228
CHAPTER 5: OSIRIS IN THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD
In her research for What This Awl Means, Janet Spector accessed the written records left by white
settlers (traders, missionaries, government workers), which described to some extent the culture of
the native peoples in the area she investigated. She also consulted members of remaining related
tribes still living in the area. Comparable sources of information are obviously not available for the
Egyptians of 4000 to 3000 BCE. Instead, ethnographic data can be obtained only from obliquely
related sources, such as the Nilotic tribes discussed in the previous chapter. Historical, written data is
found only in the records and iconography of the Dynastic Egyptians.
The first written material, the Pyramid Texts, separated from Predynastic mortuary culture by
approximately 400 years, provides the closest possible written link to the mortuary rituals and spells
of the Predynastic people. Their grave culture suggests the performance of well-established mortuary
rituals at the graveside, and these undoubtedly included spells, offering verses, incantations, and
professions — perhaps the precursors of the Pyramid Texts.
Using the example of Mesopotamia, Ucko stated that, in cases of continuity of culture from prehistoric
to historic times, the beliefs and practices of the historic culture "may be important and legitimate"
(Ucko 1962: 43). In the case of Egypt, the historic mortuary culture focused on a belief in the
immortality of the king, addressed frequently in the Pyramid Texts as an "Osiris" or intimately related
to Osiris, god of the Underworld. Evidence of the Osirian beliefs does not appear until the written
Pyramid Texts in the late 5th and 6th Dynasties. Symbols associated with Osiris, such as the djed
pillar, are not found amongst Badarian or Nagada iconography. Hence it seems as though the early
Dynastic priesthood developed the Osirian cycle as a religious framework and legitimation for the
rituals and beliefs surrounding the immortality and divinity of their dead king. In this chapter,
however, I argue the case for the presence of an Osiris-like mortuary deity and concomitant set of
beliefs and practices in the Predynastic as a prerequisite for placing at least some of the figurines
within the Osirian system.
229
PREDYNASTIC MORTUARY CULTURE
The Egyptian emphasis on mortuary beliefs forms the basis for much of their historic art, literature,
and architecture. That the Minoans constructed elaborate palaces, the Mesopotamians massive
temples, and the Egyptians extensive tombs and mortuary temples attests to their respective cultural
differences and philosophical beliefs, at least at the official, state level. Only 7% of the
Mesopotamian figurines come from graves and the rest come from domestic circumstances, whereas
nearly all of the Egyptian figurines are found in graves or the mortuary environment. Therefore, the
method of interpretation for the figurines of each culture must be entirely different. For example, it
would be illogical to examine the mortuary practices of the historic Mesopotamians for insight into the
use of the hundreds of domestic figurines found throughout the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. All that
can be tentatively concluded is that perhaps, like the historic Mesopotamian religion, the focus of
prehistoric religion may have been on the living rather than the dead.
I n the case of Egypt, the historic religious pre-occupation with personal immortality and the after-
death experience is prefigured in the Predynastic archaeological record. Little remains of the
domestic environment of the Predynastic Egyptians, whereas thousands of graves have been
excavated. The widespread presence of grave goods demonstrates a belief in some form of
continuation in the afterlife, and with the increase of wealth and centralisation of power, these beliefs
became so important that today we remember the resultant state-based culture more for its mortuary
than for its secular accomplishments. Even for the average Egyptian during the historic period, the
afterlife seemed of great importance, for they lived in mud brick housing but, if possible, were buried
in stone tombs. Anyone who could afford to, made elaborate preparations for the afterlife (Baines
1991c: 147) and built a tomb in the desert (ibid 144).
If any sense can be made of the Predynastic figurines, it must be within the context of mortuary
beliefs, and significant clues as to the nature of these beliefs should be evident in the religious beliefs
and practices of the historic Egyptians. I emphasise the word "clue". The state-based mortuary
religion of historic Egypt converged, at least in the Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom, on the
230
elite, particularly the king. The Predynastic grave goods display a more egalitarian approach to the
afterlife and demonstrate the enactment of rituals for perhaps all classes, with some differentiation of
burial practice for special individuals, such as those in the Armant bed burials. As class differences
became more pronounced when the various cultures approached unification and state-based
hierarchy under one "divine" leader, the mortuary cult came to focus increasingly on the elite, as
reflected in the appearance of a small number of very wealthy brick-lined tombs by the end of
Nagada III. The end of the Predynastic saw a major shift of wealthy burials to Abydos, where later
Dynastic Egyptians believed Osiris to be buried.
Egyptologists widely hold the belief that only after the Old Kingdom were commoners admitted to the
afterlife on their own merits. Certainly after the First Intermediate Period (2181-2040 BCE), the
written texts begin to include nobles and other commoners and these texts begin to appear on their
coffins and tombs. Perhaps even before this, during the late Old Kingdom, this process of
"democratisation" began (Lesko 1991: 101).
This process does not necessarily demonstrate that, after the First Intermediate Period, commoners
themselves began to believe in the afterlife and take steps to ensure the necessary requirements for
the preservation of their bodies and hence their souls. Rather it suggests that, for political reasons
foIlowing the disturbances of the First Intermediate Period, the elite began to accept commoners into
their version of the afterlife, perhaps in order to gain their support for their ruling position. For while
kings built pyramids, nobles organised their tombs, and priests developed liturgies, spells, and rituals,
the average person still lived in Predynastic style, with Predynastic-style graves (Baines 1991c: 132 &
n24), suggesting little had changed for ordinary Egyptians since the Predynastic period. Old
Kingdom documents regarding the power of the dead to inflict harm on the living (ibid 152-155) also
testify to a more general, widespread belief in the afterlife than the elite texts would suggest. Since
the royal cult served the king, his priests, and the elite (perhaps 5% of the population) (ibid 126-7),
leaving the rest of the population to serve their own religious needs, these graves and documents of
the ordinary Dynastic Egyptians demonstrate the continuation of Predynastic beliefs and practices,
the predecessors of the royal mortuary cult.
231
Although the official rituals and beliefs grew out of those of the Predynastic, they did not mirror them,
for the historic official rituals concentrated entirely on the soul of the king. Therefore, the historic
texts, iconography and architecture can provide only clues to the possible reasons for the presence of
grave figurines, as this study discovered them not to be found in the graves of ruling or elite
members. The historic material might also provide clues to help explain the great variety of figurine
styles, and some of the lesser emphasised iconography of the historic period can perhaps be traced
to various figurine styles of the Predynastic, such as the sexually ambiguous fecundity figures and the
Nile god, Hapy.
The afterlife, for the Dynastic Egyptians, kings and commoners (at least after the First Intermediate
Period), focused on the eschatological beliefs surrounding the god Osiris. The deceased king, from
the earliest records, was believed to be the god Osiris, while the living king was Osiris' son, Horus.
As the "democratisation" process developed, everyone became an Osiris after death and gained
immortality in the "Land of the Westerners".
The origins of Osiris are obscure, and no agreement has been reached on his existence prior to his
appearance in the Pyramid Texts. The collection of spells and scraps of mythology from various
sources including the Pyramid Texts52 tells a story of the god Osiris, who was murdered and
dismembered by his rival, Seth. His sisters, Isis and Nephyths, found him lying by the river. Isis
reassembled him, revived him, and engendered their son Horus by copulating with the revived god
before he entered the Underworld as immortal king and judge. The elements of this collection of
myths can be interpreted in a number of ways: a legitimation of inherited power; a demonstration of
the divinity of the ruling king; a declaration of the immortality of the king and hence his divine
authority; a metaphor for the resurrection of the human soul, particularly the king's, in the after-life;
and a metaphor for the cycle of the seasons and vegetation as determined by the annual inundation
of the Nile.
52 The most comprehensive collection of the Osirian myths was eventually compiled by Plutarch in his book, De !side et Ositide, inthe second century AD.
232
This chapter demonstrates the possibility, or perhaps the probability, that Osiris, or a god very much
like him, was the focus of the Predynastic mortuary beliefs as well as those documented from the
Dynastic. In the absence of textual evidence directly from the period in question, and in the absence
of any material evidence which can be identified unequivocally as Osirian, my argument relies on
clues from the earliest mortuary texts, examples from comparative ancient and contemporary
religion, and the religious implications of the natural phenomena most significant for a settled,
agricultural people living along the upper Nile.
The Pyramid Texts and the Origins of Osiris
The earliest mortuary texts produced by the Dynastic Egyptians were the Pyramid Texts — a collection
of spells and myths which first appeared on the tombs of the late Fifth and Sixth Dynasty kings.
These texts sit the closest to the Predynastic period, although separated by at least 400 years. This
vast gap in time inhibits the assumption of a direct relationship between Predynastic mortuary beliefs
and these texts, but some hints may be gleaned from them, especially considering the overall
conservative nature of Egyptian culture and religion, in which key characteristics persisted despite the
fluctuations of 3000 years of Dynastic history.
In brief, and developed in detail further below, at least four sometimes apparently conflicting,
concepts of the afterlife of the king occur in the Pyramid Texts: (1) the deceased king becomes an
immortal spirit and travels with the sun-god Re in his solar barque for eternity; (2) the deceased king
ascends to the sky as an immortal star, sometimes alongside Re; (3) the deceased king becomes one
with the god of the Underworld, Osiris, and goes to the Land of the Westerners (that is, the
Underworld) with Osiris; (4) the dead king becomes associated with the constellation Orion in some
way.
These royal eschatologies focus on two separate astronomical regions of the sky: the Northern Sky
and the stars surrounding the polar centre; and the Southern sky, including the Decanal belt and the
path of Re along the ecliptic. The Northern Sky is composed of the circumpolar stars, which never
233
set and hence are considered immortal. The dead king ascends to this region of the sky and
becomes an immortal star.
The Southern sky contains a band of constellations, the Decanal belt: a series of 36 constellations,
each taking 10 days to rise above the horizon (hence Decanal), and which the Dynastic Egyptians
used to calculate their calendar and clock. Among constellations are Orion, Sothis, the Morning Star
and the Lone Star (Faulkner 1966: 160-61), with Orion and Sothis being the first two constellations of
the belt. In the eschatology focusing on Orion, the king joins Orion and ascends and descends with
him as the seasons change. The movements of Orion, rather than those of the sun, mark the
seasons for the Egyptians, and Orion, as discussed below, becomes associated with Osiris, a god,
who, like Orion, dies and is reborn with the seasons.
The system focused on Re, the sun god, follows the ecliptic, which is the path the sun takes across
the Southern sky. In the beliefs surrounding Re, the king joins him in the solar barque and follows
the immortal diurnal path of death and resurrection with the sun. But the region of the ecliptic, for the
Egyptians, was not inhabited with celestial deities taking form in the constellations of the ecliptic, as it
was for the Babylonians and later the Greeks.
The beliefs focused on the king's becoming a Lone Star or travelling with Re are clearly part of a
celestial philosophy, while the Osiris myths have a chthonic element. Re is a sky god, while Osiris is
a chthonic god of the Underworld.
These various concepts exist side by side, for the most part, in the Pyramid Texts. The stellar and
Osirian beliefs rarely overlap (Faulkner 1966: 160-61), but more recent scholarship (Allen et.al. 1989:
1) tries to form a unity of apparently disparate beliefs, placing the Osirian aspect as the first stage of
the king's journey to the afterlife, where he rises in the east like the sun (Pyr. 1465). Earlier scholars,
also attempted to reconcile the Osirian and the Re elements. Wolfhart Westendorf, in his much
quoted essay, "Zu FrUformen von Osiris and Isis" concluded from references in the Pyramid Texts
that Osiris and Isis were originally cosmic deities in the service of the sun (Westendorf 1977: 96-103).
Osiris is the horizon from where the sun rises (Pyr. 585a, 621b), while Isis is the barque which bears
234
(gives birth to) the morning sun (Pyr. 210b). These cosmic associations, he argued (ibid 103-4) were
not reflected in the historical image of Osiris as the dead king and partner to Isis as goddess of the
throne.
Although the main eschatologies stand out in the Pyramid Texts, other solar and celestial conceptions
of the afterlife "include an infinite variety" (Griffiths 1980: 64) of which those of Osiris and Re are only
two. Re, as a Heliopolitan God, was preceded by other solar myths (ibid) to which Westendorf would
place Isis and Osiris in service.
