Narmer and the Coptos Colossi

Narmer and the Coptos ColossiAuthor(s): Bruce WilliamsSource: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 25 (1988), pp. 35-59Published by: American Research Center in EgyptStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000869 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 18:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.21 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:42:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000869?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Narmer and the Coptos Colossi#

Bruce Williams

Because life in ancient Egypt was permeated by religion, the emergence of the Egyptian conceptual universe is a topic of profound conse- quence for any inquiry into early culture and society. Elaborate religious texts are lacking in the early ages, but various images that depict or imply the existence of universal relationships encountered in later Egyptian texts and representations have been dated quite early. Their consideration is essential for even the most general understanding of religious ideas and practices.

A number of religious representations were assigned a date before Dynasty I because they do not resemble the known work of later ages and they were found in circumstances that led their discoverers to accept an early date.1 However, the early excavators did not recover the surfaces and pits now considered important for cogent archaeo- logical argument and some of the more important objects had been displaced in ancient times. Their date has been subject to attack on exactly these grounds.2

# The author would like to thank the following people for advice, assistance, and support: Dr. P. R. S. Moorey, Dr. Helen Whitehouse, Prof. Helene J. Kantor, Mrs. Elizabeth Tieken, Lisa Heidorn, John Larson, and Prof. Robert K. Ritner. I also thank the Visitors of the Ashmolean Museum for permission to publish the photographs presented in this article.

I. The Coptos Colossi and Comparable Stone Sculpture

The largest and most important objects were parts of the legs and torsos of three colossal male statues and a head discovered by Petrie at Coptos in 1893-94, along with a stone falcon, lions, and important pottery figures.3 The statues themselves were so obviously unusual (and there were details that Petrie compared to small figures found at Naqada) that he assigned them to his "Eastern Invaders," the people he then considered the founders of dynastic Egypt.4 The statues themselves were considered early by Capart,5 and this view persisted unchallenged until the 1940's.6

Petrie himself maintained an early date,7 but he did not publish more than the head and low- relief decoration on the sides of the statues. Despite its wide acceptance, the early date for these statues has been a source of some disquiet, for their size and ithyphallic pose imply the

1 W. M. Flinders Petrie, Koptos (London, 1896) 7-9, pls. III-IV, V: 4-6; Jean Capart, Primitive Art in Egypt. (London, 1905), fig. 166 (Ashmolean statues); J. E. Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, Egyptian Research Account Memoir 4 (London, 1900), 5; J. E. Quibell and F. W. Green, Hierakon- polis Part II, Egyptian Research Account Memoir 5 (Lon- don, 1902), 1, 13-14; W. M. F. Petrie Abydos Part I. 1902, EEF Memoir 22 (London, 1902), 9-14; idem, Abydos Part II. 1903, EEF Memoir 24 (London, 1903) 5-9 and especially 23-27.

2 Elise Baumgartel, "About some ivory statuettes from the 'Main Deposit' at Hierakonpolis," JARCE 7 (1968): 7-14; idem, "Some additional remarks on the Hierakonpolis Ivories," JARCE 8 (1970): 9-10; Barry J. Kemp, "The Osiris

Temple at Abydos," MDAIK 23 (1968): 153-55. See now Giinter Dreyer, Elephantine VIII. Der Tempel der Satet: Die Funde der Friihzeit und des alten Reiches, DAIK Archao- logische Veroffentlichungen 39 (Mainz am Rhein, 1986) 37-52.

3 Petrie, Koptos, 7-9, pls. III-IV, V: 4-6; Elise Baum- gartel, "The Three Colossi from Koptos and their Mesopo- tamian Counterparts," ASAE 48 (1948): 532-53. Barbara Adams and Richard Jaeschke, The Koptos Lions, The Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Anthropology and History No. 3. (Milwaukee, 1984); Barbara Adams, Sculptured Pottery from Koptos in the Petrie Collection (Warminster, 1986).

4 Petrie, Koptos, 7. 5 Capart, Primitive Art in Egypt, 223-26. 6 William S. Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculpture and

Painting in the Old Kingdom (London, 1946) 4 and 7. 7 W. M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt From the

Earliest Times to the XVIth Dynasty (London, 1895) 13-14; idem, The Making of Egypt, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, vol. 61 (London, 1939) 57-58.

35



36 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 1. Graffiti on the M in colosses from Coptos in the Cairo Museum (drawings by Lisa Heidorn): a. Catfish on the left side; b. Serekh on the right side; c. Har- poon on the right leg.

existence of important religious ideas at a very early date. The early date is thus a formidable barrier against the formation of simple evolutionary schemes that insist on a late appearance for "native" Egyptian theological conceptions.8 In 1948, however, Elise J. Baumgartel brought a measure of relief for this disquiet by insisting on a date for the statues in Egypt's better known monumental ages. However, her arguments were based on very loosely defined parallels with objects of different material and size, and the comparisons made to objects found outside Egypt shared little more with the statues than their male sex, general nudity, and belts around their waists.9 The few close parallels, with ivory objects from a "Great Deposit" at Hierakonpolis, were also reduced in date, likewise on very general typological grounds.10 Baumgartel's thesis

found some favor among those who sought the

development of Egypt's ideas in Dynasty I and later,11 but a number of scholars, notably Kan tor and Fischer, continued to insist on an early date for the statues.12

A. The date of the colossi

New epigraphic evidence can be brought to bear on the problem. In June of 1987, this writer examined the Cairo figure closely to look for

graffiti that might help to resolve the issue by direct historical or paleographical evidence. On the left side of the figure, approximately .65 m from the presumed bottom edge, is an incised catfish (fig. la). The outlines are simple, and

boldly cut, with shallow lines used for details of the barbels, the tail, and the eye. The figure closely resembles catfish incised in serekhs of Narmer.13

8 Erik Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt; the One and the Many, John Baines, trs. (Ithaca, 1971). See pp. 100-109 for remarks on early developments in religious imagery, with particular remarks on the Coptos colossi on p. 108.

9 Baumgartel, ASAE 48, 537-39. 10 Ibid., 542-53; idem, JARCE 7: 11-12. For example, the

hairstyle used to date the Hierakonpolis female figurines to the Middle Kingdom are not confined to that period, but is

known from other periods. The large ears Baumgartel noted appear in Dynasty 0 relief, notably on the Narmer Palette and on the present statues (see below, p. 39). For the comparison of nude male figures, see pp. 12-13. Except for their stance and nudity, they do not closely resemble the Old Kingdom statues with which they are compared any more than they resemble earlier Naqada Period figurines (see below, note 25). The penis-sheath, common on the Hiera- konpolis figurines Baumgartel did not discuss (Quibell, Hier- akonpolis I, pls. VII-VIII, X), occurs on both groups of fighting men on the Gebel el Arak Knife Handle (Henri Asselberghs, Chaos en Beheersing; Documenten uit aenoli- thisch Egypte, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, vol. 8 [Leiden, 1961] afb. 58) as well as the Bull Palette (Ibid., afb. 166-67). For its occurrence in Naqada period burials, see Albert M. Lythgoe, Naga-ed-Der, Part IV. The Predynastic Cemetery N 7000, ed. Dows Dunham (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), especially pp. 15 and 411. It is much less common later. See A. C. Mace, The Early Dynastic Cemeteries at Naga-ed-Der Part II, University of California Publications in Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1909), pl. 47d.

11 Hornung, ibid. 12 Henry G. Fischer, "Koptos," LdA III, 738. He mentions

the hammered technique as an important indicator of the date. Helene J. Kantor, "Agypten," in M. Mellink and J. Filip, eds., FriXhe Stufen der Kunst, Propylaen Kunstge- schichte, vol. 13 (Berlin, 1974) 255 (no. 221; see also 222, the lion), and 238. The resemblance to the "MacGregor Man" is pointed out, which Baumgartel ("More on the Hierakon- polis Ivories") had doubted.

13 Werner Kaiser and Giinter Dreyer, "Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen in fruhzeitlichen Konigsfriedhof. 2. Vorbericht," MDAIK 38 (1982), fig. 14, nos. 35-43, especially 37.



NARMER AND THE COPTOS COLOSSI 37

The right side of the statue is partly covered by a slightly raised vertical band that extends downward and contains figures in low relief. In addition to these figures, there is a scratched graffiti located between an elephant that begins a series of three animals and a pointed object in front of it. The scratches make up a serekh with a curved top (fig. lb), a type that ceased to be made in the reign of Aha.14 The graffiti can be seen dimly in Petrie's photograph of the squeeze he made of the object, so they are not modern

damage. In addition to the historical graffiti, the

figure has a horizontal harpoon with a single barb incised below and to the (statue's) right of the scrotum (fig. lc).

None of the marks are as decisive as the

damaged figures in the relief to the right of the

elephant (fig. 2d). Although explanations have been advanced,15 only one reconstruction fits the

remaining shapes exactly, in a manner consistent with Egyptian iconography. The shapes com-

prise the name of Narmer (fig. 3a), with the tail of the catfish clearly visible above, and the point and shaft of the chisel also quite clear below. The

top of the chisel and the body of the fish are

damaged beyond recognition, but the reconstruction of the two signs is clear. The latest date for the creation of this statue and its fellows is indicated precisely. The early date of the Coptos statues - in the Naqada Period- is established, with all of its consequences.16

B. The statues

The survival of colossal statuary from Naqada times is hardly less than miraculous. Apart from the sphinx, colossal figures of Old Kingdom deities hardly exist, and colossi of pharaohs are but fragments, or unfinished, such as those of

Djoser.17 The Coptos colossi are exceptional, but before the New Kingdom, the exception is the rule in colossal statuary.

