michigan 2014 Doctoral Committee: Professor Margaret C. Root, Chair Associate Professor Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre, University of Colorado Professor Sharon C. Herbert Associate Professor Ian S. Moyer Professor Janet E. Richards Professor Terry G. Wilfong © Henry Preater Colburn All rights reserved 2014 For my family: Allison and Dick, Sam and Gabe, and Abbie ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was written under the auspices of the University of Michigan’s Interdepartmental Program in Classical Art and Archaeology (IPCAA), my academic home for the past seven years. I could not imagine writing it in any other intellectual setting. I am especially grateful to the members of my dissertation committee for their guidance, assistance, and enthusiasm throughout my graduate career. Since I first came to Michigan Margaret Root has been my mentor, advocate, and friend. Without her I could not have written this dissertation, or indeed anything worth reading. Beth Dusinberre, another friend and mentor, believed in my potential as a scholar well before any such belief was warranted. I am grateful to her for her unwavering support and advice. Ian Moyer put his broad historical and theoretical knowledge at my disposal, and he has helped me to understand the real potential of my work. Terry Wilfong answered innumerable questions about Egyptian religion and language, always with genuine interest and good humor. Janet Richards introduced me to Egyptian archaeology, both its study and its practice, and provided me with important opportunities for firsthand experience in Egypt. Sharon Herbert taught me best practices for archaeology (and especially for understanding ceramics). While this is not a fieldwork dissertation, these practices have informed its content in essential ways. In addition to the members of my committee, many other friends and colleagues at Michigan (and elsewhere) have fueled my learning and research in critical ways. These iii include Ryan Hughes, Tom Landvatter, Seth Button, Dan Diffendale, Don Jones, Ray Van Dam, Emily Holt, James Cook and Laura Banducci. The individuals named here may not necessarily be able to point to their respective contributions to this dissertation, but they have all informed my thinking about it in vital ways. Additionally, I should like to thank the following scholars for their intellectual generosity in sharing their (often unpublished) research, and for discussing aspects of my own research with me: Damien Agut-Labordère, Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, Fabrice De Backer, Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Mark Garrison, David Graf, Wouter Henkelman, Fatma Ismail, Deniz Kaptan, David Klotz, Andy Meadows, Ken Sheedy, Jason Ur, Peter van Alfen, and Agnieszka Wojciechowska. I also wish to thank Edward Bleiberg and Ann Russmann for their hospitality during my visits to the Brooklyn Museum to consult the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture. Margaret Root, Beth Dusinberre, Tom Landvatter, Rémy Boucharlat, and Sebastián Encina all kindly provided assistance in the procurement of images for this dissertation, and I gratefully acknowledge their help. I would like to single out Alex Zwinak, the IPCAA graduate coordinator, for his tireless efforts on behalf of students in the program. All of us owe Alex a debt of gratitude for ensuring that we all have what we need to succeed. I am confident that without him IPCAA would not be the renowned program that it is today. I am proud to call him my friend. Lastly I must thank family, to whom I dedicate this dissertation. From my earliest days they provided encouragement and support for my unusual proclivities and interests, and put up with the antisocial behavior that accompanied them. More recently this burden has fallen to Abbie. I do not have words adequate to describing what her understanding iv and love has meant to me in our years together. This dissertation is as much her achievement as it is mine. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ii Acknowledgments iii List of Figures ix List of Tables xii List of Text Boxes xiii Note on Conventions and Abbreviations Used xiv Abstract xvi CHAPTER ONE The Study of Achaemenid Egypt The Paradox of Achaemenid Egypt 1 Ancient and Modern Prejudices 10 Approaches to Achaemenid Rule in Egypt 19 Beyond Persians and Egyptians: Experiencing Achaemenid Rule 31 The Structure of the Dissertation 41 CHAPTER TWO Memphis under the Achaemenids “The Balance of the Two Lands” 47 Memphis in the Longue durée 51 The Palace of Apries 78 vi The Cult of Apis 120 Individual Experiences 129 Discrepant Experiences at Achaemenid Memphis 145 CHAPTER THREE The Kharga Oasis in the Western Desert Conditions in Upper Egypt 149 Geographic and Historical Setting 152 Irrigation 158 Temples 170 The Development of the Oasis and the Experience of Achaemenid Rule 190 Pioneers of the Western Desert 194 CHAPTER FOUR Representation and Identity Egyptian Art and Achaemenid Rule 197 The Artistic Poverty of Achaemenid Egypt 201 Discrepant Experiences: Case Studies 244 Representation and Identity in Achaemenid Egypt 298 CHAPTER FIVE Ceramics and Society Ceramics, Cooking and Culture Contact 300 Comparing Ceramic Assemblages 303 Sites 306 Results 315 Discussion and Interpretation 332 vii Ceramic Perspectives on Achaemenid Rule 349 CHAPTER SIX Coinage and the Egyptian Economy The Satrapal Economy 352 Coins and Money in Fifth Century Egypt 354 Greek Coins and Egyptian Tribute 359 ‘Aryandic’ Silver 368 The Athenian Tetradrachm in Egypt 371 Tetradrachms in the Second Persian Period 380 The Impact of Achaemenid Rule on the Egyptian Economy 384 CHAPTER SEVEN Experiencing Achaemenid Rule in Egypt The End of Achaemenid Rule in Egypt 388 Structural Continuities and Changes 393 Identity and Experience 396 Experiencing Achaemenid Rule 400 Future Directions 404 References 409 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1.1. Map of Egypt, featuring places named in the text 2 2.1. Sketch map of ancient Memphis 55 2.2. Plan of the Palace of Apries, Memphis 56 2.3. Reconstruction drawing of the scenes from the pylon, Palace of Apries 61 2.4. Plan of the houses in the vicinity of the Palace of Merneptah 66 2.5. Map of Saqqara 69 2.6. Map of Abusir 75 2.7. Bronze and iron armor scales from the Palace of Apries 81 2.8. Arrowheads from the Palace of Apries 82 2.9. Wooden tags from the Palace of Apries with Aramaic and Demotic inscriptions 89 2.10. Bullae from the Palace of Apries featuring seal impressions 92 2.11. Drawings of seal impressions from the bullae from the Palace of Apries 93 2.12. Further sealings from the Palace of Apries 94 2.13. Collated line drawing of PFATS 184s 109 2.14. Glazed tile from Susa, 6th-5th century BCE 112 2.15. Seal 100 from Gordion, and a line drawing of its impression 114 2.16. Stela from the Serapeum at Saqqara depicting Cambyses before the Apis Bull 123 2.17. Plan of the Apis House, Memphis 126 ix 2.18. Plan of the shaft tombs at Abusir 134 3.1. Schematic drawing of a qanat 158 3.2. Plan of the temple of Osiris at Ayn Manawir 172 3.3. Plan of the temple at Qasr el-Ghueita 175 3.4. The Hibis temple, viewed from the east 177 3.5. Plan of the ground floor of the Hibis temple 180 3.6. Line drawing of reliefs from the sanctuary (A) in the Hibis temple 181 3.7. Line drawing of reliefs from the room L in the Hibis temple 182 3.8. Relief of Darius as pharaoh from the forecourt of the Hibis temple 183 3.9. Painting by Charles K. Wilkinson restoring the relief from the forecourt of the 184 Hibis temple depicting Seth slaying Apep 4.1. Number of statues in the Karnak Cachette attributed to each Late Period 207 dynasty 4.2. Number of statues in the Karnak Cachette datable to the reigns of individual 207 pharaohs according to inscriptions 4.3. Duration in years of each Late Period dynasty 208 4.4. Naophorous statue, assigned to the Saite or Ptolemaic period 210 4.5. Statue exhibiting the ‘Persian gesture’ 213 4.6. Statuette of Amenhotep III 214 4.7. Relief of the Great King enthroned receiving a courtier, from Persepolis 215 4.8. Statue of Napir-Asu, from Susa 216 4.9. Schematic drawing of the trapezoidal dorsal pillar shape 229 4.10. Duration in years of the reign of each Late Period pharaoh 231 4.11. Number of statues datable to Saite pharaohs according to Leahy 1984b 231 4.12. Number of statues datable to Saite pharaohs according to Myśliwiec 1988 232 x 4.13. Naophorous statue, with added Greek and Latin inscriptions 236 4.14. Statue of Darius from Susa 247 4.15. Drawing of the Tell el-Maskhuta stela 254 4.16. Drawing of the Kabret stela 255 4.17. Right side of a wooden naos featuring a representation of Darius I 259 4.18. Drawing of the stela of Djedherbes 264 4.19. Funerary relief, said to be from Memphis 269 4.20. Naophorous statue of Horwedja 274 4.21. Naophorous statue of Ptahhotep 276 4.22. Naophorous statue of Udjahorresnet 280 4.23. Stamp seal featuring cartouche of Cambyses 293 4.24. Modern impression of the cylinder seal found at Tell el-Herr 293 4.25. London Darius Cylinder 296 5.1. Graph showing fold increase in diversity of morphology and fabric and 331 decoration at the three sites 5.2. Composite drawing of PFS 535* 337 5.3. Composite drawing of PFS 170 337 5.4. Inscribed silver bowl from Tell el-Maskhuta 344 5.5.