These attempts to amalgamate the myths of Osiris and Re into one, internally consistent belief about
the afterlife of the king make the anomalous and contradictory elements in the Pyramid Texts stand
out all the more starkly. The ubiquitous references to the king as Osiris are woven into the Pyramid
Texts along with accounts of the king as a star and as an immortal spirit under the protection of the
sun-god, Re. Although the dead king is frequently called "Osiris", the Osirian eschatology appears to
be the least developed in the Pyramid Texts, and occasionally at odds with the "king as a star" and
the Re doctrines:
Re-Atum will not give you to Osiris, andhe shall not claim your heart nor have powerover your heart. ... 0 Osiris, you shall neverhave power over him, nor shall your son [Horus]have power over him. (Pyr. 145-147)
... you are the Lone Star ... look down upon Osiriswhen he governs the spirits, for you stand far offfrom him ... (Pyr. 251)
... he [Re] will never give me to Osiris, for Ihave not died the death. (Pyr. 350)
... you are this Lone Star which comes forth fromthe east of the sky, and who will never surrenderhimself to Horus of the Netherworld. (Pyr. 877)
May Osiris not come with this his evil coming; donot open your arms to him. (Pyr. 1267)
The Lone Star and Osirian beliefs, however, tend to overlap in another aspect which associates Osiris
with Orion, who is, as is Re, "The God Who Crosses the Sky" (Neugebauer & Parker 1960: 25):
235
O King, you are this great star, the companion ofOrion, who traverses the sky with Orion, whonavigates the Netherworld with Osiris; you ascendfrom the east of the sky, being renewed at your dueseason and rejuvenated at your due time. The sky hasborne you with Orion, the year has put a fillet on youwith Osiris. (Pyr. 882-4)
In this passage, the mortuary deity appears to be Orion when visible in the night sky, and Osiris when
not visible, that is, in the Underworld. This is probably a reference to the behaviour of Orion, which
disappears from the night sky for two months of the year. In reality, Orion is still "crossing the sky"
during daylight hours, but cannot be seen and is deemed to be in the Underworld. The connection
with Orion gives Osiris both sky and chthonic associations. Osiris at times is associated with the
earth (as the son of Geb), the Nile inundation (Pyr. 388, 589, 788, 848, 857, 868, 1944, 2007), the
Lnderworld (Griffiths 1980: 515-84; Otto 1968: 22-30), and vegetation. A spell from the Coffin Texts
(Faulkner 1973) characterises Osiris as an agricultural deity associated with the growth and
maturation of grain:
I live and I die, I am Osiris,I have gone in and out by means of you,I have grown fat through you,I flourish through you,I have fallen through you.I have fallen on my side, the gods live on me.I live and grow as Neper whom the honoured ones cherish,one whom Geb hides,I live and I die, for I am emmer53, and I will not perish (CT 330)
A text inscribed on the sarcophagus of Ankhnesneferibra characterises Osiris as a potent agricultural
deity who is "the maker of grain" and "who gives life to the gods with the water of his limbs, and bread
to every land". The inscription goes on to explain that "barley has taken form out of the limbs of
Osiris" (Quirke 1992: 57-58).
At the same time as Osiris is an agricultural earth deity, he is also a sky god — the father of a sky god
in the form of a falcon, Horus. Also, he is the son of the sky goddess Nut, and the spouse and sister
of a sky goddess Isis, whose association with a kite or hawk identifies her as a celestial deity. The
importance of Orion as a celestial visible metaphor for Osiris is developed later in this chapter.
236
Perhaps what the multiple and sometimes conflicting beliefs about the afterlife of the king in the
Pyramid Texts demonstrate is the amalgamation of a variety of doctrines taken from a number of
Predynastic religions. Suggesting that Osirian beliefs existed in the Predynastic is dangerous ground,
for there does not seem to be any empirical evidence for the existence of Osiris prior to the Old
Kingdom. Also problematic is his anthropomorphism, for historic iconography depicts Osiris as a
purely anthropomorphic deity. As discussed in Chapter 4, it has been argued that Egyptian
anthropomorphism is an historic development and that Predynastic deities were conceived primarily
in animal form (Hornung 1983: 100-142).
Some convincing arguments associate Osiris with theriomorphic Predynastic images. Griffiths (1980)
extracted the many jackal references to Osiris from the Pyramid Texts (Hornung 1983: 143-146; Pyr,
2097-2098, 2103, 2108) to support his theory that Osiris "may have been originally a jackal-god in the
necropolis of Abydos" (Hornung 1983: 105). Later Osiris merged with Khenthamenthis (ibid 106), a
jackal god, whose name means "Foremost of the Westerners", a name commonly applied to Osiris.
Westendorf (1977: 105-6) picked out the passages in the Pyramid Texts describing Osiris, the king,
as a fabulous beast with the head of a jackal and the body of "the celestial serpent" (Pyr. 1564, 1749,
1995, 2128). This composite creature with a panther's body, he argued, is the same as the snake-
necked creatures on the Narmer (Fig. 4.5) and Hierakonpolis "animal" palettes and is the Predynastic
depiction of Osiris as the dead king (Westendorf 1977: 106).
Another theory times Osiris' association with Khenthamenthis to his introduction into the mortuary cult
at Abydos (Otto 1968: 13). The Abydos Predynastic necropolis, originally protected by the jackal god
Khenthamenthis, became important when Abydos became the royal necropolis of Upper Egypt
around the end of the 4th millennium BCE (ibid 13, 20-22). Osiris, Otto claimed, was the third factor
in the complex beliefs and rituals practised here and united "the royal burial rites and the associated
cult temple of Khenthamenthes" (ibid 22-24). He placed the merging of Osiris and Khenthamenthis in
the sixth Dynasty (ibid 22), at the time of the Pyramid Texts, not during the Predynastic as did
Griffiths. The only Predynastic representation of Osiris that Otto could find is perhaps the ritual
53 Faulkner (1973: 255 n.17) comments that the word for emmer also means 'barley of Lower Egypt', it mh.
237
placement of grain in the graves – a practice common during the historic period to symbolise the
rebirth of Osiris and hence the deceased (ibid 25). Otto stopped short of assigning any image to a
Predynastic Osiris, but the commonly held opinion prevails that Predynastic deities took animal forms
and that anthropomorphism was an historical development.
ANTHROPOMORPHIC DEITIES IN THE PREDYNASTIC?
Eric Hornung, possibly the best known of Egyptologists specialising in mythology and religious beliefs,
emphasised the absence of anthropomorphism in the Predynastic: "... in late Predynastic times the
powers that determine the course of events were mostly conceived in animal form" (Hornung 1983:
105). He took an "evolutionary" view of the development of Egyptian religion from Predynastic to
Dynastic, claiming that "man (sic) ... achieved a new self-awareness... no longer feeling himself to be
the plaything of incomprehensible powers. [Subsequently] their [the deities'] original animal or
inanimate form changed into a human one" (ibid 105).
Hornung called on the many examples of Early Dynastic animal art originating from the Predynastic
to support his conclusions: the Narmer palette cow goddess, the standards supporting bird and
animal forms, as well as unidentifiable inanimate objects (ibid 103-107) (Figs. 4.5, 4.6, 4.9). These
images most frequently have been understood as early animal forms of the Dynastic therianthropic
deities, Hathor, Thoth, Anubis, and the falcon-god Horus. With the exception of the human face of
the cow goddess on the Narmer palette, which he understood to be transitional (ibid 105), he
concluded: "There is, therefore, no certain evidence for the worship of anthropomorphic deities in
Predynastic Egypt" (ibid 102-3).
The most obvious challenge to Hornung's conclusion comes from the abundance of purely
anthropomorphic Predynastic figurines plus the inclusion of the therianthropic ones with bird and
animal heads, but Hornung rejected these figurines as possible deities solely on the arguments
presented by Peter Ucko in his major work (Ucko 1968). Ucko's conclusion that the Egyptian as well
as the Near Eastern Neolithic and Chalcolithic figurines do not represent deities is based on his
assessment that they do not look like deities and also that similar contemporary, mostly African,
238
societies use figurines for purposes other than icons of the divine. Therefore, the Egyptian figurines
cannot qualify as anthropomorphic images of deities. Hornung summed up Ucko's argument in one
page (Hornung 1983: 102), without any analysis of Ucko's position. Hornung simply took Ucko's
position as the truth and as substantial enough evidence to dismiss the figurines without further
discussion. The impact of New Archaeology on the interpretation of prehistoric religion eliminated the
figurines from the discussion. With regard to Ucko's criteria that an image of a deity must be
ornamented in a distinguishing way, Hornung and others do not question why unornamented
Predynastic falcon and baboon figurines suggest Horus and Thoth respectively, while an
unornamented anthropomorphic figurine cannot represent a deity.
In discussing the relationship of these animal figurines to the deities they represent, Hornung claimed
that each is not an image of a god as such, but the b3 of a deity, "the visible manifestation of an
invisible power" (1983: 138). Referring to the historic period, he continued that sometimes this
invisible power is conceived of anthropomorphically – human beings are the "likeness of god" (ibid),
particularly the king. The "wind is the ba of the [anthropomorphic but invisible] air god Shu and the
visible sun is the ba of the [anthropomorphic but invisible] sun god" as Re or Amun-Re (ibid).
Although Hornung confined this analysis to the historic period, only our preoccupation with the animal
imagery of the Predynastic prevents us from assigning the same analysis to prehistoric conceptions
cf deity. The Nuer and Dinka people, with a plethora of animal spirits and totems, conceive of many
deities anthropomorphically, but identify natural phenomena, such as the wind, the river, the rain, a
tree, a crow, or the spread of ox horns, as the expressions of a deity's presence in the world. In a
similar way, the Dynastic Egyptians saw Re in the sun, Isis in a star, Hapy in the Nile, Shu as air,
Tefnut as moisture, Nut as sky, and Geb as earth, but mentally conceived of these deities
anthropomorphically. It is not clear why the Predynastic Egyptians could not have thought this way as
well, and used animal motifs, as well as therianthropic figurines, to represent the b3(s) of
anthropomorphically conceived deities. Stretching speculation beyond evidence, we can postulate
that they were "bolder" than contemporary Sudanese people and used anthropomorphic figurines to
represent the more accessible, mediating entities of the spirit world. The Sudanese material,
239
however, can only suggest, not prove, that the Predynastic therianthropic images express more
accessible, anthropomorphically conceived deities through their bird and animal associations.
More solid evidence for anthropomorphic Predynastic deities comes from other Predynastic images:
anthropomorphic representations on Predynastic Nagada II and III decorated ware (Fig. 2.7). The
most startling are the female figures with large round heads and upraised arms. Other human
figurines include males, possibly ithyphallic, and other females with round heads, some who seem
more important because of their large size. Males with raised arms appear on Nagada I Cross-lined
pots (Figs, 3.2 a,b) and on the Nagada 11 rock paintings illustrated in Winkler (1938a: Plates XXII.1,
XIV, XV.2), and could have divine meanings.
A recent discussion of the pot imagery by another prominent Egyptologist, J. Gwyn Griffiths (1996:
11-16), implicitly challenged Hornung's conclusions about the lack of evidence of Predynastic
anthropomorphic deities. More in keeping with older interpretations of Predynastic female
iconography, Griffiths concluded that the female figure with upraised arms and the larger female
figures are goddesses (ibid 13) (Fig. 2.7). Where the figures appear in groups of three on the vases,
Griffiths argued in favour of a "divine triad" (ibid 15), in which the "goddess in the triad is probably an
early form of Hathor" (ibid). He based his conclusion on the presence of a standard depicting cow
horns in conjunction with a falcon. The falcon represents Horus and the cow horns must therefore
indicate Hathor, the original mother of Horus (ibid). The crook in the left hand of the male in the triad,
he pointed out, could indicate the "eventual insignia of the dynastic Pharaoh and of Osiris" (ibid). He
further suggested that the leading male figure is the "Horus chieftain" (ibid) and, while he did not
specifically mention the Osirian triad (Osiris as father; Horus as son; Hathor, in this instance, as
mother), Osiris as a possibility lurks in the background. Hornung did not consider these images at all.
Thus, on the one hand a prominent, influential scholar of Egyptian mythology, Eric Hornung, denies
the existence of anthropomorphic deities in the Predynastic, while on the other, another Egyptologist,
of the same stature, J. Gwyn Griffiths, supports the presence of anthropomorphism. Both refer to
material evidence as confirmation. It is, however, notable that Griffiths did not include the
Predynastic figurines in his discussion, despite the presence of 37 female figurines with upraised
240
arms and falcon or hawk associations in their heads with large curved beaks, and with obvious
similarities to the D-ware figures.
The exclusion of this category of iconography from the interpretation of Predynastic deities allowed
Hornung to arrive at the conclusion that neither anthropomorphic nor therianthropic deities existed in
the Predynastic (Hornung 1983: 109). Thus, to Hornung, the familiar animal-headed, human-bodied
iconography from the Dynastic period must have developed during the Dynastic: "Toward the end of
the Second Dynasty the first gods in human form with animal heads ... appear on cylinder seal
impressions of King Peribsen" (ibid 109). Hornung's position, in light of the symbols displayed by the
figurines, seems incomplete. If the Predynastic grave figurines as anthropomorphic or therianthropic
deities or spirits can be reintroduced into the discussion of the nature of Predynastic mortuary beliefs,
then a reassessment of the possible role of an anthropomorphically conceived Osiris can also be
considered.
THE FIGURINES AND THE OSIRIAN CULT: WHAT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE?
Without question, at least a few of the Predynastic Upper Egyptians used anthropomorphic figurines
in their mortuary rituals. Of course, the ones we have access to are only those which survived up to
6000 years of interment. Not only time and the elements, but also grave robbers and early amateur
archaeologists reduced the actual number.
In addition, we can only surmise that the Predynastic Upper Egyptians used a variety of more
perishable materials besides unfired clay, such as wood, reeds, fabrics, other plant materials, and
animal products such as leather. Of course we cannot assume that perishable materials were more
readily used than durable ones, as the Egyptians were noted for their preoccupation with physical
immortality, and this they could have extended to their choice of materials. However, the survival of
some unfired clay and mud figurines cautions against drawing hard conclusions based on material
evidence alone, for the archaeological record is probably far from comprehensive or complete.