In addition to Petrie's remarks, the statues in the Ashmolean Museum (fig. 4a-b) were described by Baumgartel and W. S. Smith.18 The

figures were shaped by hammering. The almost

cylindrical torsos are those of men standing with their feet together. The arms are so close to the

body they are hardly more than relief. The right arm is pressed against the side with a lump at the wrist, and the hand is pierced, as if to hold a flail or other object. The left bends or curves over the lower front of the torso; the left hand is depicted as a ring in low relief that encloses the phallus. Most canonical representations of Min depict the

god with his body swathed or shrouded, and thus do not show this feature.19 The phallus was a

separate piece of stone set into a socket; one worn

fragment remains in the socket of the second Ashmolean statue. The scrotum is shown just below the left hand as a simple curved sac. The

legs are separated by a groove, with the knees shown only by pairs of triangles pointed upward and downward. The groove separating the legs is

deeper on the rear of one of the Ashmolean statues and the buttocks were given some model-

ling; there is a deep triangular depression at the base of the spine. The torsos are otherwise almost featureless except for eight lines that indicate the

14 Ibid., fig. 14, see above (Horizon B-C) for concave- topped serekhs. See also Peter Kaplony, Die Inschriften der dgyptischen Frilhzeit, Agyptologische Abhandlungen, vol. 8 (Wiesbaden, 1963), figs. 16, 25-33, 78-95, 121, 185, 188, and 196-211. None of the serekhs after Aha have concave tops. Unfortunately, a large flake has carried away much of the elephant's head and tusks immediately above the graffito.

15 Petrie (Koptos, p. 8) called the shapes a flying bird (?), as did Baumgartel (ASAE 48, 536).

16 W. M. F. Petrie, Royal tombs of the Earliest Dynasties 1901 Part II, EEF memoir 21 (London, 1901), pls. II: 3 and LII, below. See also Zaki Saad, "Preliminary Report on the Royal Excavations at Helwan, 1944-1945," in idem, Royal Excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941-1945), ASAE Supplement 3 (Cairo, 1947), 165 and fig. 13.

For a correlation of various chronologies, see Bruce Williams and Thomas J. Logan, "The Metropolitan Mu- seum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery before Narmer," JNES 46 (1987): 280, Appendix A. For details of this period and a chronology of carved stone monuments as indicated by the sequence of Naqada Illa-b great tombs at Qustul, Nubia, see B. Williams, Excavations between Abu

Simbel and the Sudan Frontier, Keith C. Seele, Director. Part I: the A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, OINE, vol. Ill (Chicago, 1986), table 42, pp. 178-79.

17 Jean-Ph. Lauer, La Pyramide a degres; I' architecture, vol. I (Cairo, 1936), 144, 237; vol. II, pl. XCIX. The statues were chiseled. For Old Kingdom colossi generally, see Smith, History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, 14-15.

18 Baumgartel, ASAE 48, 534-35; see also Petrie, Koptos, 7-9. For additional details, see Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, 7.

19 Georges Daressy, Statues des divinites, Catalogue Gen- eral des Antiquites Egyptiennes de Musee du Caire Nos. 38001-39384 (Cairo, 1906), cat. nos. 38476, 79, 80, and 82. 38476 has a cap.



38 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 2. Relief decoration in the vertical bands on the Min colossi as published by Petrie (Koptos, pl. Ill): a. The first Ashmolean statue; b. The second Ashmolean statue; c-d. The Cairo statue.




Fig. 3. a. The restoration of Narmer's name on the Cairo statue, b. Drawing of an impression from a seal found at Helwan. (drawings by Lisa Heidorn)

girdle or belt around the waist and the vertical raised band on the right side of each statue. A lump at the top of the second Ashmolean fragment may indicate the tip of a beard. Al- though these statues do not depict the common form of the god as known later, the nude Min does occur.20

The head in the Ashmolean Museum (fig. 4c- d) cannot be associated with any one statue. The crown is smooth, as though the head were wearing a close-fitting cap, which is actually

indicated by a line that curves from the temples onto the forehead where it disappears in the destruction. Although they have lost all details, it can be seen that the ears were quite large and protruded. A beard was shown as a tapering band marked with horizontal grooves which begins in front of the ear but is destroyed near the chin. Otherwise, the features of the face have been destroyed almost beyond recognition, although vague hollows may indicate the location of some features.21

The Ashmolean torsos extend from below the armpits to below the knees, while the Cairo fragment is lost "above the fork."22 Although there are no large figures that could serve as comparisons, the MacGregor man and some of the figures from the Hierakonpolis deposit might serve to give an approximate idea of the original size and proportions (fig. 5).23 Petrie calculated the original height at about thirteen feet, or some four meters.24

The shape of the torsos generally compares well with male figures that have definitely or pro- visionally been dated before the First Dynasty.25

20 Adolphe Reinach, Catalogue des antiquites egyptiennes recuillies dans les fouilles de Koptos en 1910 et 1911 exposees au Musee Guimet de Lyon. (Chalon-sur-Saone, 1913), 81-82 and fig. 32. The positions of the right and left arms are reversed, the left being raised above the head. See also Daressy, ibid, 38070. The late nude Min also wore a collar and a pectoral, and some adornment of this kind may actually account for the lump on the chest of the second Ashmolean statue.

21 Petrie, Koptos, 7-8, pl. V: 4; Baumgartel, ASAE 48, 534-35.

22 Petrie, Koptos, 8. 23 Baumgartel (JARCE 8) thought the MacGregor man

might be a forgery, but Kan tor (ibid.) accepts it as genuine. The figure has been damaged and repaired. It was first published in 1900 by E. Naville (Rec. Trav. 22 [1900]: 68) from the MacGregor collection and it must have existed before the chief parallels were excavated. In fact, the Mac- Gregor Man and the Coptos head are closely connected by the cap they both wear, a feature not shared by other early figures and not visible in the Coptos publication. If the MacGregor Man was forged, the forger must have been prescient.

Approximate dimensions for the Coptos figures can be generated by comparing the fragments with figures in the Hierakonpolis deposits (those with the penis-sheath can be considered early, for example. See note 10). See Quibell Hierakonpolis I, pl. VIII: 1 and 3. The length of the lower legs is very difficult to estimate, but a pedestal (ibid., pl. IX, lower left) must have existed. See also Kantor, "Agypten," abb. 218-19.

24 Petrie, Koptos, 7-8. Dr. Robert Ritner kindly provided dimensions for the Cairo statue: height, 1.72 m; thickness, .25-. 33 m (at the hips, the back is damaged); width, .49 m (at the knees) .63 m (at the hand).

25 Quibell, Hierakonpolis I, pls. VII-VIII. Earlier figures tend to be longer and still more simple. See Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt, vol. 31 (London, 1920), pl. II: 22-24;



40 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 4a-b. The Min colossi in the Ashmolean Museum (photographs courtesy of the Visitors of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford): a. The first statue; b. The second statue.




Fig. 4c-d. The Min colossi in the Ashmolean Museum (photographs courtesy of the Visitors of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford): c. The head, front view; d. The head, side view.

The rudimentary arms, with little special treat- ment to show details of hands or elbows, are very much like early figurines generally, as are the heavy legs. Although limbs are carved in quite low relief later, the rudimentary rendering of details on the arms and hands is not paralleled by later sculpture, even the crude stelae of courtiers from First Dynasty tombs at Abydos. The knees, marked by the divided rhomb or double triangles, contrast with the featureless arms. No regular development in this detail can be discerned on the stone relief of Naqada Ill-Dynasty 0, but the knees on the Narmer palette show the same

bifurcation, although the shape is oval rather than rhombic.26

The simple banded belt is a slightly elaborated version of that found on many figures of Naqada II-III representation. Generally, however, a penis- sheath, tie, or flap is attached to the front.27 The

Peter Ucko, Anthropomorphic Figurines, Royal Anthro- pological Institute Occasional Paper no. 24 (London, 1968), cats. 52 and 91, for example, Ucko included only elongated early types, but a relationship with the Hierakonpolis figures is still recognizable.

26 See W. M. F. Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, British School of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. LXVI (A) (London, 1953), pls. J and K (Narmer); pl. G: 17-18 (Bull); E (Lion) and A: 3 (Hunters'); Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. XXVI C (Scorpion Macehead) On the Lion palette, knees are oval, as they are on the Hunters' Palette. Other early type palettes do not show knees clearly. On the Scorpion Macehead they appear to be ovals.

27 Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pl. LXXVIII, upper right; for the sheath, see Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. X: 1-3, 6; Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pls. F: 15 (Lesser Hierakonpolis Palette), G: 17-18 (Bull Palette), and K, center (Narmer Palette). For the flap, see Quibell, Hierakon- polis Part I, pl. VII. The band on the side of the Min statues



42 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of a Min colossus. The proportions are approximate (drawing by Lisa Heidorn).

tape or band on the side of the Min statues does not appear on other contemporary figures.