241
The problem with a non-literate extinct culture is that we can only begin to know it through its material
remains. The incorporation of the scientific method into archaeology (New or Processual
Archaeology) led to the assumed authority of the material culture and a resistance to interpretations
unsubstantiated by material evidence. This attitude led Peter Ucko to assess the figurines largely on
the basis of their material characteristics, that is, their findspots and physical attributes. Artefacts
representing divinity should, therefore, be found in "divine" locations, such as shrines and temples,
arid must possess "divine" attributes, such as headdresses and evidence of preciousness in material
arid execution. In other words, they should conform to some notion of what is worthy to be treated as
divine. Their divinity should be recognisable in the material record, otherwise no such attribution can
be made.
This emphasis on material evidence led to the conclusion that some of the most important deities
from the Egyptian pantheon had an historic origin and were not present in the Predynastic religion.
The Predynastic existence of Horus is accepted, based on the existence of falcon imagery which can
be directly connected to the historic imagery of Horus, such as early pot marks depicting serekhs
surmounted by a falcon, falcon standards on pots and palettes, and bird amulets found in graves.
Deciding which Predynastic image is Horus and which another falcon deity is problematic, because of
the number of historic falcon-headed deities 54 , but the associations with symbols of kingship, such as
those on the Narmer palette (Fig. 4.5) and on serekhs (Fig. 4.8), are assumed to demonstrate the
prehistoric existence of Horus, symbol of divinity in the form of kingship. 55 However, when it comes
to the divinities associated with the historic mortuary cult, especially Osiris, Isis, and Nephthys, such a
direct connection cannot be maintained. No symbols of Osiris earlier than a First Dynasty djed pillar,
a column resembling a stylised sheaf of grain or series of vertebrae, have been found, and even this
slim evidence was questioned by Griffiths (1980: 41), who claimed that the symbol was not
associated exclusively with Osiris until the New Kingdom. The djed pillar possibly became associated
with Osiris later than the First Dynasty, as was Andjety, a Lower Egyptian king. Osiris does not
appear unequivocally until the Pyramid Texts of the late Fifth Dynasty.
54 For example, see Neugebauer and Parker (1969, PLS. 1,3,5) for illustrations of the deities of the Northern Sky and the Decans.Many falcon-headed deities are included among them.
5! See Arnett (1982) for illustrations and discussion of Predynastic imagery, including falcon and hawk imagery, preceding thedevelopment of hieroglyphs.
242
Based on material evidence alone, Osiris appears to be an historic deity. Despite J. Gwyn Griffiths'
(1980) argument for the origin of Osiris as a jackal god of Abydos, based on extracts from the
Pyramid Texts (ibid 105ff), the connection of Osiris with a jackal, or any deified animal, is not part of
the accepted theory on the origins of Osiris. The tendency to reject such hypothetical conclusions
demonstrates New Archaeology and the scientific method at work — the legacy of the 1960s and
1970s. The scientific method requires hard evidence to support theories, and until recently, such
"hard evidence" had to take the form of material remains.
A more interpretative position, as encouraged by the methodology and philosophy of post-processual
archaeology, can bring other evidence to the discussion. In the absence of any contemporary
descendants of Egyptian culture, we can draw material from comparative religion, ethnography,
historical records, and environmental factors. While Chapter 4 examined the available ethnography
on Sudanese religions in an attempt to illuminate possible religious conceptions of the Predynastic
Egyptians not evidenced in the material remains, the following discussion draws from contemporary
comparative knowledge of ancient religion and the natural environment experienced by the
Predynastic Upper Egyptians. Such less tangible evidence can demonstrate the possibility of the
existence of Osiris prior to the Pyramid Texts, where material evidence cannot. If a convincing claim
can be made for mortuary beliefs focusing on an Osiris-like deity, then perhaps some of the
iconography found in a mortuary context can be applied to his cult. It would be unlikely, however,
that this iconography represented supreme or cosmic deities, for reasons discussed in Chapter 4 and
summarised below, and from the implications of a brief, wide-ranging exploration of this issue in
comparative religion.
THE INVISIBLE GOD
Iconography and Divinity
One assumption underlying the attempts to locate material evidence for the existence of the
Predynastic mortuary deities is that cultures tend to embody their deities in physical form, creating
243
animal or human iconography upon which to focus their ritual. No doubt, the ancient and possibly
prehistoric images have been used for such religious purposes, understood by some commentators
as "idolatrous". The rich iconography of the polytheistic cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and
India seems to confirm an ancient and prehistoric pre-occupation with iconography and symbolic
representation.
Statues of deities inhabited the naos of every ancient temple and shrine. Even if no material
evidence can be found, as in the case of Mesopotamia (Lloyd 1975: 111), texts and illustrations
describe and portray the daily ritual of bathing, dressing, and feeding the deity, plus the seasonal
public festival parades of the statues on their way to visit the resident deities of other temples,
providing a focus of worship for the public, who otherwise had little or no access to the divine images.
Examples of this ritual behaviour can be found in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Mesopotamia, and
contemporary India. Such worship and display became the focus of contempt for the Hebrew
tradition, in which Yahweh was far too holy and powerful to deign to be embodied in material form.
"Idolatry" and "iconography" became synonymous in the Hebrew mind, and consequently in the
Christian and Islamic mind as well.
Therefore, I suspect that, besides our emphasis on scientific, empirical evidence, biases inherited
from Christianity influence interpretation. The supreme divinity of Christianity is too holy for
representation, but the "pagans", base in their worship, must have such false and degraded divinities
that they give them a human or animal form. The Predynastic Egyptians, with their ancient, "pagan"
minds, therefore, must also be predisposed to divine iconography, and if such were not present,
particularly in the right places (temples, shrines), then these deities were deemed not to exist until
their appearance in the historic record. To push back the existence of Osiris prior to the Pyramid
Texts, Griffiths felt it necessary to identify an embodiment for him, and only the jackal could be found
with a close enough association - Abydos, the centre of worship of the Predynastic jackal god,
Khenthamenthis, and later, the major centre for the worship of Osiris.
In contrast, even the most cursory examination of the many world religions, past and present, major
or small-scale, refutes any notion that divinity, particularly cosmic or supreme divinity, is always
244
embodied in some material form. For the Nuer, their highest divinity, Kwoth Nhial, is only suggested
by the majestic spread of the horns of the ox. The Nuer are very careful to distinguish between a
divine cosmic power which is suggested rather than embodied or represented by the ox horns, and a
lesser power which takes tangible form. Kwoth Nhial is non-locatable – too ubiquitous and too
powerful to be constrained by material form. For the Nuer, only the "spirits of the below", the totems,
and fetishes take on a material aspect. The "spirits of the above" have a remote and omnipresent
quality which cannot be "trapped" within localised and limited forms.
African tribal people, in particular, are loath to embody their higher deities in material form. Despite
the rich iconography of African religion, these icons are invariably representations of ancestors,
spirits, and demons rather than supreme divinities. In fact, John S. Mbiti (1969) in his exposition of
African religions implicitly responded to the common prejudice of African "idol" worship with the
statement, "... no idols have been reported in African traditional societies" (Mbiti 1969: 71). Yet non-
represented deities are often mentally conceived as anthropomorphic and mediated by human agents
such as "priests, rainmakers, elders, diviners, medicine-men, Kings, chiefs and the living dead" (ibid
71).
Examples from other early religions confirm this tendency. The earliest Chinese cultures, such as the
Shang (c1700-1100 BCE), display a fascination with the animal world with their richly designed
bronzes decorated with animal forms, predominantly the animal masks of water buffalo and rams.
Without any written texts, this evidence suggests the worship of divinity in animal form, but the written
records on animal bones indicate differently. The focus of the ritual performed with these decorated
vessels was Shang Ti, the supreme being or perhaps original ancestor. Although no representation
of Shang Ti has been found, early inscriptions indicate that he was mentally conceived in human
form. The scholars of the following Chou period devised a roughly human shape as the written
character for their chief deity, Shang Ti (Fairbank & Reischauer 1989: 17-32). Later figurative
sculptural works depicted guardians or sages, rather than deities, and with the adoption of
Confucianism and its vague notion of divinity which bordered on agnosticism, coupled with the non-
theistic Taoist religion, anthropomorphic deities faded from official religion. Because of this shift in
the Chinese religious "imagination", we cannot know whether, for the purposes of state-religion,
245
deities such as Shang Ti would eventually have been given material representation in statues and
other iconography, but the anthropomorphic character of his written name implies that similar iconic
imagery might have followed,
Aside from being too powerful or omnipresent, the cosmic deities are often conceived as being too
remote to warrant representation. In the case of Sumerian Mesopotamia, among the most frequently
represented deities on cylinder seals are Inanna and Enki. Both are far from supreme, but both take
an active role in the activities of humankind. Inanna (later as Ishtar) performs an annual sacred
marriage with the king in order to ensure agricultural fecundity. Enki is famous for his interventions
on behalf of humankind when a higher god, Enlil, threatens to destroy it. But the most supreme deity
of all, An, is rarely depicted, rarely petitioned, and features in myths infrequently.56
To expand this tendency further, I would like to draw attention to the Hindu Tantric mythology of
Shiva and Shakti, particularly since a parallel can be made between the relationship of the god Shiva
to the goddess Shakti and the relationship of Osiris to Isis. Like Osiris and Isis, Shiva and Shakti
unite in a sacred marriage. Osiris and Shiva are both passive, dead gods, while Isis and Shakti
represent the active female principle.
In the Tantric system, the ultimate, unmanifest, neuter godhead, Brahman, manifests as the Bindu, or
primordial seed, from which the whole universe is born. Like the yin/yang symbol of Chinese
philosophy, the Bindu contains the essence of the complementary opposites, male and female.
When the Bindu "sprouts", the male aspect, personified as Shiva, resides with Brahman, while the
female aspect, Shakti, engages in the activity of creating the universe and the "ten thousand things".
Meanwhile, Shiva remains as though dead, and is represented as a corpse in some iconography.
Inactive and powerless, he rests inert, awaiting the return of Shakti when she finishes her creative
task. When she returns to Shiva, there is great joy and rejoicing; the ultimate union takes place; the
universe dissolves into its primordial unity; and then the whole process starts up again.57
56 For accounts and discussions of Mesopotamian myths, see especially Jacobsen (1976) and Kramer (1961 b).
67 For a discussion of the relationship of Shiva and Shakti in the Hindu Tantric tradition, see, for example, Beck (1993: 121-147);Avalon (1972: xix-xxxi; 1974: 25-48); Mahadevan (1960: 203-215). In the Tantric tradition, Shiva is an otiose deity, in contrast tomainstream Hindu tradition, where he is best known for his extremely active role as a dancer.
246
The prehistoric iconography of the Indus Valley Civilisation (c2600 BCE) indicates the possible
existence of the Tantric system at that time. 58 Small clay female figurines have been found
throughout the cities, towns, and villages and suggest the early worship of a Shakti-like deity, who
represents the creative powers of nature. 59 The male aspect finds representation mainly in the form
of a phallus - a form which characterised Shiva until much later in Indian history when he took an
anthropomorphic form as well. Only on three stamp seals do we find an image that can be
interpreted as an early anthropomorphic depiction of Shiva as an ascetic deity performing yogic
disciplines, and this evidence is far from conclusive (Fairservis 1992: 63).
For the Neolithic village culture prior to the rise of the Indus Valley Civilisation, limited iconographic
evidence of a male deity has emerged, whereas female figurines, which appear stylistically to be
related to the Indus Valley and later historic figurines, are plentiful. Not until India approached the
Christian Era did anthropomorphic images of high male deities appear, and these in temples,
sculptural complexes, and caves, rather than the domestic environment. Anthropomorphically
conceived cosmogonic deities older than writing - Surya, Rudra, lndra, Vishnu, Brahma - finally found
material expression. Even the Buddha, representative of the empty essence of the phenomenal
world and founder of a non-theistic religion, became the anthropomorphic focus of Buddhism,
contradicting the basic philosophy of the religion. This evidence suggests a tendency towards historic
anthropomorphic representation of prehistoric, non-represented, anthropomorphic male high gods.
The relationship of the active goddess to the inert god in both Egyptian and Indian mythology startles
with its many similarities. The emphasis on the erect but stationary phallus, the active creative role of
the female, the dead or inert male aspect, and the divine marriage, or hierosgamos, are four major
conjunctions. As well, in both India and Egypt, anthropomorphic Shiva and Osiris iconography only
convincingly occurs in the historic periods. Rather, female imagery dominates the prehistoric
iconographic record in all European and Near and Middle Eastern countries, and this dominance has
led to the assumption that humanity first conceived high divinity as female. Dominant male deities, it
58 For details on Indus Valley iconography, see, for example, Agrawal (1984) and Allchin and Alchin (1968).
247
is postulated, arrived later, with the rise of state enforced patriarchy. These same claims have been
made about Predynastic Egypt (Baumgartel 1970b; David 1982; Hassan 1992; Hornblower 1929;
Murray 1934) because of the preponderance of female iconography over male.
A more detailed and comprehensive study could be made of the nature of iconographic
representation of various kinds of deities in other contemporary religious systems. Certainly many
exceptions can be found to the general tendency illustrated above. Higher, cosmic male and female
deities do enter the iconic record in small scale religions of the Pacific Islands and some North
American Inuit and Indian cultures, alongside "lesser" divinities such as ancestors, spirit guides,
totems, demons, etc. The Inuit goddess Sedna, often carved in soapstone, and the Mississippi Earth
Mother, modelled in clay (Prentice 1986) are good examples, although I could argue that these
"higher" female deities fall within the immanent and accessible rather than remote, cosmogonic
category. Despite the occasional exception, the religious sensibility of many small-scale forager and
village societies shies away from confining cosmic spiritual entities in localised, limiting material
forms. Purely anthropomorphic forms are particularly avoided, even though worshippers might
mentally conceive these deities in human terms and approach them, through mediation, as superior
human-like beings. Only in centralised, state-based religions does iconography of higher deities tend
to become important, as in the case of the sedentary, centrally-ruled Shilluk culture of the Sudan.
The following section applies these observations to specific Egyptian deities, especially Osiris.
Osiris: An Invisible God?
To find Osiris in the Predynastic is like finding an invisible needle in a haystack. If Osiris, a major
mortuary deity of Upper Egypt at Abydos, qualifies as a "cosmic", or higher, deity, hence prone to lack
of representation, then arguments must be based on something more nebulous and slippery than the
surety of material remains.
59 See Banerji (1994) for illustrations and a concise description and analysis of Indian terracotta figurines. The Indian goddess Shaktiand her various manifestations could be the only "Mother Goddess" easily traced through iconography to prehistoric roots.
248
The Predynastic Egyptians, like the Nuer, Dinka, Chinese, and Indian peoples, among others,
probably conceived of deities in anthropomorphic terms without expressing them through material
images, but we cannot prove this. Comparative evidence suggests the likelihood, reinforced by the
historic emergence of anthropomorphically represented deities such as Osiris, Ptah, Atum, Nut, Geb,
Nephthys, Min, and Hapy, and some forms of Hathor, Isis, and later, Amun. To deny the possibility of
their pre-literate, pre-state existence is to postulate their invention by priests, rather than their gradual
development out of the religious needs and conceptions of the people.
Eric Hornung (1983), in his study of the nature of Egyptian deities, stressed the invisible nature of the
Egyptian gods: "their true form is 'hidden' and 'mysterious', as Egyptian texts emphasize continually"
(ibid 117):60
A god may be sensed and seen not only in his attributesof fragrance, radiance and power, but also and moreforcefully in the way he affects men's hearts ... In thesecases the invisible god may be grasped as a subjectivereality, whereas he can be made visible to the believeronly in images ... (ibid 134-5)
As discussed above in the section on comparative religion, the need for deities to be visible to the
believers arises when the priests and rulers of an institutionalised religion wish to focus the support
and allegiance of the wider community on a unified and centralised authority. Non-centralised
cultures, such as the village cultures of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, had little need to embody their
deities in official statues, for their worship would often be conducted in small village gatherings or
home shrines, as in today's tribal Africa. Even in modern rural India, people still prefer home worship
to temple worship, despite the prevalence of temples in their communities.61
Because of the belief in the "invisibility" of the major deities and the need to make these deities
tangible to the Egyptian population, the priests created a representation which combined and
reconciled these two conflicting concepts. They placed the anthropomorphic image within a dark
sanctuary and restricted access only to those officiating priests who looked after it (ibid 135). Even
during public processions, they retained the concept of "invisibility" by concealing the image in a
60 It seems contradictory that he would not extend the same attitude to the Predynastic Egyptians.
249
shrine, which was paraded before the public. The general population knew the statue was there and
could focus their worship on it, but it remained invisible, hidden in its portable shrine (ibid 136; Baines
1991: 148).
The embodiment of cosmic divine power is dangerous, hence the reluctance to create and display
imagery of the most powerful divine forces. Embodied deities in Dynastic Egypt, as elsewhere, were
surrounded by the limiting controlling factors of ritual, special priesthoods, sanctuaries, and
inaccessibility. In a less complex culture, to simply not embody cosmic forces would protect the
people from their dangerous intrusion. Tradition, handed down orally, and rituals practised by
succeeding generations of shamans, priests, and prophets, as in Nuer and Dinka culture, sustain the
knowledge of the deities and their powers and provide the necessary focus for communal worship and
continuance of tradition.
To assume that such a powerful deity as Osiris, a cosmic divinity of the sky and the underworld,
rather than temporal deity of the earth or air, could not have existed in the Predynastic because of a
lack of material evidence contradicts the nature of religious iconography. For priests to invent a
powerful and popular deity such as Osiris for the purposes of a royal mortuary cult early in the
Dynastic period, just prior to the written evidence of the Pyramid Texts, would be an incredible feat of
propaganda in a period without mass communication in which only the elite were literate. Also, such
a self-conscious, contrived form of religious development is unlikely considering the conservative
nature of religion, especially that of Egypt, the widespread popularity of Osiris among illiterate people
after the First Intermediate period, and the inherent contradictions among the myths and textual
references to him. If one or two organised centralised priesthoods had invented Osiris, for whatever
purpose, surely there would be greater consistency and uniformity in the religious texts.
The Pyramid Texts display characteristics which can be more sensibly explained to result from a
collection of pre-existing creation and cosmological myths, as well as spells and myths surrounding
the death and rebirth of the king, rather than newly invented theologies, cosmologies, and
cosmogonies. These texts contain plural, rather than singular, accounts of creation, eschatology, and
61 For a discussion of contemporary popular religion in India, see Fuller (1992).
250
cosmic organisation and principles. Furthermore, accrediting the early historic period with the original
development of texts, deities, and mortuary rituals is to presuppose that either: (1) the Predynastic
mortuary rituals and accompanying deities and beliefs ceased and new systems and deities came into
existence with the rise of the unified state; or (2) the Predynastic peoples had no set of beliefs, rituals
and deities which accompanied the elaborate mortuary material remains and, therefore, suitable ones
had to be invented.
Neither of these options is plausible. More likely, the earliest mortuary deities, rituals, and beliefs of
the historic period descended from the mortuary cultures of the Predynastic. As elsewhere in Africa,
those responsible for the institution of Divine Kingship probably "took over" pre-existing popular cults
in order to focus, legitimate, and stabilise power. Perhaps they did not conceive of these deities in
exactly the same terms or assign them their Predynastic names. We know that deities, even in the
historic period, merged or altered their identities. The historic confluence of deities helps to diffuse
any argument that their prehistoric counterparts retained their identical names and functions as they
moved into their well-recognised positions under the efforts of the Dynastic priests and theologians.
Hathor and Isis became indistinguishable iconographically and only identifiable by the presence of
their hieroglyphs. Amun and Re merged into Amun-Re. Hathor appears to have been the original
mother of Horus, leaving open the question as to the origin of Isis and why she took over that
position. Sopdet (Greek Sothis), possibly Satis, and Isis - three distinct deities - each became
associated with the star Sirius. Osiris, named Wsir, is historically identified with the constellation
Orion, called Sah (S3) (Faulkner 1966: 157; Neugebauer & Parker 1969: 112-115), possibly in much
the same way as Re is symbolised by the celestial body of the sun as Aten.
In Egyptian mythology, the heavenly bodies rather than earthly beings embody the natures of cosmic
deities. Egypt's cosmic deities, such as Atum, Amun, Shu, Tefnut, and Nut, are invisible to the eye,
but their presence is demonstrated by the elemental forces they embody: the ability to create (Amun,
Atum), the air (Shu), moisture (Tefnut), and the sky (Nut). These cosmogonic deities avoid direct
involvement with humanity, except through priests, and instead concern themselves with the more
remote activities of creation and maintenance of the universe. Like the invisible Kwoth Nhial, Atum
and Amun are mentally conceived anthropomorphically as fathers (Pyr. 151), but the Egyptian gods
251
are not depicted as such until the development of official tomb wall iconography. Even Geb,
although the earth god, is cosmogonic and primordial rather than involved in human affairs. Each of
these deities, including Osiris, takes on an anthropomorphic representation with the formulation of
official state religion and iconography. None appears to have been represented iconically in the
Predynastic.
In the Pyramid Texts, the physical sun represents Re. Possibly such an implicit relationship between
Osiris and Orion exists as well, although Sah is not mentioned. Osiris, as a cosmic deity, could have
fcund his earliest expression in the evocative presence of Orion in the celestial rather than earthly
realm, in much the same way as the spread of ox horns evokes Kwoth Nhial to the Nuer.
The gods of human affairs, the temporal gods, Horus, Hathor, Isis, Thoth, Anubis, Nekhbet, Wadjt,
Sekhmet, among others, directly involve themselves in the political and personal lives of the people
who worship them. Like the totemic spirits and the "spirits of the below" of the Nuer people, they find
immanent expression in familiar animals and objects of the terrestrial world. These immanent deities
who border the celestial and earthly realms often have wings, enabling them to inhabit both earth and
sky, for example, Horus, Isis, Nephthys, and Thoth, in his ibis form. Also the b3, that aspect of the
human soul which flies out of the tomb, does so as a human-headed, swallow-like bird.
References to the king with wings of many different birds - goose, duck, falcon, heron - appear in the
Pyramid Texts (Pyr. 461-463, 250, 387-79). The wings enable the king to fly up to the stars and
become immortal. In the Pyramid Texts, the king flies up to the sky as a swallow (Pyr. 1770, 1216),
the image most closely related to the concept of the b3 bird, and takes his place among the other
swallows, which become the Imperishable Stars (Pyr. 1216). So too, the Nuer lesser spirits of the
above, such as the Kwoth cuekni (twins) spirits and Buk, as a female crow, have bird associations
which allow them dual roles as spirits of the earth and the sky. Buk as a crow is also a river spirit -
both celestial and chthonic. Horus, as falcon, rules the earth, but with the power and authority of the
sky.
252
Osiris, as a cosmic deity, remote from earthly life, cannot act directly in the world. But, like the
ancestor spirits of many cultures, removed from human activity, he is still responsible for earthly
fertility. Osiris acts indirectly, so he needs a medium to engage with the world of the living. That
medium is Isis, a winged deity of celestial and earthly capabilities. Through Isis, Osiris fathers the
king (Horus) from the other world, the realm of the "ancestors". The Pyramid Texts indicate that in
her cosmogonic form of Sothis, Isis engenders Horus (Pyr. 632-33, 1636), but in more frequent
references to her, she is a kite, attendant at Osiris' funeral. In Dynastic iconography, she hovers
over Osiris' phallus in her bird, rather than anthropomorphic, form. Her wings make possible her
mediation between the two realms.
Osiris, as an invisible celestial cosmic god, and the other cosmic deities, would attract no symbolic
material expression in the Predynastic other than their cosmogonic forms of elements, phenomena,
celestial bodies, and constellations. In the art and iconography of the Dynastic period, their mental
rather than symbolic forms become their representations. Nut, Geb, Tefnut, Shu, Amun-Re, Isis, and
Osiris all take anthropomorphic forms, while simultaneously retaining their celestial/cosmogonic
associations with the sky, earth, moisture, air, sun, Sothis, and Orion respectively, although the
occasional exception can be found, for example, with the late appearance of a ram-headed Amun-Re.
Although I emphasise the evidence that characterises Osiris as a cosmic god with celestial
connotations, I cannot deny that contrary evidence can be found. As the Predynastic community
consisted of a collection of disparate cultures which grouped around the Nile, understandably they
would come to share some religious beliefs and customs, but not all. To identify Orion as a form of
Osiris does not preclude the possibility that some Predynastic peoples envisaged their god of the
dead in the form of a jackal or a fabulous beast, as suggested by certain passages in the Pyramid
Texts (Griffiths 1980, Westendorf 1977). Even the basically anthropomorphic shape of Orion does
not exclude the possibility that his head may have been conceived in jackal rather than human shape
(Eaton-Krauss 1987: 235). References in the Pyramid Texts describe the deceased king's face as
that of a jackal (Pyr. 1235, 1299, 2026-7, 2108, 2241); in one passage he even has the face of Seth
(Pyr. 1935).
253
More specific references to Osiris as Orion are, however, in anthropomorphic terms. In Pyr. 18 the k3
of the king is described as a man in full stride, arms swinging, suggesting the shape of Orion. Pyr.
364 describes Osiris anthropomorphically through direct references to his arms and legs. More
specifically in Pyr. 959, Osiris as Orion, "long of leg and lengthy of stride" presides over Upper Egypt.
A more ecumenical declaration covers a number of options:
... O King ... you having appeared to them as ajackal, as Horus ... as Geb, ... and as Osiris ...(Pyr. 2103-4)
This last reference allows us to include many forms for the conception of the dead king and Osiris.
However, the jackal form and composite forms of jackal, snake, and panther (Westendorf 1977: 105)
are absorbed into an anthropomorphic Osiris. These animal associations do not cling to him as the
non-human forms of other deities cling to them throughout the Dynastic period. Rather, the
anthropomorphic form, as suggested by Orion, comes to represent Osiris, both in his role of judge of
the dead and Decanal deity (Neugebauer & Parker 1960, 1969).62
The persistence of the anthropomorphic form over other allusions supports the option for an
anthropomorphically conceived, but invisible, Predynastic Osiris, who may have found his most
popular and widespread representation in Orion. The following discussion details the relationship
between Orion and Osiris in the Pyramid Texts and the importance of Orion to the Predynastic Nile
dwellers of Upper Egypt.
Orion and Osiris
In the Dynastic period, the association of Osiris with Orion was fixed. Isis was associated with Sothis
(Sirius), the star which appeared with the rising sun at the Egyptian New Year, indicating the imminent
inundation of the Nile. How far back these deities and constellations shared their identities is
impossible to gauge.