The smooth head, grooved beard, and large protruding ears are all features that occur together or separately on male heads, either carved in relief, or in the round.28 The wide oval face may compare better with Narmer's monuments and the Bull Palette than it does with the ivories and the earlier palettes.29

The statues date to Narmer's reign or earlier, but apart from the relief decoration, only the knees offer significant detailed comparisons with other objects that have been dated to the later Naqada Period. Compared to the execution of Narmer's smaller monuments, the statues appear clumsy, and details are summary, even allowing for the damage they sustained, which coarsened their appearance considerably. Nevertheless, the style and execution offer few problems in a period which has yielded so little large-scale statuary.

However, the size and pose of the statues and the inscriptions decisively identify them as counterparts of outsize figures that appear later in Egyptian religious contexts. Herein lies their importance for understanding the development of pharaonic imagery, for early divine images may be identified by position and action rather than symbolic attributes of authority or divinity. The Hierakonpolis tomb painting, for example, contains several figures of the pharaonic ruler that are identified only by characteristic poses or actions. Only in two cases is the ruler also identified by specific items of dress of regalia. In one tableau, the pharaonic ruler appears with a definite crown and Heb-Sed robe, seated in his sacred bark.30 At the center of the composition, the ruler does his Heb-Sed dance with crook and flail or hepet and oar before a standing figure.

could be a skirt rolled up, of the kind shown on the Hunters' Palette (Petrie, ibid., pl. A:3) which was either made of strips, folded, or pleated. Any of these structures for a garment would result in the kind of band found on the colossi when folded or rolled.

28 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. VI: 4-5. The heads are smooth, and there is no line to indicate a cap, so they are probably shaved.

29 Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pl. G: 17, J-K. 30 Williams and Logan. JNES 46: 253-56. The bark is

already outsized for the simple vessel it actually represents.




The figure the ruler confronts is likewise not identified by any definite detail of dress, but by his position and pose - as a god.31 The lower part of this figure is lost, but its proportions seem

larger than those of the dancing ruler who confronts him. The god wears a heavy coiffure and appears almost larger than the ruler although their heads are at the same level. By the First Dynasty,

' "standing" divine images tend to ac-

quire the wrapping of sacredness, as indicated on a plaque of Djer and an inscribed stone bowl from Tarkhan.32 The Min colossi continue older traditions, for they are distinguished from smaller figures primarily by their size, pose, and the hand pierced to hold the flail.

However, the colossi of Min demonstrate even more clearly than the outsized palettes and maceheads that pharaonic culture was a well developed monumental civilization by Dynasty 0, with large permanent cult installations.33

C. The inscribed reliefs

The vertical bands on the right sides of the statues are raised, and they may depict an item of dress, such as a rolled up skirt. They have figures in low relief which combine aspects of inscriptions and representations (fig. 2). The pecked relief is very shallow, more like the low relief on the Narmer Palette than the raised figures on the Scorpion Macehead or other carved palettes. The compositions are not identical, but they are closely related, and the decoration on the Cairo statue, which is most complete, is a particularly complex combination of inscription and repre-

sentation (fig. 2c-d). Both of the Ashmolean Museum statues are broken immediately below the carved figures and the decoration may have continued with a composition like that on the Cairo statue.

Apart from the graffiti, the Cairo statue, and

probably at least one of the Ashmolean statues, were decorated more than once. On the Cairo statue, a vertical pole that apparently supported a standard was obliterated in part by one of the Min standards that now occupy the band. How- ever, other figures may also have been added or modified (fig. 2c).

The first Ashmolean statue (fig. 2a) has a gazelle's (?) head with the pointed tip of a staff, pole, or frond protruding from its mouth. Below it are two pteroceras shells. The impaled head is

quite unusual, but the alterations present on the Cairo statue may indicate that the gazelle's head was added to a pre-existing composition and obliterated what was probably a frond of the type shown on the other two statues. Although it is very shallow, the relief shows the shapes clearly and boldly, with interior detail of the shells and the eyes, muzzle, and nostrils of the animal carefully indicated.

The second Ashmolean statue (fig. 2b) has two plumed Min-standards alternating with fronds34 above two pteroceras shells; one of the standards also has streamers. Between the two shells is a staff that is either the pole of a partly obliterated standard or a harpoon, depicted point downward. The relief may have been more worn than that on the other two statues, for the figures are almost silhouettes. However, the almost saw-like fronds are definitely more summary than their counterparts on the Cairo statue.

The figures on the Cairo statue (fig. 2c-d) are much more complex. The composition of Narmer probably included the two Min-standards with plumes and streamers and the fronds at the top, two pteroceras shells in the middle, and Narmer' s name, followed by the elephant, bull, and hyena (?) on triangles at the bottom. As pointed out above, the composition at least partly replaced an earlier one on the piece, and it may have been

31 Ibid., fig. 13. 32 Jacques Vandier, Manuel d'archeologie egyptienne.

Tome premier. Les epoques de formation; les trois premieres dynasties. (Paris, 1952), fig. 565. Sacred images brought before the serekh of Djer include a life-size swathed human figure. See also Hornung, Conceptions of God, fig. 10 right, and W. M. F. Petrie, Tarkhan I and Memphis V, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, vol. 23 (London, 1913) 12 and pl. Ill: 1 for a First Dynasty representation of Ptah.

33 The great palettes and maceheads are about two and a half times (up to about four times in the case of the Scorpion Macehead) the size of ordinary objects. For a comparison, see Werner Kaiser, "Einige Bemerkungen zur agyptischen Friih- zeit III. Die Reichseinigung," ZAS 91 (1964), fig. 6. For cult installations, see below, pp. 47-48.

34 Petrie (Koptos, 8) and Baumgartel (ASAE 48, 536) identified these shapes as sawfish saws. For their identification as fronds, see below p. 44, notes 38-40.



44 JARCE XXV (1988)

altered later. The second M in -standard was cut over an earlier standard, while the pole of the first is interrupted by the crude figure of a bird that could be earlier or later than Narmer's relief. Otherwise, the figures show the interior details found on the first Ashmolean statue, with details of a plume, the elephant's trunk, and the tail of the catfish. The fronds are more rectangular than on the second Ashmolean statue, with scored leaves.

The compositions on these statues consist of

major groups or divisions, the Min-standards, fronds, and shells above, and the name of Narmer followed by the abbreviated animal file below. The first group was complete on the second Ashmolean statue, complete but partly inter-

rupted by other figures on the Cairo statue, and

incomplete on the first Ashmolean statue. The

composition as a whole can be compared with a stone cylinder seal that was found near an Archaic tomb at Helwan (fig. 3b). This seal was incised with a gesturing man, a carnivore, a serekh without a name, and a pair of opposed giraffes.35 Unlike their counterparts on slate

palettes the two giraffes flank a single frond or stem rather than a complete palm tree, a feature found on a painted bowl with paired giraffes at

Qustul, Nubia.36 On either side of the frond, also

framed by the giraffes, are a vertical Min sign and a shape that is probably the pteroceras shell. Analysis of the composition, Min-sign, frond, shell, royal name or serekh, and animal (followed by the worshipper) would leave only the giraffes without counterparts in Narmer's relief on the statue.

Details can also be compared with other Na- qada period representations. The Min standards differ from earlier examples found in Naqada II painting and Naqada II-III relief. They are less elaborate than those shown on the Bull Palette or the Scorpion Macehead, where the plumes are omitted, but they do appear with the same shape in glyptic of the period.37 The fronds, especially as shown on the second Ashmolean statue, closely resemble the frond depicted between a sacred bark and a fish on the Qustul Incense Burner,38 and fronds sometimes substitute for entire plants in Naqada II painting.39 On a stela of the First Dynasty, this frond appears with a falcon standard to make a personal name.40 The combination, a deity with a frond, or a deity, a frond, and a shell or fish, comprises a group of figures with a recurrent message.

35 Zaki Saad, "Preliminary Report on the Royal Excava- tions at Helwan, 1944-1945," in idem, Royal Excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941-1945), ASAE Supplements, vol. 3 (Cairo, 1947), fig. 14, p. 166. The serekh on the cylinder is actually without a name; the area where it was found also yielded a plaque of Narmer and a falcon perched on a Min sign. See pp. 165-67, and figs. 13 and 15. Part of this combination appears later. On a seal of Den (Kaplony, IAF, fig. 186 and p. 1116), the royal serekh is alternated with three different names (?) or titles (?), each with a standard or sacred emblem (Jackal standard, Imy-wt, and Min sign), a pair of baskets, and a third element of less obvious significance. That associated with the Min sign is the shell, here shown horizontally. Although Kaplony took this to be a seal of three (?) princes, the names or titles are closely paralleled by one on the label he calls Aha A which has long been considered the nebti name of Aha (see IAF 980, note 1552) and by another considered the nebti name of Djet by Gardiner ("The personal Name of King Serpent," JEA 44 [1954], 38-39). The seal's parallel inscriptions have been discussed elsewhere by Kaplony ("Gottespalast und Gotterfestungen in der agyptischen Friizeit," ZAS 88 [1962] 5-16; see especially p. 6 and figs. 3,4, and 7) in connection with buildings and festivals.

36 Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, pls. 89-92. and idem, Decorated Pottery and the Art of Naqada III. MAS 45 (Munich, 1988), especially pp. 12-14 and fig. 2.