62 Repeatedly I see a reference to the shape of the constellation Orion in the conventional shape of Dynastic royal iconography —squared shoulders and characteristic kilt, the shape of which parallels the shoulders from front or side view.
254
The Pyramid Texts mention the relationship between Isis and Sirius as Sothis in conjunction with the
impregnation of Isis as Sothis by Osiris (Pyr. 632-3, 1635-7) and the birth of Horus-Sopd:
Your sister Isis comes to you rejoicing for love of you.You have placed her on your phallus and your seedissues into her, she being ready as Sothis, and Har-Sopdhas come forth from you as Horus who is in Sothis.(Pyr. 632-3)
Repeatedly, however, Sothis is part of the Re religion as the sister of the king. Pyr. 2126 parallels the
king and Re, with Orion as brother and Sothis as sister. In one instance, Sothis is the mother of the
king (Pyr. 458). In others Orion, as father of the gods, is also father of the king as a god (Pyr. 408,
2180). The king, Orion, and Sothis relationships of these passages mirror the Horus, Osiris, and Isis
relationships and may be a symbolic version of this triad. But, Orion and Osiris occur together only
occasionally. For this reason, and because of the lack of material evidence, the Osiris-Orion
connection has been assumed to be a Dynastic development.
In Pyr. 819-20, a rare clear connection is made: "Behold, he has come as Orion, behold, Osiris has
come as Orion". Yet other passages distinguish between Orion and Osiris (Pyr. 882-3):
O King, you are this great star, the companion ofOrion, who traverses the sky with Orion, whonavigates the Netherworld with Osiris ...
As discussed earlier, this apparent differentiation could be due to two aspects of Osiris/Orion: one
aspect which is visible in the night sky as Orion, the other aspect in which Orion disappears in the
west and traverses the Underworld as Osiris before appearing in the east. Further in Pyr. 820-22,
Orion appears to be a guide or companion to the dead king, rather than his b3 or k363:
63 My impression from the Pyramid Texts is that the b3 is the swallow-like part of the soul which, as a Lone Star, takes its placeamong the Imperishable Stars, while the k3 or double may be modelled on Orion as an anthropomorphic shape:
O King, the arm of your double is in front of you!0 King, the arm of your double is behind you!0 King, the foot of your double is in front of you!0 King, the foot of your double is behind you! (Pyr. 18)
Faulkner comments that this passage may mean that the k3 strides, swinging its arms and legs (Pyr. 18, n. 4), reminding me ofthe striding of Orion over Upper Egypt (Pyr. 959).
255
O King, the sky conceives you with Orion, thedawn-light bears you with Orion. ... You willregularly ascend with Orion from the easternregion of the sky, you will regularly descendwith Orion into the western region of the sky ...
This relationship is supported by other spells in which Orion appears to be a helper, a guide, or an
abode, which protects and assists the dead king on his ascent:
In your name of Dweller in Orion, with a seasonin the sky and a season on earth. 0 Osiris, turnyour face and look on this King ... (Pyr. 186)
May Orion give me his hand, for Sothis has takenmy hand. (Pyr. 1561)
I have gone up upon the ladder with my foot onOrion (Pyr. 1763)
Be young, be young beside your father, besideOrion in the sky. (Pyr. 2180-1)
The ladder of Pyr. 1763 appears elsewhere in the Pyramid Texts as a ladder to the sky (Pyr. 971-80),
and possibly the shape of Orion, to some Predynastic Egyptians, suggested a celestial ladder
connecting heaven and earth, on which the souls of the dead ascend. Another passage refers to a
stairway in association with Orion (Pyr. 1717), perhaps also a description of Orion's shape.
In one anomalous Utterance (Pyr. 722-723), Orion and Osiris oppose each other. Orion is the dead
King, while Osiris represents death and mortality rather than immortality:
O flesh of the King, do not decay, do not rot, donot smell unpleasant. Your foot will not be over-passed, your stride will not be overstridden, youshall not tread on the corruption of Osiris. Youshall reach the sky as Orion, your soul shall be aseffective as Sothis,
The conflicting passages in the Pyramid Texts demonstrate simultaneous myths which equate Osiris
and Orion and myths which do not. Some solar myths in which the king goes to Re or becomes a star
obviously include Orion as a guide or a location in the afterlife, while others exclude Orion from the
solar and stellar myths. Therefore, although Osiris clearly manifests as Orion during the Dynastic
period, contrasting Predynastic mortuary beliefs could also equate Osiris (or a similar deity) and
Orion, while others do not. Despite these contradictions, the following discussion argues for a
256
Predynastic conflation of Orion and Osiris, or similar underworld and vegetation deity, based on the
importance of Orion to the spiritual and, subsequently, material life of the community.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ORION TO THE PREDYNASTIC UPPER EGYPTIANS
As mentioned earlier, one brief passage in the Pyramid Texts mentions Orion in connection with the
Osirian resurrection as a "deity" who is "long of leg and lengthy of stride, who presides over Upper
Egypt" (Pyr. 959). Later Dynastic Decanal calendars portray Osiris as Orion just so (Fig. 5.1). 64 In
these Decanal calendars, the New Year begins with the heliacal rising of Sothis (as Isis). The best
examples of the Decanal progression come from New Kingdom tombs, such as that of Seti I (Pyr.
1303-1290 BCE), but the earliest fragments come from the First Intermediate Period tomb of Heny
(Pyr. 2134-1999 BCE). A fragment of Osiris as a Decanal deity has been identified from the Old
Kingdom funerary temple of Djedkare-lsesi (Eaton-Krauss 1987: 234).
Predynastic life in Upper Egypt followed the cycles of the Nile. Sothis brought in the New Year
around the summer solstice, announcing the imminent inundation of the Nile after two months of
'drought", or the lowest level of the river and hence the maximum scarcity of water. This period
followed the March to April period of harvest, the success of which would have depended on the
quality of the previous inundation. Disaster and starvation resulted from either a too high or a too low
inundation, with little hope of recovery until the following year. If the subsequent inundation were also
inadequate, either too much or too little, famine would surely result. Therefore, the Upper Egyptians,
who by at least 4000 BCE relied on regular and ample inundations, apprehensively awaited the
appearance of Sothis. They possibly awaited with even greater concern the appearance of Orion,
since he rose earlier, in May, during the "drought", announcing the imminent appearance of his
sister/wife/helper Sothis in early July, and possibly the star Procyon (Fig. 5.2), a bright "sister" star to
Sothis.
64 For some reason, the Egyptians did not faithfully follow the star formation of the constellation. Neugebauer (1969: 89) cautionsagainst trying to identify empirically any constellation with any particular deity because of the inconsistencies in the star patternsassigned to a variety of representations of the same deity. The star patterns, he suggests, are purely decorative.
257
Orion in 4000 BCE
Computer simulations of the Predynastic night sky
Today, the availability of computer simulations makes the ancient astronomical details and
movements of the planets and constellations easily accessed by people without specialised training in
astronomy. For the purposes of gathering data on the apparent "behaviour" of Orion in 4000 BCE, at
the beginning of the Predynastic, I used two programs: a user-friendly non-specialised program,
SkyGlobe, which simulates the movements of the celestial bodies as far back as 33,000 BCE, and a
more "professional" program, Dance of the Planets, which is specifically designed for both lay and
professional use in education, planetarium displays, and research. Selecting for 26°33' N and 32°30'
E., the latitude and longitude of the Qena bend of Upper Egypt, I mapped the movement of Orion for
the year 4000 BCE, with particular reference to its position at sunrise and sunset. I double checked
this data with Dance and found it confirmed. I chose to use the former program because it offered
orbital simulation of the celestial sphere, whereas the latter simulated the movements of only the
planets, as the title implies.
From the data, I calculated the number of hours of Orion's visibility on the 21st of each month (see
Appendix 2) and plotted the results on Graph I (see ahead). Times have been calculated from the
first rising of the "head" of Orion at sea level to the setting of the last star of his "right shoulder" at sea
level.
It must be kept in mind that the times indicated on the computer simulation of the movement of the
planets and constellations would not be the exact times that the Predynastic or ancient Egyptians
observed the phenomena. The computer times are calculated at sea level. We do not know whether
the Egyptians watched for the appearance of Orion and Sirius from the Nile Valley or from a plateau.
Numerous references in the Pyramid Texts to the appearance of Re, Osiris, and the king from the
Field of Rushes suggest that observations were made from the west bank of the Nile Valley. Pyr.
821-2 specifically mentions the appearance of Orion, under the guidance of Sothis, from the Field of
Rushes.
258
FIG. 5.1 Orion as Osiris and Sothis as Isis on the Decanal Belt
From the Tomb of PedamenopeDynasties )0(V - XXVI ca 560 BCE
259
Also, while the computer program can account for the obscuring effects of twilight, approximately one
hour before actual sunrise and one hour after sunset, it cannot account for atmospheric and climatic
conditions, such as dust and haze (Purrington 1988: S72). As well, whether the risings were observed
from the Valley or plateau, topography could alter the ancient perspective on which stars rose first
(ibid). Therefore, Graph I charts Orion's nocturnal position above the horizon rather than his visibility.
Having been informed by personal communication of the lack of atmospheric haze and the
suddenness of darkness after sunset in Egypt, to compensate for twilight (dawn or dusk), I subtracted
only one hour, but this adjustment perhaps still results in an overestimation of the duration of Orion's
visibility, because it does not account for topographical conditions.
The results of the investigation on the behaviour of Orion in 4000 BCE are illustrated in the celestial
charts, Figs. 5.2 - 5.12, printed out from SkyGlobe. Each chart follows a similar layout, described
below.
Orion is one of 36 constellations in the Ancient Egyptian Decanal Belt, which, in the northern
hemisphere, lies in the southern night sky, south of the ecliptic. Looking at the chart in Fig. 5.2, for
example, the view of the sky is therefore towards the south where Orion, when visible, can be seen.
East is towards the left, west towards the right. The straight horizontal line across the chart
represents the horizon.
Above the horizon are the stars and planets which can be seen at night. Since the chart represents
sunrise on 03 July 4000 BCE, the sun can be seen near the horizon in its summertime position just
north of direct east. The stars and planets below the horizon, of course, cannot be seen, but, as the
earth turns, at night, they gradually appear to rise in the east, travel across the sky towards the west,
and disappear below the western horizon.
The curved line which crosses the horizon represents the ecliptic, the path the sun takes across the
sky. While the Ancient Egyptians recognised the movements of the sun and expressed its perceived
qualities in the sun-god Re, they did not conceive of deities and constellations along the path of the
sun, as did the Babylonians and the Greeks after them. Rather, the Ancient Egyptians perceived their
$EStAW
Canis Major ,i!Lriba
" .• Cae luos. SDul pt. irk
Horologi tma • .Sextans
E'
ara
04:42Jul 03 4000BC•mairo26'33 '32'30' E10313 Stars 114. 6Zoom 1.50Dir 140--z.SSEEl el.' 0'
--- .--,......,-------- Taurus..
1,---__
./ • '4) ;Gt. ril nz_j ."-
.o
PL *. il 1 • •
,../iv'En
Orion%. _ ,
/ ',..; ..,..c,
. .1/
-I' •
/ Canis Minor (...." ..
,./ Cancer teas° c: 1 0 n
,....., /I llonacertis\ / 1.
_....---
...- 1
.TF--- in' \'I. .II um ga. %,..
• / / Aries------... / ._.-;------ --_---__.-A.--- —
. Pisces;_ '--....
Per sensTriangulkU4
Leptis-
Eridanus
Pa rn ax
Cetus
PgKi s • Puppis•
Fiotor
• CANOPVS RV. UM •
Dorado
Phoenix
Grit.ts
tit %
Antlia Vela Hy.arus
Tucana .Grater;
. • •Mensa•
CaiinVolans
Chaitae 1 eon
• :. Itasca Oc tans •
• Indus
FIG. 5.2
sunrise03 July 4000 BCE
Heliacal rising of Sirius(just preceded by Procyon)
261
celestial deities to inhabit two regions, the Decanal belt, which includes Orion and Sothis, and the
group of constellations and stars around the polar centre of the Northern Sky.65
In Fig. 5.2, Orion can be seen just above the horizon, its anthropomorphic outline suggested by the
stars forming the constellation. Just on the horizon, Sirius appears, and since the chart represents
the heliacal rising of Sirius in 4000 BCE, Sirius is therefore rising at the same time as the sun. Just
aoove and to the left of Sirius is Procyon, another bright star, which rises just before Sirius. Although
I have not seen it mentioned, it is possible that Procyon was recognised as a sister star to Sirius and,
therefore, could represent Nephthys. Canopus, below the horizon in Fig. 5.2, is another candidate for
Nephthys, but since it rises much later than Sirius, Procyon is a better candidate.
The celestial charts in Figs. 5.2 - 5.12 follow this pattern. Each displays the southern sky and is
intended to show the movements of Orion. The horizon stretches from east to west in a left to right
straight line bisecting the chart. While many constellations and planets appear on the charts, the
main concern is with the relationship of the sun, Orion, and Sirius. Using these charts, I determine
the cycle of Orion's visibility, that is, when it is most and least visible, how this behaviour relates to
the life and religion of the Predynastic Egyptians, and how the behaviour of Orion fits passages
describing the movements of Osiris in the Pyramid Texts.
Orion and the Pyramid Texts
Sirius/Sothis, the brightest star in the entire sky, announced the imminent inundation, the Nile rising
shortly after her appearance in early July, after the summer solstice (Fig. 5.2). By this time, Orion
would be apparent in the night sky, having been "resurrected" in May or early June with his heliacal
rising (Figs. 5.3a,b). As the first herald of the inundation, he would be "powerless" until Sothis rose:
"Sothis ... who will guide you both [Orion and the king] on the goodly roads which are in the sky and in
the Field of Rushes" (Pyr. 822).
65 See Neugebauer and Parker (1960; 1969) and Ingham (1969) for detailed explanations of Dynastic Egyptian astronomy/astrology.
262
While the first "star" of Orion to rise over the horizon is the group of faint stars which constitutes his
head (Fig. 5.3a), most likely it would not be visible in the bright dawn sky until after at least the rising
of Rigel (Fig. 5.3b), the brightest star of the constellation, and seventh brightest star in the sky. Rigel,
the left thigh of Orion, would be the first star of the constellation to shine in the dawn light during the
period of his heliacal rising. "Mystifying" references to the origination of the inundation from the thigh
of Osiris mentioned by Rundle Clark (1978 <1959>: 130) possibly refer to the rising of Rigel, or the
reference to the thigh could be more mundane as a euphemism for the phallus (ibid 129-30, 161).
Each morning after the first appearance of Rigel, Orion rises earlier than the sun and within a few
days, the sky is dark enough for his head to be the first visible part of him to appear over the horizon.
Numerous references in the Pyramid Texts (654, 735-6, 828, 840, 1675) demonstrate the importance
of the dead king's receiving his head:
Raise yourself, 0 King;receive your head,collect your bones. (Pyr. 654)
O King, raise yourself,receive your head ... (Pyr. 735-6)
By the summer solstice (Fig. 5.4 June 21 sunrise), Orion is fully visible in the eastern sky well before
sunrise. Orion rises piecemeal from the Duat: his head, already up, appears after his thigh. He rises
lying on his right side. According to Rundle Clark, the rising of Osiris on his side is "one of the most
important themes of the Osirian cycle" (Rundle Clark 1978 <1959>: 129), and although the myths
which emphasise such a rising, including numerous references in the Pyramid Texts, antedate the
Predynastic period, they could originate there.
The behaviour of Orion can be summed up as follows:
1. Orion appears in May after an absence of about 2 months, his left thigh appearing first.2. His head appears later.3. He stands up in his zenith, overhead.4. His right side points to the eastern horizon; his left to the west.5. He lies down on his left side as he approaches the western horizon.6. He disappears piecemeal into the earth at the western horizon.
Passages from the Pyramid Texts mirror the behaviour of Orion and the resurrection of the king. I
assume that the Pyramid Texts, as assembled by Kurt Sethe and followed by R.O. Faulkner in his
263
translation (used in this study), do not follow any originally intended order. Therefore, following the
six points above, I have selected and rearranged a number of passages which demonstrate the
pattern of Orion as he ascends and descends with Re, Nephthys, and Isis (Pyr. 209-10), and is
"swallowed up by the Netherworld" as is Sothis and the king (Pyr. 151).
1. Orion rises in the east near the beginning of the year, prior to the inundation after having
spent 70 days in the Netherworld (Figs. 5.3a,b):
Here comes the Dweller in the Abyss ... (Pyr. 1525)
Behold, he has come as Orion, behold, Osiris hascome as Orion ... (Pyr. 819-20)
Osiris appears, the Sceptre is pure, the Lord ofRight is exalted at the First of the Year, (even he)the Lord of the Year. (Pyr. 1520)
2. His head appears after he has risen and his members appear gradually, one by one:
Raise yourself, 0 my father the King, knit on yourhead, gather together your members, lift yourselfup on your feet ... he has crossed the lake, he hastraversed the Netherworld (Pyr. 1675-77)
3. As Orion gets higher in the sky, he appears to stand up (Fig. 5.5):
... they raise Osiris from upon his side and makehim stand up in front of the Two Enneads. (Pyr. 956)
Overhead, he appears to stand and stride across the sky:
... who takes his place at the zenith of the sky, inthe place where you are content. You traverse thesky in your striding ... (Pyr. 854)
4. His right side faces east, pointing to the eastern horizon, the place of resurrection into the
sky. His left side faces the western horizon, the place where he and the stars enter the earth:
You bear up the sky with your right side ... (Pyr. 1528)
You support the earth with your left side ... (Pyr. 1529)
5. As he gradually moves toward the western horizon, he appears to lie down on his side again
as he dies (Fig. 5.12):
The Great One falls upon his side, He who is inNedit quivers ... (Pyr. 721)
264
This Great One has fallen on his side, he who is inNedit is felled. (Pyr. 819)
6. He sets as he rose, bit by bit, gradually disappearing into the western horizon, the Duat:
You sink into the earth to your thickness, to yourmiddle, to your full span ... (Pyr. 285)
Orion is swallowed up by the NetherworldSothis is swallowed up by the NetherworldI am swallowed up by the Netherworld (Pyr. 151)
Orion and the Nile Inundation
Graph 2 plots the annual level of the Nile inundation. It is taken from measurements at Khartoum
over a 24-year period (RzOska 1978:15). Khartoum lies about 1200 kms south of the Qena bend in
Upper Egypt, thus raising the question as to whether the data from Khartoum is relevant to Upper
Egypt. However, the timing of the river's crests and lows varies significantly from year to year,
cresting anywhere between mid-August and mid-September at Aswan. For example, in 1878 the
flood peaked in mid-September and receded more than two months behind schedule (Wetterstrom
1993: 193-4). Therefore, while the flood arrives marginally later the farther north along the Nile it
travels, the variation in the time frame of the annual inundation allows the Khartoum data to apply
generally to the appearance and recession of the annual discharge in Upper Egypt, although the flood
would arrive a week or so later in Upper Egypt than in Khartoum.
At the beginning of the Predynastic66 , Orion rose in late May or early June, a few weeks prior to the
inundation. The Nile inundation began in early July (Graph 2), about the time Sothis appeared.
During late August, at the time of the maximum water level, Orion was overhead at the first dawn
light (Fig. 5.5, Aug 21). The movement of Orion from horizon to zenith paralleled the rise of the Nile
from lowest to maximum (Graph 2). From August until October, the land was flooded, and by late
October, Orion was visible in the night sky from sunset to sunrise (Figs. 5.6, 5.7 Oct 21). Fig. 5.7
indicates that just as the sun was on the western horizon, Orion was positioned to rise in the east and
would appear around the time that twilight faded. Fig. 5.6 demonstrates that just as the sun rose,
Orion set in the west, having been visible all night long. Orion reached its peak hours of visibility in
265
the first week of November (Graph 1) when the Nile had receded enough for the planting season to
begin. Orion's "power" in the sprouting grain brings to mind Osiris' role as grain god, especially of
sprouting barley (Faulkner 1973: Coffin Text 330). The land was at its fertile maximum while Orion
was visible all night. By the time of the Old Kingdom, c2500 BCE, Orion's maximum visibility would
have moved forward approximately three weeks to late November, well into the planting period rather
than at the beginning (Graph 1). Still relevant as a god of sprouting grain, his greater relevancy
remains at the beginning of the Predynastic rather than during the Dynastic period.
Gradually Orion set earlier and earlier in the western sky before sunrise and by Nov 21, 4000 BCE, he
was well below the western horizon by the time the sun rose (Fig. 5.8, Nov 21). His period of visibility
in the night sky became shorter and shorter as he set earlier and earlier before sunrise. Every
morning before sunrise he set four minutes earlier in the west.
Ir, the evening in late November, by the time twilight had faded, Orion was well-risen in the east (Fig.
5 9, Nov 21), having traversed the Underworld starting well before sunrise. Inching his way across
the sky by four minutes per day, by early February, Orion appeared overhead at sunset. More and
more of his time above the eastern horizon was invisible because the sun was still up. Each night his
appearance at sunset would be closer to the West. The Nile inundation was still receding, the harvest
approached, as Orion moved closer and closer to the Western horizon, his period of visibility
shortening day by day.
By March 21, Orion was visible after sunset in the Western sky for approximately two hours (Fig.
5.10, Mar. 21). By April 21, the end of the harvest period and the beginning of the drought, Orion
rose after the sun (Fig. 5.11, Apr. 21) and set with the sun, the acronychal setting, (Fig. 5.12, Apr. 21),
and therefore would not be visible at all in the night sky. During the period of drought, Orion
appeared to have abandoned the world. He no longer presided over the night sky as he did during
the fecund periods of planting, growth, and harvest. During the drought, he was in the Underworld,
the Duat. He had lain down on his left side on the Western Horizon and disappeared bit by bit into
66 Because of the astronomical phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes, the data here is relevant only to Predynastic Egypt.Precession slightly advances the rising of stars each year until completion of the 26,000-year cycle.
266
the Underworld. He would not appear, be resurrected, until late May, an absence of approximately
two months, or 70 days. During the Dynastic period, this 70 day period, as the Egyptians reckoned it,
was the length of the embalming period prior to the opening of the mouth ceremony, at which time the
"Osiris" of the deceased was judged and resurrected in the Land of the Westerners (Neugebauer &
Parker 1960: 41, 68,73; Spencer 1982: 113).
Osiris, Orion, the Foreleg and the "Opening of the Mouth"
During the Dynastic period, after the king's body was embalmed and mummified, the sem priest
performed a ceremony which enabled the newly deceased king once again to take nourishment. This
ritual, called the "Opening of the Mouth", was facilitated by the ritual use of an implement. Two
implements appear in the iconography and texts: the pss-kf knife and the mshtyw-nw3 adze.
The pss-kf knife, known from at least Nagada 1 times and found in numerous graves (Roth 1992:
131-32), originated as a delicately knapped flint knife with a divided blade resembling a fish's tail, and
hence was also termed "fishtail knife" (ibid Fig. 4, p. 128). After the First Dynasty, it appeared in an
idealised form, made from various kinds of stone, and formed part of a "kit" for embalming
procedures (ibid 113-116).
The pss-kf, or fish tail, knife accompanies three graves containing figurines (Table 3.1). Roth
catalogues 32 Predynastic pss-kf knives; 16 of these are from Nagada graves (Roth 1992: 131-2,
Tables 1 & 2). The early Nagada knives come predominantly from the poorer cemetery, NEast, while
the later Nagada knives are all from the richer cemetery, NWest. Unlike the figurines, the pss-kf
knives appear to have been appropriated by the higher class members of Nagada society.
Just how the knife was used in the Opening of the Mouth ceremony has not been decisively
determined. Roth postulated that cutting the mouth after death had the same effect as cutting the
umbilical cord after birth, in that both acts enabled the newly born being to take sustenance: the dead
taking food for the afterlife, the baby taking the mother's milk (Roth 1992: 120-127). The pss-kf
knife, therefore, according to Roth, served the utilitarian purpose of severing the umbilical cord as
FIG. 5.3a
sunrise9 May 4000 BCE
Heliacal Rising of Orion
CrudFornax
Pyxis • 1.10jans7lanaeleon
05:14Mau 19 4000BC•falr0264233'N32 30'E1000 Stars M4.6Zoom 1.50Dir 140'=SSE )ardalis .El ear 0'
Hydra
• Androneda•
PhoenixLepus
••Capint°"1"rin"
RetkcnInti.
Pictur H• Dorado ydrus•
PRiPis . Mensa
Afaricolts•
••
I'PEN
( C:eoiri fi4 ... $E\e-teltilrn Pi01‘ . -
/ "N't '''-'----,1 •V Y/.., • v
// Canis Minor.
Cancer • Monoceros) . -.
0/ \ - ColumLa)
,n al~ Canis Major
Pisc:s Anstril
SculptorEridanus
•. rncana Indus
Octans
S I
rriangUlumPerseus
Aries–Pisces. •
• Cetus
N\\Pe gasus /
•UN
E SE ornax
PegasusN
05:01Jun 02 4000BC
dlro •26'33'
E'N
30 lielapardalis32 1000 Stars M4.6Zoom 1.50Div 140°=-SSEEleu 0'
miriangtilumPerseus
S
quarius
Piscis AusSculptor
S
Canis Minor. Lepus
Cancer • MainoceresCaeltlaorologiumColunlaCanis adaW
ReticulumFictov • •[Napa
Phoenix
•
lucana• Indus
Dorado Hmarus FIG. 5.3bPuppis
• sunriseSextans P9xis
Mensa•
02 June 4000 BCE
' Volans Octans Heliacal Rising of RigelVela Chamaeleon'Carina Orion's "left thigh"
Antlia
04:54Jun 21 40003Cmairo26'33'M32'30'E1000 Stars M4.6Zoom 1.50Dir 14 SSEElev 0'
• Lynx
Iiiangulum.Perseus •
Aries
Cetus
Eridanus .
FornaxHonoceros
PictorReticu/umPuipis .
DoradoPgxis
E.
Sextans
Canis Hi n o p* -1 Cancer. Liras
N
Hydra36514"a Caelum
. .Horologium
siSculptor
Piscis
Phoenix
Hydrus Tucana
erkatex.
Antlia Vela •l▪ • - anS• Carina▪ U
Hensa 'tufts
,ChamaeleonOctans
rn
FIG. 5.4
sunrisesummer solstice 4000 BCE
Orion fully visible in the eastbefore sunrise.