37 For an earlier Min standard, see W. M. F. Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pl. A: 1 (the Min Palette), which has one plume and a single "arrow point" at each end. On the Bull Palette, the "points" are doubled, but blunted, and the plume is present (ibid., pl. G: 17). The Scorpion Macehead (Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. XXVI C: 1) has a similar standard. In glyptic of this period, it can have the double point shown on the statues (Peter Kaplony, IAF, fig. 72; the findspot was dated to Hor Aha). The figurine that shows the falcon perched on a Min-sign with doubled and blunted ends was found near a plaque of Narmer at Helwan (Saad, Royal Excavations at Helwan 1941-1945, fig. 15 and pp. 165-67). In Naqada II painting, the standard appears with single or double pointed ends (W. M. F. Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, vol. 31 [London, 1920], pl. XXIII: standards 31 and 32). The Helwan figurine shows that the sign was not harpoon-like with barbed points, but had conical or blunted conical ends.

38 Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery At Qustul, fig. 54.

39 Asselberghs, Chaos en Beheersing, afb. 15. 40 Kaplony (IAF, 188 and 475), reads the element bnr,

"sweetness." See Petrie, The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties 1901. Part II, EEF memoir 21 (London, 1901), pl. XXVII: 100 and 101. The frond element is clearly made on stela 100 and the combination of the frond and falcon standard is equally a counterpart of the combination on the Min statues, whatever the reading of stela 101.




The name of Narmer on the Cairo statue, and, by its equivalent position, probably the harpoon on the second Ashmolean statue, refer to the ruler. The name Narmer is obvious, and the

harpoon is closely associated with the ruler or the ruler's bark in important compositions.41 As

pointed out above, it also appears as a graffito on the Cairo statue.

The figures treading on triangles that follow Narmer' s name on the Cairo statue are examples of the animal files that appear on many small

objects. Here they appear in an abbreviated form as found on the Sayala Macehandle.42

D. Related stone sculpture

Narmer' s inscription on the Cairo statue de- molishes a conceptual and typological barrier of modern invention against monumentality before the First Dynasty. In addition, the shapes and decoration of the Coptos colossi establish the dates of many objects in the Naqada period.

A striding statue from Hierakonpolis with a

simple cloak fastened over the shoulder has been

compared with the colossi ever since its dis-

covery.43 It is as simple as the colossi, shaped by hammering rather than by the chisel; its right arm is pressed tightly against the side in the same manner as the statues, with its inner contour following the side of the body. The right hand is

pierced to hold a staff in the same fashion as the

Min statues. Like the colossi, it has no back pillar or support. The dress, fastened over one shoulder and extending well down the leg, can be compared with the dress of Narmer on his palette (without the girdle), or that of an official on the obverse who also appears on the Scorpion Macehead.44

In addition to the striding statue, Hierakon- polis also yielded a well-made kneeling statue that has been assigned to the Archaic period. If the striding statue is that of a ruler or a high official, this kneeling figure must belong to some other class, for the pose is that of the lowest rank of men shown on the reverse side of the Metro- politan Knife Handle.45 Almost at the time of its discovery, the resemblance of the man's hair style and beard to a figure that carries one of Narmer' s standards was noted.46 Although its kneeling pose does not occur in the figurines published from the Hierakonpolis deposits, it does appear as a pose for ordinary men and prisoners depicted in two dimensions.47 The statue appears to have been more carefully carved than the Coptos figures, but the broad, rounded face, the heavy limbs, and smooth surfaces are quite comparable to the statues or Narmer' s monuments.

A limestone head about one- third life size from a "squatting statue" found at Hierakonpolis is easily an early masterpiece (fig. 6).48 Its features are better seen than described. Important features date it to the same period as the colossi. The hairline and beard, almost a projecting flange, completely frame the face in two arched lines, a 41 Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, fig.

55; Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pl. LXXVII (sect B), where a man holds a large harpoon in the stern of a boat that carries the ruler in Hierakonpolis T. 100 (See also Williams and Logan, JNES 46: 253-56); Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pl. K, above right (the Narmer Palette).

42 Baumgartel (ASAE 48, 536 and 550) did not accept the identification of the animals with any representations in Egypt, especially the animal files. However, they are clearly part of the tradition of animal files, represented in an abbreviated form, as on the Sayala Macehandle. See Helene J. Kantor, "The Final Phase of Predynastic Culture: Gerzean or Semainean?" JNES 3 (1944): 127-131; the Sayala Macehandle is discussed on pp. 129-30 and shown on fig. 13. The date would now be given as Naqada III or Dynasty 0. The order of animals as drawn on the macehandle should be elephant, giraffe, wader, followed by the herbivores and carnivores, following the more complex animal files.

43 Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pl. LVII, pp. 15, 16, and 47; Capart, Primitive Art in Egypt, p. 226 and fig. 168; Baumgartel, ASAE 48, 540-41. Smith, History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, 7.

44 Back pillars are certainly not universal in Egyptian sculpture, even in stone. See L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Konigen und Privatleuten. Nr. 1-1294 Teil 2. Catalogue general des antiqutes egyptienne du Musee du Caire, vol. 10 (Berlin, 1925), pl. 116: 629. For the dress, see Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pl. K, upper register, and Smith, History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, fig. 30, the figure facing Scorpion holding a sheaf.

45 Williams and Logan, JNES 46, fig. 2. 46 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. II, above left; see p. 6

and Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, p. 35. A second statue was found beside it, but it was not recovered.

47 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. XV: 3 and 7. 48 Ibid., pl. VI: 1-3; Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis

Part II, 36. The shape and details of this head can be compared with Dynasty I-II examples, which lack the flange- shaped beard. See W. S. Smith "Two Archaic Egyptian Sculptures," Boston Museum Bulletin 65 (1967): 70-84, especially figs. 1-2, 5.



46 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 6. A head from Hierakonpolis, front and side views (photographs courtesy of the Visitors of the Ashmolean Museum).

feature which occurs on the Coptos head and on relief-decorated stone monuments of Naqada III. The eyes were probably inlaid.

In addition to human figures, a number of animals were carved in stone, large enough to be considered parts of architectural ensembles rather than furniture. These include a falcon and a set of three lions from Coptos.49 The recumbent lions have a snarling visage, thick, arched neck, and tail curved sinuously onto the back. This tail is characteristic of early lions generally; and it is shown in relief primarily on lions earlier than the Lion Palette, notably the Hunters'.50 They have bulged eyes, however, which are typical of

the later rather than the earlier relief-decorated palettes.51 Although lions of this type appear as late as the First Dynasty, some may not have been made at that time, but slightly earlier. In any case, it would be difficult to date the Coptos lions to any period other than that of the colossi, in Naqada Ilia and Dynasty 0.

The Coptos falcon's general aspect is very much like the lions and colossi, which Petrie immediately recognized in its simple shape, smooth surfaces, lack of details, and pecked technique of execution. The bird has a very short beak and a bulged eye. The head and neck curve evenly to the back, but the body does not make a simple curve with the back of the neck as in earlier falcons but it was definitely bulged at the shoulder.52 The feet or legs are hardly more than

49 Petrie, Koptos, pl. V: 5-6; Adams and Jaeschke, The Koptos Lions.

50 Petrie, Koptos, 7 and pl. V: 5. Adams and Jaeschke, The Koptos Lions. These belong to Type I in the list, pp. 22-25. The type of lion is also found in early First Dynasty contexts, although later examples in Dynasty I have less pronounced necks than the Coptos lions, especially the smaller animal. Compare figs. 18-20 (Dynasty I) with Petrie, Koptos, pl. V: 5 and Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, fig. 54.

51 For earlier palettes, see Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pls. A: 3, B-C: 8-9, where figures have deeply recessed eyes. For later palettes, see pls. D-E, G, J, and K. For the chronology of these palettes, see Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 178-82.

52 Kaiser and Dreyer, MDAIK 38, fig. 14: Horizon A: 1, 4.




a broad peg that extends from the chest, balanc- ing the figure far forward, as on standards depicted on the Bull and Hunters' palettes rather than monuments of Narmer and later.53 Petrie's assignment of the falcon to the same period as the colossi and the lions was justified.

A crude, quartzose stone door socket found at

Hierakonpolis may date to the period. It is a large, rounded flat slab with a socket in the upper surface. A prisoner is depicted with silhouettes of arms tied behind his back marked out by hammer-

ing or pecking. The face, put on a projecting knob, is flattened and turned upward. The slab was not inscribed, but the face has been com-

pared to the face on a relief of Khasekhemwy.54 Whether it belongs to the Naqada Ilia-Dynasty 0

period or the late Archaic Period, it could prove useful as a guide to part of a temple's original appearance.

A body of large stone sculpture depicting gods in human form, gods as animals, symbols of deities, officials or rulers, and ordinary humans existed from Naqada III, although architectural relief has not been identified.55 The general lack of large relief may, however, be taken to indicate that large stone slabs were not used in construction above ground; for monumental stone objects of other kinds, such as implements and vessels, were regularly decorated in Dynasty 0.

II. Evidence for Temples and the Context of Sculpture in Dynasty 0

The existence of the Coptos colossi implies the existence of permanent monumental structures that housed them. However, no coherent city temples have survived. To reconstruct the proportions and something of the appearance of the

Coptos temple, we have only the statues themselves, representations, including models of buildings in the Djoser Complex, limited evidence offered by fragments at Hierakonpolis, and perhaps evidence inferred from the greater Osiris

complex at Abydos. The evidence is difficult, deceptive, and fragmentary; and we can hope to obtain a reconstruction with only very limited claims to accuracy.

A. Representations, the temple, and its possible dimensions

The statues themselves are genuine colossi. Originally about four meters high, they are about two and one half times contemporary life size. They were found on the site of the main temple of Min and Isis (and Horus?) at Coptos, a circumstance that indicates they were part of a structural complex rather than isolated monuments. The smaller figures give further support to the idea that there was a proper temple on the site. The Coptos figures can be restored as parts of a permanent installation of the kind that was constructed in brick with stone fittings, or brick with wooden fittings in later times.56 A completely stone structure is probably to be ruled out of consideration. In this case, a combination of brick and wood is the most plausible reconstruction of the building's material.57 Apart from funerary chapels, Heb-Sed courts, Buto-shrines, and the like, a variety of structures were actually or possibly used in early cults. These include a grotto-shrine,58 the hut-like Min naos known

53 Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pls. G: 17-18 and A: 3; compare J.

54 Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pl. LVIII and p. 36; Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. Ill, below.

55 A fragment of a stone lintel from tomb 3507 at Saqqara has a pair of recumbent lions with their tails curled above the back that may have been reused from an earlier structure. Walter B. Emery, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III, EEF memoir 47 (London, 1958), pl. 96: b; pp. 77 and 84. The style of the lions is very different from that found on a trial piece in the same tomb. Like the Coptos figures, the relief was executed by hammering. See note 50.

56 Werner Kaiser et al., "Stadt und Tempel von Elephan- tine, Sechster Grabungsbericht," MDAIK 32 (1976): 98-103, pls. 30-32. For a discussion of wooden architectural elements, see pp. 105-7. First Dynasty royal tombs at Abydos were lined with wood, and a cult niche on a panelled tomb at Saqqara had a wooden floor.

57 Stone fittings, such as jambs, could appear quite early, as indicated by the statues, but it is assumed here that the columns and roof at least were wood and reed, while the walls and screen were brick and mud-coated reeds. Although the "Khentiamentiu Temple" at Abydos might have existed before the Sixth Dynasty, its construction in brick would not be suitable for spanning wide spaces, and the building may have been used for storage rather than as a temple. See Barry Kemp, "The Osiris Temple at Abydos," MDAIK 23 (1968): 148-53.

58 Dreyer, Der Tempel der Satet, 11-18.



48 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 7. The temple on the Narmer Macehead. See notes 65 and 69.

from later times,59 the "Per-wer," the "Per- nu,"60 and possibly the "Khentiamentiu temple."61 The Per-wer and the Per-nu are only depicted in this period, the former on seals, the latter on seals, labels, and stone monuments. In selecting a prototype, some aspects of the representations need to be noted. The Per-wer is shown alone, without an enclosure or with only a small fence in front of it, most often on a socle or sledge.62 In these circumstances it may depict a small shrine rather than a temple. The Per-nu, on the other hand, is depicted as a complex, with an enclosure, furniture, and sacred images.63 However, in the Djoser complex, the House of the South, the Per-wer, and the House of the North, the Per-nu, differ from each other mainly in detail. Both have forecourts whose walls extend around the outside of the buildings, and both courtyards contain groups of three outsize symbolic plants set into the east walls. The

House of the South actually has by far the larger court.64

The temple depicted on the Narmer Macehead is the Per-nu type, a low structure with a curved roof and tall projections at the two corners (fig. 7). It has an elongated courtyard wall in front of it. No details of texture are shown, and there are no doors or flagpoles depicted; but the court contains a jar on a stand toward the front and a standard pole in the middle, with the image obliterated. A very large heron is perched on the roof, indicating that the temple is at Buto.65

The temple of Neith on a label of Aha has a similar shape, although the building is some- what taller than Narmer' s. As customary in Neith temples, there are two flags at the entry, and an outsized standard of the goddess stands in the middle of the court. Below it is a second

59 Vandier, Manuel d'archeologie egyptienne. Tome II. Les grandes epoques; V architecture religieuse et civile. (Paris, 1955), 572-74. This shrine is a tempting prototype, but it may be only a naos within a temple and it is known only from later times.

60 See notes 62-63. 61 Kemp, MDAIK 23, 148-53. 62 Ricke, Bemerkungen, fig. 3; Vandier, Manuel, tome II,

556-59, fig. 311. 63 Ricke, Bemerkungen, 36-38, fig. 10; Vandier, Manuel,

tome II, 559-66, figs. 312-14.

64 Lauer, La Pyramide a degres, V architecture 11, compare pls. LXXI and LXXVIII (plans), pls. LXXIII and LXXXI (elevations). Cf. plants of the North, pl. LXXXIII. The buildings are discussed in idem, La Pyramide a degres, V architecture I, 167-71. See also Werner Kaiser, "Zu den koniglichen Talbezirken der 1. und 2. Dynastie in Abydos und zur Baugeschichte des Djoser-Grabmals," MDAIK 25 (1969), fig. 4 for reconstructed early versions of the Houses of the South and the North. These might also be models of complexes. See pp. 16-17 for the problem of the buildings' significance.

65 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. XXVI B. The existence of the curved roof was confirmed by me by direct examination of the original. For the identity of the bird, see below note 69.




temple of the same kind, identified as Buto by a heron (?) on the roof. Before the temple is an irregular court in which a bull rages, possibly a counterpart of the enclosure of animals shown below Narmer's temple.66

A few later representations of the Per-nu temple of Sobek may add information on arrangements in the court. An outsize figure of the god appears, either on the standard fixed in the court, or resting in the court itself; in this case, the figure is shown entirely below the courtyard wall.67

Of the figures shown above the structures of Narmer and Aha, the pot on its stand and the standard clearly belong inside it.68 The heron could either be a magnified cult image inside the temple, a colossal figure in front of it, a label, or all three things at once.69 The outsize image of Sobek in the later representations, and possibly the sacred plants in the courtyard of the Djoser temples, may weigh in favor of a large image in the court.70

If we infer that the Coptos temple was, or included, a large Per-wer, and that the structure used large images in much the same way as they are depicted in the ' 'archaic" Sobek shrine, then Djoser' s House of the South becomes a very appropriate prototype for a reconstruction. The walls of the courtyard and the side of the building are blank.71 The facade of the structure consists of a series of slender engaged columns with fluting or facets, indicating that the origi-

nals were wood, and supported a light roof.72

Capitals are formed by sinuous leaf-like shapes that may actually be brackets to secure stringers that in turn supported the curved joists for the roof.73 Holes near the capitals of the columns may have supported standards, but they may also have held horns, as in earlier depictions of the building.74 The spaces near the bottoms of the pillars were filled by screens topped with kheker ornament, and one of the screens is pierced by a framed doorway.75 Taken at face value, the building is a model of a structure with brick side walls, open at the southern end, with a light roof supported by wooden pillars. The southern end is screened from view at the bottom by a wall of reeds covered by fabric or a reed- reinforced mud wall. The proportions of Djoser' s building are almost too tall to be believed, or too large; trees of the height and straightness required to construct the pillars hardly exist in Egypt, and their slimness is perilous.76

Although the details and aspect of the Djoser structure are vivid, the structure depicted on Narmer's Macehead is a more likely guide to proportions even though it too is nearly as tall as it is wide. The estimates can be quite elastic, but there are certain reasonable limits. It is difficult to believe that a structure with wooden columns built of native materials could be more than 10 meters tall, even with a very light roof. On the other hand, the proportion of a statue to the

66 Vandier, Manuel, tome premier, fig. 560; Petrie, Royal Tombs II, pls. X: 2 and XI: 2.

67 Vandier, Manuel II, fig. 314: 16; Ricke, Bemerkungen, fig. 10: 6.

68 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. XXVI B; Vandier, Manuel, tome premier, fig. 560 above.

69 S. Schott identified this shrine as Buto, with its heron (Hieroglyphen; Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der Schrift, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; Abhand- lungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftenlichen Klasse Jahrgang 1950, Nr. 24 [Wiesbaden, 1951], p. 1730 [24]). See also Vandier, Manuel, tome premier, 836.

70 Note also other outsize images on the Djer plaque which may not belong inside a closed temple building. Are these pottery? See Vandier, Manuel, tome premier, fig. 565, upper register.

71 For the courtyard, see Lauer, La Pyramide a degres; V architecture II, pl. LXXXIII, except for the pillars.

72 Ibid., pl. LXXIII. 73 Ibid., pls. LXXV: 3, LXXVI. See also note 74. 74 Lauer (La Pyramide a degres; Varchitecture I, 160-61,

fig. 166) reconstructed standards attached to the columns by the two holes near the top. See Vandier' s (Manuel, tome premier, 932) review of the reconstructions. In this case, Borchardt's reconstruction of Hathoric columns can probably be ruled out. Standards for the Per-Nu are depicted in the courtyards, not attached to the buildings. Ricke' s restoration (Bemerkungen, pls. II and IV) of horns is probably correct, as it is based on actual representations.