270
Hours
1
5'oo itc-el0
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Growing Harvest Low Water New Year Flood Planting
VISIBILITY OF ORION IN THE NIGHT SKY 4000 BCE UPPER EGYPT
Derived from rising and setting times of Orion and the Sun (Appendix 2)One hour has been subtracted in order to account for twilight.
GRAPH I
MainKhar1oum
iver
Nile L'tplus
Athara
p.Vil1
1
11iiii
O
From Blue Nile _._ \ him..niftlii
C . ..--...„1
--- iFr. in_IfiVhileL Nilq
100
0
(�).1)%4..)
(1.)
50
400
O
300
■ 20G
271
A graph gives the contribution of the three main components to the totalwater regime. It shows the seasonal scarcity from December to June andthe peak of supply from July to October. ..
den. Fe 6. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug Sege, Oct. Nor. Dec.
' Graph showing the water contribution of the main components of the Nile based on
observations from 1912 to 1936. Although wide fluctuations of discharges exist, the long.
term averages of discharge are valid at present. From Hurst 1952.
ANNUAL INUNDATION OF THE NILE GRAPH 2
Canceranis Minor
'Hydra Monoceros
543Aug 21 €120/3BCairy26 c'33 ' N32'31211Evalae Stars Mel. 6Zoom 1.50Dir 14 SSEEl ev
Sextans
Lepusanis Hajar
Er i &an u.s 'Pyxis.
Puppis
Co 1 unhacrater.
tliaCorvtis E Caen 1
uela ■ ForgiaxPictor
• '
N-
I '44-. ':• • Cen taurus crux
••
%
Musca
liOPOLoyi an. Carina • . Dorado- Reticulum .
• Ua lans
MensaydruS• Chanaeleon
'Phoenix-.• Apus:• FIG. 5.5
• • . Circinus• • -Liuplts AustrAre'ans
Sculptor— • Tr i angu lucana just before sunrise
Ho rna 2". 21 Aug 4000 BCE• Paulo
Indus Orion overhead at dawn light
05:50 ..-----Oct 21 40(aliiBC i.. .,-.'"*air° 5 r -d.26'33 IN32'30'E <-'10013 Stars Mel. 6 v1.35 CorusCratfPZoom Di r. 170"=SSEElev t
Sextans .CanDerara
Gina' •Cinbinus Husca. '
I Tr angultni AustraleMarna- Volans.
–4 .SI Scorpi 111 Y.I!kC h a it a e lean
• - •Ara
. • Oc tans ._/ Pa.vo • • Cageluta7elescopian Hyarus
' Reti Dud UMSar ttari us;tral is Hara lagius
•
Lupus
Cen t a.urnsi
• Crux •
Mensa. Pi DtorDoraao.
Canis MinorAntlia
Pyxis
.•Uela • • PlonocePos -".
•• • ••.." .. -Puppis•
Canis Major•
Calutsba
brion.
• Lepus. .
. • I nclusT 4c an a.
>IC')Microscopium„.„,
Phoenix
. Ericlanusfornax .
• - SculptorCapri asornuPi se i s Austrinus •
Ce t us •
' .
FIG. 5.6
sunrise
21 Oct 4000 BCE
Orion sets as sun rises, havingbeen visible since sunset
17:56Oct 21 4000BC-mairo26'33'M32"30"E1000 Stars M4.6Zoom 1.25Dir 186"=SSWElev 0"Androneda
Uulpecula
Delphinusii\i'egasns •
Equalens
•
Aquariusisces
Pisci
.
Austrinus. MicroscopinnSculptor /
Gros Sagittarius ororia Auslralis S."
Triangultui Aquila.erpens Cauda
%/>1./ranrus
Q '110
Scutun
Cetus
• SE S •
. . Vela
.Eridanusibrnax . .Phoenix •• . . !•Incits
T mean a - Telescopic ., .---Scryi....-usAra
1ailio
Morotoginn .Lepns Caelum Reticulum.
• 1119dPRSOctans
• • Norma ..- 1%-rado Mensa Triangulun Anstrale. .*
Columba Pictqr . Apus • Chpoiael eon Cire inns
Lupus. •
' jnr'Canis Illa
''''''-' ,_ ' ' • •
I) •4 1. an 5 • Mitsca
• ••-Ne•• 7-,. • .L
-
' • • • \Ai •. ' Ca. Li" . na- . •Crux i.
• • • • •I.
. ...Pis
FIG. 5.7
sunset21 Oct 4000 BCE
Orion is ready to rise afterdusk and be visible all night.
He sets as the sun rises (HG 5.6)
Lupus • Centaurus
-4 Dc tansS 1N SE.
Mensa onoceros
• CruxHo ppm,...rcanus
P9xis--••
CavinaiAustralerw.ca
Altus
06:10Hoy 21 40@OBC-maim26"33'M324:'30'E1000 Stars M4.6Zoom 1.35Div 136"=-SSWElev 0'
'Litra
a14PA
UP"
..,1er •/
M'' S c a pp i itsV4 i• ifi ---t--•11E5.
i' ,1 . Irianulum
Sagittarius..,t t - "Ar'a "
• 1 e .•carion nu tr li • •'t 1 1 a% e escopiun.
Patio
Semtaus
Hydra
Cancer.
ChatiaelcUnl a.ns• Pupp is Canis Mina) u•I0
• SU W'
Orion sets well before sunrise
CD.VV1.115
Crater
AnUia
Foram(EPiaanns
FIG. 5.8
sunrise21 Nov 4000 BCE
Le pusr=lelum. Mo pologinn .Phoenix'
. I1 Microscopium
Capri cornus
Indus •lucana.
. •
Sculptor
Hy4rus•Dora.an• Fie tor
•Reticut uw
Canis Mawr
Columba.
Austrinus
-Aquarius
17:28Nov 21 4000BCbiro26'33'N32'30IE1000 Stars M4.6Zoom 1.35Di p 186"=SSWElev 0'
• And▪ runeda
rseurrian guluum
gasus
Aries pelphinus
Equuleus
I114F3.
. Capr▪ icornusp i cis Austrinus.•Scuipor
0S . SU . SLN W. e'''
gr" Nicroscopiun
• Phoenix
Canis Ma:jor Reticniun.
PictorHg's•Doradoy
Mensa
Te 1 escopi um
Pau o.Octans . Ara'. , Scorpius
Puppis• Chameleon
• • . Norna• Volans • • firbulIriangulun Australe
_Carina • Mica Circinus• •
• Vela • •
Aquila
. Scutum
Monocero's A Colunla
CaelHorologiuM - SagrittariEEw▪▪ Tucaniindus. ye"Carona Australis
Taurus• Cetus
Eridanus
• Fornax
-1,e7pus
rn
FIG. 5.9
sunset21 Nov 4000 BCE
Orion rises as the sun sets,but sets before the sun rises
Auriga•
Monocepos
SH
•
• S N• SPict"Cae▪ inn
• I▪ ndus'SCRiptoP
le▪ lescopium
17:40Mari 21 4000BC*aim26'33'N32'30'E1000 Stars M4.6Zoom 1.35Diri 186'=SSWElev i0° crater
firat i a. Paxlis
• ' •
' Vela •' Pappj. s Can s Major. .
•
DoradoChamaeleon ..
Mensa RetairiA°91.1111/1ApusAustrale Hgdrus • Fornax
Octans
Eridanus Aries
.Cetus .
•Pavo
Piscis Ausirinus
Lupus 'Circinns
lriangulumMinima
Ara
.Georint• Canis Minor tu
•VEM
rionTaurus•• V
ntaurus
ruIst
kusca"lans
Pisces1144
Phoenix• lucana -
• .•. . •
-Carina
lepusColumba
JUP
. Pancer.Sextans
Hydra
FIG. 5.10
sunset21 Mar 4000 BCE
Orion will set shortly after thesun and be visible brieflybefore disappearing
Auriga
05 :51Apr E1•11211130BCCairo26'33 '11324'3CPE1000 S tars M4.6Zoom 1.35Dir. 166'=SSEElev
•
Tri ango.1 uw --A qp_tari us
Perseus. . • -.
_Pisces▪ CaprioornusAr
•
4•'10 PIER
7>Cir
alarms . SE S
•• Eridanus orn!axphoenix
ruoana.
Horologium Pa+) o Ara
?UN/.
I minsre l. escopium
Ce tus.i sois Austrinus
MioroscopiLMSculptor. • /
GrasSagi ttaisi
51,1Co ro a Austral
Lepus Caelum Melicalun- Hydrus Dc tans
_ •
Ca lunha Pi c t oio racla Mensa'TrianguluM Australe
\Calk i s Major . Chanael eongipus •▪
Plonoceros
tiro s •
Musca• •▪ • • • '
. • ' Carina • . ' •• . . • . • _,•-a
. DPW<
Ci rcinits
■
Delph▪ inus
•Andromeda.Equ.u.leu.s
• • PuPiPip
FIG. 5.11
sunrise21 Apr 4000 BCE
Orion rises after the sun
He will set with the sun (Fig. 5.12)so is not visible at all in the nightsky
Eridanus
Cetus'
17:51Apr 21 4@0013C26'331M33 '30'10e0 Stars M4.62oom 1.45Dir 1864:'=SSWElev
Cuims. Carina. •
C i r a i nus Muisca •
Norma.
'll
Irian Ulan Australe Volans.
(. )SC rhamael eon S
.Ara.Ootans.
• • 'Pavia •Telescopium .
IncluslrucaPa
Microscopian , CPAs
Sculptor
Piscis Austrinus
1-'7.'\ I •Canis Minor APyxis )triNnt
IvEN 1
- .. • • . Monoceros . L„.....,\
Puppis --C- r-. ,•
•
Canis Maw Ep r•
- • brion/Columba ui-Lepus. . r
sr•
CaelanHydrusReticulumHoralogium
Fornax •
•
Corvus CraterSemtans
'Hydra
Antliaj,•-1
Centauinus:Uela..▪
PictorHansa Dorado •
Co
FIG. 5.12
sunset21 Apr 4000 BCE
Orion, having risen after thesun, sets with the sun andhence is not visible in thenight sky at all.
Acronychal setting of Orion.
280
well as the metaphorical purpose of severing the deceased k3's connection with earthly life, enabling
it to survive in the afterlife.
As far as I can determine, the second implement, the mshtyw-nw3 (Meskhetiu) adze (Fig. 4.15b) was
not known during the Predynastic, as I have not located any objects resembling this shape. Tipped
with a blade of meteoric iron, it opened the mouth of the deceased's mummy, enabling the mummy to
take food in the afterlife. It is, however, related to possible Predynastic mortuary practice through its
association with the foreleg, an important Dynastic ritual offering to the deceased and to Osiris, which
probably had its origin in the Predynastic rituals involving cattle.
The bull's (k3) foreleg constituted an important, perhaps principal, portion of the food (k3w) presented
to the deceased as Osiris after the Opening of the Mouth ceremony (Roth 1992: 126). One spell of
the Pyramid Texts specifically associates the foreleg with the actual Opening of the Mouth
performance. The word for the implement in this spell (Hph) is a pun on the word foreleg (Faulkner
1969: 3 n.1). The adze-shaped implement does not appear in the Pyramid Texts (Roth 1992: 113-
116), and, while the shape of the Hph implement is not known, this spell implies it was shaped like the
foreleg:
O Osiris the King, I split open your mouth for youwith the [Hph] of the Eye of Horus - 1 [one] foreleg. (Pyr. 12)
In this spell, the officiating priest uses the implement to open the mouth of the mummy and then
offers the mummy the first food of the afterlife, a foreleg. It appears that the Egyptians still practised
this sequence in this order at the time of Tutankhamen, for Fig. 4.15b places the mshtyw-nw3 adze
and the foreleg together on the offering table.
Although no record of the adze-shaped implement appears during the Predynastic or Old Kingdom, its
association with the foreleg suggests a link to the constellation of Ursa Major, as this constellation
represented to the early Egyptians, and possibly to the Predynastic Egyptians, this ritual portion of the
bull.
281
As discussed earlier, during the entire period of Egyptian history, Ursa Major revolved around the
centre of the Northern Sky and seemed to suggest to the Egyptians a sacrificial foreleg tethered to
the Mooring Post held by a Taweret-like Hippopotamus goddess. In the illustrations on Dynastic
tombs, the foreleg always appears in the same position, tethered at about 9 or 10 o'clock in the
Northern Sky (Figs. 4.14, 4.16, 5.15). At the times that Ursa Major revolved into the same position,
the outline of the constellation mirrored that of the mshtyw-nw3 (Meskhetiu) adze (Fig. 5.13). The
name for the configuration of the foreleg in the illustrations of the Imperishable Stars of the Northern
Sky is Meskhetiu (Neugebauer & Parker 1969: 189), referred to simply as Mes by Neugebauer and
Parker. Therefore, the double entendre of the foreleg in Pyr. 12 and the constellation suggests that
the Hph was the same shape.
The association with the adze implement and Ursa Major does not appear in accounts of Egyptian
iconography and mythology. Neugebauer and Parker do not appear to make this observation. Since
making this observation myself, I have only seen a brief mention in a privately published work on
Egyptian astronomy (Bradshaw 1997: 56 n. 174) that associates it with Ursa Minor rather than Ursa
Major. 67 Consulting SkyGlobe, I determined that the constellation appeared in this position in the
Egyptian night sky for the entirety of Egyptian history and pre-history, but not year-round. While, of
course, it attained this position every day, it was visible only at night.