75 Lauer, La Pyramide a degres; Varchitecture II, pl. LXXXI.

76 Ricke (Bemerkungen, pl. IV) restored an actual facade as about 6-7 meters high by about ten wide, about half of Lauer' s dimensions for Djoser' s stone model of the structure (La Pyramide a degres; Varchitecture II, pl. LXXIII). Cedar, suitable for tall columns, was known in the Archaic period, possibly earlier (Renate Gerner, "Zeder," LdA VI: 1358).



50 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 8. Reconstruction of the early Coptos Temple (drawings by Lisa Heidorn): views of a temple of Narmer's time as restored, (scale 1 cm - 1 m) The plan gives wide and narrow versions of the small and large temple. Solid lines = temple buildings and court enclosures. Broken lines = enclosure wall extended around temple building, a. plans, b. sections and faade.

height of the building of more than 1:1 is equally implausible; the Sobek shrines indicate that the figure should be completely screened by the courtyard wall. If the statues were roughly one half to two fifths of the height of the building (compare the colossi of the Heb-Sed court of Djoser and the colossal plant pillars, which are smaller), a single structure would be 8-10 m high. If the proportion of front to height was 1:1, then the structure was 8-10 m wide. However, if it were wider, ca. 2:1, then it would be some 16-20 m across the front. The courtyard is shown about two and one half times the breadth of the facade in length. Its height is about one half the height of the front. If, as we have inferred, the height of the courtyard was equal to or slightly greater than the height of the colossi, dimensions can be estimated- maximum height: ca. 8-10 m; width: ca. 8-14 m; length: ca. 12-16 m; extension of the courtyard in front of the structure: ca. 16-30 m (fig. 8).

B. The temple of Min at Coptos in the time of Narmer

The situation allows for a number of alterna- tive reconstructions. The main temple at Coptos in later times contained two (Min, Isis), possibly three (Min, Isis, Horus) shrines, although Horus the elder was originally a form of Min.77 The structure could have been either a single temple structure, or two or three parallel buildings. A single shrine of moderate size that would accom- modate the colossi, about lOx 14x8m, would occupy the space allowed for one shrine in the later temple, possibly slightly more (fig. 9). Its courtyard, about 24 meters in length, would extend to the front of the later building, but not as far as the stairway that later marked the main

77 Rolf Gundlach, "Min," LdA IV: 136-138; Petrie, Koptos, pl. I. The later great temple of Min and Isis had three sets of steps that may indicate three shrines of unequal importance.




Fig. 9. Reconstruction of the early Coptos Temple (drawings by Lisa Heidorn): plan (see also Petrie, Koptos, pl. I); 1. Min Statue I. 2. Min Statue II. 3. Min Statue III. 4. Lions. 5. Reconstruction of an early Min Temple, a. standard, b. four statues, c. Temple building. 6. Outline of

<( Temple of Tahutimes/' 7. "Ptolemaic Front/' a.

Min (?) steps, b. Horus (?) steps, c. Isis (?) steps 8-9. Later walls.

rise to the temple proper (see also fig. 10). There could have been two other temples beside the main Min temple and an outer enclosure might also have surrounded facilities for storage, admini- stration, and the residences of personnel. The temple might have been raised on a mound.78

The courtyard would have contained a tall pole with the standard of the god, projecting far enough above the wall to be visible outside and dominate the city. Offerings would be placed between the standard and the outer door, consisting at least of pottery vessels on stands, but possibly more complex pottery objects also. The great colossi of Min stood between the standard and the main temple, either directly in front of

the temple facing outward as hinted by the Sobek shrines, or flanking the axis of approach, possibly as indicated by the plants in the Djoser Com- plex.79 The stone falcon could either represent the alternate form of Min in this courtyard or it could have been placed in a (presumably smaller) temple of Horus immediately to the north.

The three lions placed on the temple plan by Petrie were pushed together in a row flanking the south side of the approach to the later Min temple at some distance. This location can be compared to that of the sphinxes in Karnak

78 For the revetted mound at Hierakonpolis, see below, p. 53 and note 94; the original height is uncertain. The steps may have been located near the original edge of the mound.

79 The heron presumably is not a cult image of the god, but an image of the bird might have been placed in the courtyard as the plants of the South and North were placed in the courtyards of their respective buildings in the Djoser complex. See Vandier Manuel, tome premier, fig. 565 for a procession of such images.



52 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fig. 10. Plan of the temple area at Hierakonpolis as restored with three shrines facing southward (arrow points to magnetic north). See Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pl. LXXII (drawing by Lisa Heidorn). a. Stone features assigned to the Naqada III original structure, b. Stone features assigned to the late Second Dynasty, c. Stone objects and fragments assigned to Naqada III, not in original position, d. Stone objects and fragments assigned to the late Second Dynasty not in original position. 1. Main Deposit. 2. Two limestone Statues. 3. Door socket. 4. Downward-sloping revetment. 5. Khasekhemwy block. 6. Pillars. 7. Revetted mound. 8. Temples as restored.

temple which were dragged to the edge of the outer court and pushed together during construction operations along the axis.80 The lions would then have flanked an axis of approach to the main temple. Three were preserved, two smashed to fragments, and an unknown number lost entirely.

The statues and pottery fragments from Coptos do not indicate interior arrangements of the temple, but objects from other sites offer considerable information about the type of furniture found inside.

C. The Temple of Horus at Hierakonpolis

Important evidence of the early cult was discovered at Hierakonpolis, consisting of re-

80 For a similar arrangement on a larger scale, see Vandier Manuel II, fig. 429, for the arrangement of sphinxes in the great court at Karnak displaced during alterations.




mains of actual structures, notably a great mound with a stone revetment, large sculptures, stone fittings from structures, and remains of furniture and offering vessels. However, information on the early phases of the temple complex in accounts of the excavations is very limited. Key questions about the relationship between the stages in the construction of the great revetted temple-mound and important deposits of objects in the complex remain unresolved. The so-called Main and other deposits of temple objects were excavated in the first season without establishing clear relationships with strata at the site that were described in the account of the second season,81 when the major structures and important strata were placed in relation to each other by actual observation and by vertical measurement from an arbitrary datum. At the bottom, the strata began with sand and gravel deposits with Naqada (?) period sherds, sediments of wide distribution that ended in what Green called the "old desert surface," at -5 m (see table 1). Above this was an "ill-defined" stratum of deposits that preceded building but included white sand that founded the great revetment, which was built as -4.2 to -4.4 m below datum. Outside the revetment, the stratum is described on the section simply as yellow clay. A descending revetment was also begun at the same level as the great revetment near the southern edge of the complex at the same level extending to the old desert surface.82

Above the base of the revetment, the accumula- tion continued to about -4 m, which was the base of the main "charcoal -discoloured" stratum. This stratum was of very great extent, found everywhere in the complex except within the great revetment. It marks the beginning of stratigraphic complexity at the site, and Green's account of it contains apparent contradictions. It contained numerous sherds of "rough prehistoric and Ilnd to Illrd Dynasty pottery" as well as the majority of flint implements, limestone spindle whorls, and inscribed clay sealings (not, however, the Third Dynasty sealings, which were assigned to a later level).83

However, Green says "It is generally a well- defined stratum of a deep black colour owing to the amount of charcoal contained 10 cm (4 inches) or more thick, . . ,"84 Normally, such a thin deposit or group of deposits would be considered a fairly specific event or group of events and dated entirely to the period of the latest material (Second to Third Dynasty) it contained, but Green's subsequent remarks indicate that there was much more to this stratum than just ten centimeters of charcoal. In describ-

ing the subsequent fourth stratum, Green states: "Above the charcoal -discoloured stratum the earth is comparatively free from charcoal and

pottery though it is of a dark colour, till a stratum, also discoloured by charcoal, but not so

strongly marked as the last is met with at 0.6 m

(2 feet) above the charcoal-discoloured stratum or the on the average 2.75 m below datum level."85 Green correlated this upper charcoal- discolored stratum with houses outside the Temenos that contained Third Dynasty and later sealings, for he believed they were built on the lower charcoal -discolored stratum. Now the section shows the major strata as nearly horizontal, whatever details of structures or surfaces

might have existed within them.86 If ten centimeters of charcoal began at -4 m, then another charcoal .6 m above it would be at -3.3, not -2.75 m. Taken at face value, Green's account is

impossible unless we consider the 10 cm to refer to the minimum depth of the stratum which was actually much thicker over most of the area outside the revetment.

The sections, and Green's account, agree in

showing the desert surface at -5 m, the yellow clay/white sand and revetment base between -5 and about -4 m. Above, the "Dark Earth" appears on the section as a "Dark Stratum" above a broken line at about -3.5 m. Modifications to the revetment appear on a line at -3.3 m; and pillars and modifications to the down-sloped revetment begin here. The sections do not label the deposits between -4 and -3.5 m. As a solution to the

problem of Green's description, it can be proposed that the description of charcoal 10 cm

81 Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, 1-6, 13-14. 82 Ibid., 1-2, pl. LXXII, sections. 83 Ibid., 2-3.

84 Ibid., 2. 85 Ibid., 3. 86 Ibid., pl. LXXII.



54 JARCE XXV (1988)

Table 1. Schematic Summary of the Strata in the Hierakonpolis Temenos.*

Green Account Correlation Sections

f -1.9m -2 m

8 -2.3 m

7 - 2.75 m - - upper charcoal str. ( = Dyn III)

-3 m : 6 (0.6 m)

^ - - dark stratum** - - - - II, e -3.3 m ^ ?--- d -3.5m

ii charcoal disc./ 5

charcoal str. i

- 4 m 4 -4.2 - - revetment found. - - c -4.2 m

3

sandy clay, location of ivory I deposit, etc.

2

- 5m -- old desert surface - - b -5 m

1 a -5.7 m

thick indicated either a minimum thickness or that the charcoal was an "event" at the base of the "Charcoal-Discoloured" stratum, but in both cases, the entire stratum was mostly 50 to 60 cm thick. This much deeper deposit would allow for a considerable span of time and account for objects of Dynasties 0-11 (or III) appearing within it in an orderly chronological succession which was not recorded or observed by the excavators.87

The Main Deposit and various stone statues and fittings were assigned by Green to the period

of the lower charcoal-discolored stratum and the central objects of the deposit were found near a stone block that rested on that stratum.88 The exact nature of the Deposit is not clear from the accounts, but the most important part of it was the large mass of ivories some two meters long. Quibell clearly describes their appearance as stained with the sandy clay in which they were embedded, a description that is reiterated for individual objects and some other groups. The only deposit that fits this description is the

87 For complexities in this picture, see ibid., 12. 88 Ibid., 29-30; see also p. 13 and Dreyer, Der Tempel der

Satet 44.




Notes to Table 1

*See Quibell and Green Hierakonpolis Part II, 2-3 and pl. LXXII. Measurements are given as a depth below an arbitrary datum.

Green account:

1. "Traces of prehistoric pottery and charcoal ..." down to water. 2. "Old Desert Surface." This was a surface only within the revetment; a "prehistoric" burial

was assigned to it at - 4.4 m. 3. "Accumulations." This was an ill-defined stratum on the desert surface before any building. 4. This is the foot or foundation of the revetment, made in white sand. 5. The "Charcoal-Discoloured" stratum, 10 cm or more thick, possibly ca. 65 cm thick.

i. Minimum thickness. ii. Thicker stratum of charcoal discolortion or stratum containing charcoal layer

indicated by 6 and by e, where revetment additions rest on cb walls of stratum. 6. Distance between upper charcoal discolored and lower charcoal discolored. 7. Upper charcoal -discolored, correlated to houses with Dyn. Ill sealings. 8. Average depth of cb wall bases, above them, disturbed.

Correlations:

** Revetment additions (Ibid., p. 6), pillars, stone block at Main Deposit (on charcoal discolored stratum, p. 13) with wall fragments.

Sections:

a. Water level (Ibid., p. 4). b. "Old Desert Surface." c. Base of revetment, ranges from -4.2 to -4.4 m. d. Broken line, slightly sloped on section W-Z, "Dark Stratum" above. e. Base of revetment additions (on a line in section X-Y); at west end of section W-Z, pillars

are set to -3.5 m. One (Ibid., p. 8) has its base in clean sand below the charcoal discolored stratum.

f. Preserved top of the revetment.

I. Yellow clay (inside revetment, white sand). II. "Dark Stratum."

yellow clay of the stratum in which the revetment was founded below the charcoal -discolored stratum. The account indicates where the core of the deposit(s) was actually found, but it cannot be dated stratigraphically. In the circumstances of excavation, where no surfaces were traced, the one later scarab and sherd found near the area of the deposits can hardly be considered to date them.89 On the other hand, the almost solid mass

of ivories some two meters long vividly described by the excavators is hardly anything but a group.90 The main difficulty is that we cannot be sure which objects were part of this mass and which were not. What is certain from the description is that many objects did belong to this mass, and that a very large proportion of them, at least, date to the Naqada III.91

A reconstruction of events can be proposed: Rulers of Dynasties 0-1 (Aha only) deposited sculpture and objects in a temple that must have 89 Ibid., and Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, 13,

29-30. Leveling and trenching in the area for the construction of later walls almost certainly disturbed the area; the scarab was found at the later wall.

90 Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, p. 29. 91 see below, pp. 56-57.



56 JARCE XXV (1988)

existed by that time; and the number and variety of the objects indicate that it was a temple here- the original revetment being the earliest known

building - and not one elsewhere.92 After Aha, royal names cease; and we must conclude that

royal patronage ceased also, for the pharaohs of

Dynasties I and II were not shy about leaving their names on objects, especially stone vessels. At the end of the Second Dynasty, royal patronage resumed with additions to the revetment and other building, including the pillars set into the Dark Stratum. The remaining fragments of

building, all unnamed, were found based at about -3.3 to -3.5 m below datum (as read here, the top of the lower ' 'Charcoal -Discoloured Stratum" or in the lower part of the "Dark Stratum"). Above this is a series of deposits that Green assigned to the early Old Kingdom, at least in part. A respectable pit for the Main Deposit proper could well have been dug from this level well over a meter deep into the yellow clay; a date for the objects in Dynasty 0-early I and a date for the pit at the end of the Archaic Period are both credible.93

The oval revetment at Hierakonpolis is reason- ably dated to the beginning of the Archaic Period or Dynasty 0.94 It is a mound of roughly oval or bulged-rectangular shape that consists of a sandy fill surrounded by stones laid in stepped horizontal courses. The stones, some 30 x 20 x 8 cm in size, were stepped at about 45 degrees, and the wall extended from about -4.2 to -1.9 m below datum. The original top of the revetment was probably destroyed when the area was leveled to construct large brick temple buildings.

A later brick temple constructed over the revetment had three parallel chambers or shrines at the back, as did buildings that have been called

temples elsewhere.95 However, the brick structures give no definite indication of the number or type of original shrines, or their orientation; the

shape of the revetment would allow for an orientation to any cardinal point (river direc- tion). A single structure of the type we have reconstructed for Coptos, a Per-wer with courtyard, placed in the middle of the oval but with the sanctuary toward the far (western or northern) edge, would leave a disproportionate amount of

space on either side. However, three such temples of the same size would fit the oval exactly, whether oriented to the south or to the east

(fig. 10). A wall could have enclosed the scattered

fragments of pavement and building below. Although the Main Deposit of small and

precious temple furniture was not dated exactly by its position, its objects give some idea of the amount and variety of materials used in the early cult. One of the most important consequences of the date of the Coptos statues is that most of the

ivory objects compare directly with the Narmer

inscription on the Cairo Min statue,96 have

important features that resemble objects that

compare with the statues or their inscriptions,97

92 This was Green's date. See Quibell and Green, Hierakon- polis, Part II, 5.

93 See Dreyer, Der Tempel der Satet, 38-44, for a summary of the deposit. The present reconstruction of the stratigraphy differs from his in details of the "Charcoal -Discoloured Stratum." See below, p. 57 for the date of various objects.

94 Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, 1 -6, especially 3-4; see also Dreyer, Der Tempel der Satet, 37-38. The excavators themselves compared the revetment to the stone masonry of the "pyramid" at el-Kula, one of a group now conventionally dated to the Third Dynasty, but this comparison is very simple, and it could not be applied to such pyramids as Zawiyet el Mayetin, which are much better constructed. See Gunter Dreyer and Werner Kaiser, "Zu den kleine Stufenpyramiden Ober- und Mittelagyptens," MDAIK 36(1980), pls. 73 and 76.

95 Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pl. LXXII. The "Khentiamentiu" complex at Abydos may not be much earlier than the Sixth dynasty and it may actually be a set of storerooms. See Kemp, MDAIK 23, 151-53. For a similar structure in the Djoser Complex, see Lauer, La Pyramide a degres; V architecture II, pl. LV; Ricke, Bemerkungen, fig. 24. The multiple-shrine temple at Qasr es-Sagha is probably not an appropriate prototype for a reconstruction of a city temple to a major deity or a triad.

96 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. VI: 6, XVI: 4 (plaques); pl. XII: 3, both rows of animals on triangles noted by Baumgartel. The elephants are especially important on pl. XVI: 4, as they disappear from Egyptian art for some time hereafter. Note the head, pl. V: center and VI: 4-5, that resembles the Coptos head with its tapered beard, but lacks the cap.

97 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pls. XII: 1, 8, 2 (compare the position of the scorpion with the elephant on the Carnarvon Ivory. See Asselberghs, Chaos en Beheersing, afb. 44); Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pls. XIII, XIV (note also the position of the serekhs above the files; compare the name of Narmer leading the animals on the statue); XV: 5-6; XVI: 1, 2 (with two "master of animals" figures), 5, all irregular animal compositions; XVII below. See also Barbara Adams,




or can be dated to the Naqada period by other means.98 In particular, features that have been used to date ivory objects to later periods appear on objects that must be dated to this period." The objects from deposits that have been called early can be placed in certain categories. These include definite early objects, established by name or type;100 Second Dynasty objects, mostly sculptures, inscribed stone vessels, and possibly faience figurines;101 Sixth Dynasty objects, namely the great sculptures; and objects that cannot be assigned a date.102

The precious and elaborately carved Naqada period objects must have rested in the sanctuary

when displayed before the god, or in a storeroom. When they were set up before the god, the effect must have been opulent, and the sheer number of precious objects in ivory is truly immense when compared with the number and quality of ivory objects found in even large cemeteries. Although details of their arrangement were not preserved, the ivories may have been combined into tableau - scenes of the kind shown in later temples or chapels presented to the ruler or the gods.103 These tableau-scenes are well known from two- dimensional representations or objects of the period.104 Apart from pottery vessels and stands, the other objects were either models of produce (miniature vases), vessels for offerings (stone), or offerings of victory (maces and decorated palettes), which were either full -sized or outsized. The latter were about 2Z2-4 times normal-sized objects, or approximately in the same proportion of size as the Min colossi to normal human scale.105 Between the miniatures, the normal -sized, and outsized objects in scale were figures about l/s-l/2 life size, probably of the ruler.106 This relative scale might make the figures about comparable with the cult image of the falcon, if the later golden head is any indication of size.107 Some figures have no special attributes, but we have already pointed out the lack of attributes in important early representations.108

Larger stone figures, the standing statue, the kneeling statues, and the great door-socket, would most likely have been placed outside the roofed building proper, perhaps at the entry or in the courtyard with other offerings of large size.

Ancient Hierakonpolis (Warminster, 1974), cats. 324-27, 329, 338 (roundel of Aha, with few animals), and 361.

Baumgartel compared figures of women on one important plaque (ASAE 48, 543 fig. 3) with statuettes (ibid., fig. 4, pp. 542-44) as part of her attempt to date many of the objects as late as the Middle Kingdom (see note 2). Since the important evidence of the Coptos statue is Dynasty 0, the plaque can also be assigned to the period, and, by extension, the female statuettes also. See Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pls. IX, above left and lower right and XI above, a dwarf. See also Adams, Ancient Hierakonpolis, cat. 360.

98 Narmer's name smites prisoners, Quibell, Hierakon- polis Part I, pl. XV: 7. Compare other cylinders on the same plates with prisoners and guards. A plaque has figures of Bat of the Narmer Palettes type (Adams, Ancient Hierakonpolis, cat. 340; Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pl. J, K above). Male figures have the sheath, which is little used after Dynasty 0 (see note 10; Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. X, for example, also VII: 1 and below left and right. Compare the banded belt on the Min statues; VII: 1 may be wearing a crown).

99 See note 85. 100 See note 86. Apart from stone monuments found in or

near the deposit, see stone vessels with the name of Scorpion (Adams, Ancient Hierakonpolis, cats. 226, 228) and Iry-Hor (Ibid., cat. 229, possibly 225, 227). There are also faience vessels of Qustul-Tarkhan type (Ibid., cats. 217, 220; compare Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 128, 166).

101 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pls. XXXVI-XXXVIII (stone vessels) and XXXIX-XLI (statues). Note that the inscriptions on the statues are very summary compared to the professional finish of those on the vases, and the serekhs are tiny. The statues could be much older and were reinscribed just as Narmer reinscribed the Min statues. Compare the normal proportions of the statues with the elongated limbs of the figures on the late Second Dynasty stela (Giuseppe Galassi, L'arte del piu antico Egitto nel museo di Torino. [Rome, 1955], fig. 69). See also pls. I and II, and Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pl. LVIII.

102 For a general discussion of the problem and an important reconstruction of the horizontal distribution of the objects, see Dreyer, Der Tempel der Satet, 37-46.

103 Herbert Ricke, George R. Hughes, and Edward F. Wente, The Beit el Wali Temple of Ramesses II. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, vol. I (Chicago, 1967), pl. 9, right.

104 Williams and Logan, JNES 46: 251-68, especially 267-68.

105 For a group, see Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. XXV, below, and pls. XVII-XXIV, various; Adams, Ancient Hiera- konpolis, various, and Ancient Hierakonpolis Supplement. See also Dreyer, Der Tempel der Satet, 39-40, 46.

106 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pl. VI: 1-3, 4-5. These figures have approximately the same size as the "Khasekhem" figures on pl. XXIX. The MacGregor Man is also about this size (39 cm), but it could also be a cult image.

107 Compare the later falcon (Ibid., pl. XLI) with the "Khasekhem" statue (pl. XXXIX) and the scale of the ruler and the falcon on the Narmer Palette (pl. XXIX).

108 See above, p. 49.



58 JARCE XXV (1988)

Fragments of clay figures indicate that larger tableaux were assembled, presumably also outside the roofed structure.109 The figure of a falcon-Horus that Narmer confronts is about the size that would be considered colossal in such a bird (e.g., the Coptos falcon), and it can be asked whether the ceremonial smiting on the palette is not an event that took place in the court of the temple before a large stone image of the god.

D. Other temples

One building at Abydos has been identified as the possible temple of Khentiamentiu in the Archaic period. The structure has three parallel chambers and vestibules that have been compared with a small shrine or temple in the Djoser Complex at Saqqara. However, the building was built against a wall of the Sixth Dynasty, and it is probably to be assigned to the late Old Kingdom. Because temples of this type were built entirely of brick, there were fairly narrow limits on the size, or at least the width of any chamber, which would probably rule out the use of such a structure for a major city temple.110

However, there was a major cult structure at Abydos in the area of the Osiris temple complex, for large deposits contained many early objects, and a number of pottery objects could be com-

pared with later Naqada period stands and vessels.111

E. The Narmer macehead shrine

The Per-nu on the macehead (fig. 7) needs to be mentioned only briefly, since it has served as an example for the others. First, this writer has confirmed the existence of the building's curved roof by direct examination of the object. Even so, the extremely long standard pole and the large pottery vessel on its stand have been exaggerated in size. The jar, Qustul type W (Petrie L36a), is about 40-50 cm high, the stand about 40-75 cm in height (both date to Naqada III).112 If it is a cult figure, the heron would be about 1.5-1.75 m, or a colossal figure corresponding to the Min colossi.

III. Colossi, Cult, and Society in Early Egypt

The statues of Min at Coptos inscribed by Narmer' s time establish a canon of proportion that allows us to reconstruct something of a great city-temple's appearance in Naqada III, however approximate. These temples already occupied the places of major cult sites113 but they were also erected on a scale and appointed with an opulence that indicates Egypt's gods already played a central role as the organizing force for social action. By comparison with later representations, the approximate location of the colossi can be inferred, which helps to recon-

109 Quibell, Hierakonpolis Part I, pls. XLIV-XLV (the lion is probably later); Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis Part II, pls. LXIII (sacred bark), LXII (ape and "donkey," probably a giraffe). See also W. M. F. Petrie, Abydos Part II. 1903. EEF Memoir 24 (London, 1903), pl. X: 224 and p. 49 for a giraffe head. Petrie calls it a camel, but it has holes on top of the head to receive horns and it is decorated with impressed triangles reminiscent of the pattern of the hide. The head in the Oriental Institute (OIM 7972) is made of coarse chaffy pottery and it has a red coat. Note also the large stands, nos. 270-73, and the outsized bowl, no. 266; stand 273 is sculpted. See also Adams, Sculptured Pottery from Koptos, pl. V, a lion on a pedestal like the Hierakonpolis figure. There are also other figures, such as humans (Petrie, Koptos, pl. V: 1).

For examples of large votive clay sculpture in graves of the period, see Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, pls. 98-102. For earlier examples see Guy Brunton and Gertrude Caton-Thompson, The Badarian Civilization, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Re- search Account, vol. 46 (London, 1928), 54 and pl. LIV: 15.

no por a discussion of the "Khentiamentiu Temple" and its relationships, see Ricke, Bemerkungen 86-89; for the structural situation, see Kemp, MDAIK, 148-53.

111 Kemp, MDAIK 23, 153-55, suspected the deposits because they were located just below the Eighteenth Dynasty pavement (by level) and would correspond approximately to a Sixth Dynasty floor. The situation effectively illustrates the problems raised when attempting to judge chronology accord- ing to measurement from datum. Temples were built on rises or mounds, however slight; an enlargement would involve some leveling to keep the rise in proportion, making the new surface lower than the older one. See also Dreyer, Der Tempel der Satet, 47-55 for a critical discussion of the deposits.

112 Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, figs. 40a and 46-47 (stands).

113 Note that a temple-mound of the size of Hierakonpolis (ca. 50 m across) is proportional to the size of an actual archaic city and would fit easily into the walls of archaic Elephantine, or, more likely, beside it, on the site of the later Khnum Temple. See W. Kaiser et al., "Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine 13./14. Grabungsbericht," MDAIK 43 (1987), fig. 5.




struct some of the arrangements within the Naqada III temple; and figures of other persons and deities indicate that the later theological arrangement of deities in a temple as a dyad or a triad already existed, or that deities already had different aspects. The Min colossi refute one of the evolutionary reconstructions of Egyptian religion by demonstrating that the gods were already conceived not only in completely animal form, or composite forms as in the acting standards of the palettes, but also in human shape.

The colossi of Min were created by the time of Narmer, but the recut inscriptions indicate that they may have been older. These statues are simple and appear almost tentative, as does the

striding figure from Hierakonpolis. The limestone head from Hierakonpolis, on the other hand, is in a different class altogether. It is easily the equal of its more famous contemporary, the female face from Warka. The Greeks required almost two centuries of determined effort before they could produce works of this caliber, and they had the accumulated knowledge and skills of the ancient Near East and Egypt at their fingertips. How long was Egypt working along these very lines with the same impulse of religious tradition before she arrived at this achievement?

University of Chicago



Narmer and the Coptos Colossi

Documents

Transcript of Narmer and the Coptos Colossi