To the Predynastic and Ancient Egyptians, Ursa Major appeared in the night sky in the position of the
mshtyw-nw3 adze and the foreleg from mid-October to early April. At the same time, Orion could be
seen at night in the Southern Sky, and as demonstrated, followed the growth cycle of the crops after
the inundation of the Nile. Therefore, for the Predynastic Egyptians, the harbinger of new life would
not only have been the increasing length of time Orion remained in the night sky, but the sign of the
(re)birth of the k3 in the Northern Sky, with Meskhetiu's return coinciding with Orion's all-night visibility
and the beginning of the planting season, Mes having been absent during the low water, drought and
high flood periods.
67 The entry for Meskh-ti, Meskh-t is defined as the constellation of the "Great Bear" (Ursa Major) in Budge's hieroglypyic dictionary.It includes a star determinative for the adze (Budge 1978 <1920>: 326), but this connection has not informed discussions of theUrsa Major constellation available to me.
NE •
03:45Noy 07 4000BC26'33'M32'30 1 E1000 Stars M4.6Zoos 1.50Div 360'=NNEElev 0'
•
■
• -1
till
N
•
•
. : .
FIG. 5.13
Ursa Minor in the night sky.
from mid-October to early April.It mirrors the shape of theOpening of the Mouth adze.
4
O
4.•
O
0
283
&.
0 09
o sj
FORELEG (Me skia. et••• .......... ••
/ °*,
MOORING
POST
WRT ISIS
FIG. 5.14 Northern Sky — Region of the Imperishable Stars
Wrt, "The Great One" holds the "Mooring Post", to which istethered the "Foreleg" (Ursa Minor) also known as Mes(Meskhetiu). Mes here is depicted as an abstraction of a bullwith horns. Behind Wrt stands Isis. Holding the tether is thegoddess Serket.
From the Tomb of PedamenopeDynasties XXV - XXVI ca 560 BCE
284
The importance of these configurations to the agriculturally dependent Predynastic Egyptians should
not be underestimated. Dependent on the motions of the stars and constellations, rather than the sun
to mark the changes in their seasons, the early farmers would have noted the behaviour of these two
distinctive constellations at the critical times of planting, growth, and harvest. These celestial signs
would have far greater significance to them rather than to the protected priests of the Dynastic period.
Therefore, these constellations were probably noticed and interpreted religiously and symbolically
during the Predynastic stage, and then appropriated for royal purposes later by the Dynastic priests.
This point is explored in more detail below.
That the foreleg and the mshtyw-nw3 adze accompanied Orion further connects the Osirian rituals, in
this case the Opening of the Mouth, with the constellation of Orion for both Predynastic and Dynastic
Egyptians, and reinforces the importance of Osiris, or an Osirian-like agricultural and mortuary deity,
to the farming people of the Predynastic.
Conclusion
The relationship between Graphs 1 and 2 is obvious, even at first glance. In 4000 BCE Orion and the
Nile moved together throughout the year. Whatever the Predynastic Egyptians called Orion, its
significance would not have gone unnoticed, especially since its presence peaked at the start of the
planting season. As a celestial phenomenon which paralleled or guided the source of livelihood, and
which was born, waxed, waned, and died with the Nile, the crops, and fodder, Orion is well-placed to
represent the visible expression of a Predynastic deity of life, death, and resurrection. No human-
made iconography would be needed. Besides, to invite the supreme god of death, rebirth, and the
Underworld into the world of the living through a material form is dangerously unwise. Perhaps such
forces should be kept at a safe distance, in the sky – remote and contained within their own realms of
power.
One related question comes to mind, and it needs to be addressed: Since the "behaviour" of Sothis
also mirrored the ebb and flow of the Nile and the seasonal cycle, why necessarily postulate Orion
rather than Sothis as the presiding celestial deity? Most accounts of the religious life of the Egyptians
285
emphasise the coincidence of Sothis with the inundation, but the mythology never suggests that
Sothis as Isis symbolises death and resurrection, as does Osiris. She and Nephthys (possibly
Procyon, see Fig. 5.2) only assist Osiris in his journey from death and dismemberment to
rejuvenation and resurrection; Isis does not undergo the transformation herself. For this reason, this
discussion places the focus of Predynastic attention on Orion rather than Sothis and offers Orion, a
proto-Osiris, as the most promising candidate for a mortuary deity involved in the elaborate funerary
cult of the Predynastic, as it was in the Dynastic cult.
Another question comes to mind: If Orion were such an important manifestation in the Predynastic
period, why did he not feature prominently in the Pyramid Texts? Rather, Re and an ambiguously
defined Osiris dominate the mortuary rituals and spells of the deceased king, leaving scholars to
speculate on Osiris as a jackal god or fabulous beast. The following section explains why the
behaviour of the sun as Re, rather than the behaviour of Orion as Osiris, became important in the
royal mortuary cult.
The Lunar Calendar versus the Solar Calendar; Osiris versus Re; Orionversus the Sun
The Dynastic Egyptian astronomers developed a well-honed solar calendar pivoting on the first
appearance of Sirius/Sothis after her 70 days in the Duat. She and all the stars and constellations
along the belt just south of the ecliptic appeared in the east and moved across the sky after this two-
month absence. The Egyptians divided these stars into 36 constellations, each taking about 10 days
to rise before the next appeared on the horizon.
They called each of these constellations a decan, because of the 10 day period of their rising. The
Egyptian 360-day year was made up of these 36 decans, to which the Egyptians added 5 epagomenal
days - the birthdays of the gods - to arrive at the 365 day calendar, the basis of our current calendar
(Krupp 1984: 190-91; Neugebauer & Parker 1969: 81). The extra one-quarter day did not seem to
perturb the Egyptians. The combined effects of this miscalculation and the effect of the precession of
the equinoxes resulted in a reflection of ideal rather than actual time. On a nocturnal cycle, these
286
same constellations also told the hours, based on their night risings. Brief mentions in the Pyramid
Texts (Pyr. 269, 515, 1961) to the "hours" and epagomenal days indicate that the star clock and solar
calendar were in use as early as the Old Kingdom.
That the priests and astronomer/astrologers appeared little concerned for the actual "movements" of
the stars, and instead, preoccupied themselves with the texts and idealised patterns, suggests that
the elite had become removed from the source of their knowledge, the agricultural cycle. Their yearly
observances became a formality supported by symbolic ritual, rather than an acute observation of
astronomical phenomena. As the appearance of Sothis and Orion slipped out of synchronism with
the New Year, the Egyptians did nothing to rectify the anomaly, although they were certainly aware of
it (Krupp 1984: 191).
This Egyptian solar calendar of 365 days evolved from an earlier calendar, the lunar calendar, based
on the seasons: Inundation, Planting and Growth, Harvest, and Low Water (ibid 190), as illustrated in
Graph 2. This older calendar also did not coincide with the annual appearance of Orion and Sothis at
the end and beginning of the year, respectively, and adjustments had to be made. The lunar year fell
11 days short of the true solar year. The Egyptians compensated by adding an extra month every two
or three years (Krupp 1984: 190), indicating the importance of the coincidence of the agricultural
cycle with the celestial cycle. The original observations which underpinned the formalised texts,
practices, and calendar of the Dynastic period had vital significance for the earlier Egyptians, tying
the practical, earth-bound aspects of survival to the reliable regularity of the heavens. The Dynastic
priesthood and the elite, removed from such immediate contact with the cycles of the natural world,
lost cognisance of their dependence on it. The lunar calendar, which related more closely to the
seasons and to the lives of the average people who worked the land, was retained for scheduling
religious public festivals (Hornung 1992: 58), but was no longer used by the literate ruling class for
their ritual purposes.
I think, in part, this distancing from the natural world can account for the infrequent and minimal
emphasis in the Pyramid Texts on the relationship of Osiris with Orion and the inundation. Instead,
the predominating emphasis on the-relationship-of-Osiris-with k' -
287
and power became more immediate concerns. As Westendorf (1977) observed, Osiris lost his
cosmic nature and became more identified with rulership. The basis for the religion became more
and more abstracted and symbolic. After all, the Pyramid Texts were a collection of spells to help the
king attain his place in the afterlife, not a body of scripture upon which to establish practices
associated with the life and death of the average farmer. Hornung observed that the name "Osiris" in
the Pyramid Texts precedes the names of dead kings as though it were an official title (Hornung 1992:
110). Only the better-documented later periods of the Middle and New Kingdoms attest to the wide
popularity of the Osirian religion, with its emphasis on "fertility, vindication, and resurrection" (ibid
100). The Osirian religion may have always held this appeal, and only those parts of it concerned
with kingship, perhaps developed by the early priesthood, found their way into the earliest texts, the
Pyramid Texts.
After the disturbance of the First Intermediate Period, in order to regain and maintain the support of
the people, and hence their power, the elite found it expedient to acknowledge the spiritual needs of
their subjects by "democratising" the afterlife. The increasing textual references to Isis and Osiris,
and the acceptance of the correspondence between Osiris and Orion, Isis and Sothis reveal an
acknowledgment of the more popular, agriculturally-based religious beliefs and observances in which
Osiris and Isis featured more so than the deities of rulership - Re and Horus.
This dual aspect of Egyptian religion, that of rulership (Re) and agricultural fertility (Osiris), is
reflected in the dual aspect of their astronomy/astrology: the Imperishable Stars of the Northern Sky
and the Decanal belt in the southern sky. The Re system incorporates the Northern Sky with the
diurnal behaviour of the sun, which appears to enter the Underworld, but is considered to be still
active there, bringing light to those trapped in that darkness. Unlike Osiris, Re is immortal and does
not die. The sun god's behaviour is a metaphor or a model for the immortality of the king's soul as a
swallow which, in one of the two Re eschatologies, takes its place among the Imperishable Stars. As
has been explored in a number of spells, it does not go to Orion. In the Osiris-focused beliefs of the
after-life, the king, represented by Horus, dies, like Orion, the Nile, and all who derive life from it. He
is resurrected 70 days later as Osiris, Horus' father. These two "oppositional" yet complementary
288
systems are thereby made clearer when we associate them with the behaviour of the two groups of
constellations chosen by the Egyptians to reflect their religious beliefs.
Although based on the behaviour of the sun, the Re system, is not seasonal. Of the two systems, it is
the least relevant to an agricultural community, dependent on agreeable seasonal changes for its
survival and well-being. According to Krupp, although the Egyptians recognised the close
coincidence of the summer solstice and the appearance of Sothis, the Egyptian sun was an enemy,
especially at certain times of the year, (Krupp 1984: 187):
The sun . . . was ... a destructive force and an enemyof farmers. Rather it was the Nile that was recognizedas the source of cosmic good will.... The sun wasrespected for its power, but the Nile was the real rulerof Egypt.
The sun is an apt symbol of supreme power: immortal, never-changing, all-seeing, and capable of
life-giving warmth when it shines upon the newly planted crops, but also capable of devastating wrath
when its relentless heat burns the green vegetation to brown two months before the Nile flood returns.
Not surprisingly, a solar religion became that of the priestly elites, for unlike Osiris/Orion, Re does not
die for 70 days each year, leaving the land barren and without a god. Even in his punishing role in
intensifying the drought, he appears without fail every morning and wields more "power" than any
other celestial being.
For the agricultural Predynastic Upper Egyptians, while the reappearance of Sothis and Orion
promised relief, they could still not be relied on. Orion, especially, could not qualify as a supreme
ruler, for even in his reappearance he is helpless until Sothis arrives. Together they are responsible
for fertility and fecundity, but alone Orion is powerless. His unreliability and annual absence do not
fulfill the expectations demanded of a ruling deity - constancy, supremacy, and absolute power.
Although, for the Predynastic agricultural community, the combined behaviour of Orion, Sothis, and
the Nile Inundation provided an apt metaphor for an eschatology, such a system still lacked the
authority required of an all-seeing, absolute ruling power, capable of governing all aspects of life.
289
For other cultures whose religious attention also focuses on the heavens, the seasonal solar cycle
presents a cohesive universe. The undivided worship of the sun or a sun god makes sense in more
northern latitudes, such as Britain, where the return of the sun means the end of winter and the
beginning of new life. In Egypt, the solstices and equinoxes bear little relationship to the agricultural
cycle of planting, harvesting, and fallow. The Egyptian spring or planting season does not begin with
the vernal equinox in March; the summer solstice in June does not mark the peak of summer and the
growing season; the autumnal equinox in September does not mark the harvest; and the winter
solstice in December is not the nadir of their year, not the end of the old year, nor beginning of the
new year, the point at which the sun finally begins to return with its warmth and light.
With Orion marking the end of the year and Sothis marking the New Year, for the Predynastic and
Dynastic Egyptians, Orion/Sothis, rather than the sun, marked the agricultural seasons. The
equivalent of the winter solstice came in May, with the return of Orion. The equivalent of the vernal
equinox came in October, at the height of Orion's visibility. The Egyptian harvest, equivalent of the
autumnal equinox, arrived in March, as Orion diminished; and in late March/early April, the equivalent
of winter began, when Orion disappeared for 70 days. Therefore, the Egyptian lunar or seasonal year
was six months out of synchronisation with the solar year.
This tension between the seasonal and solar cycles is probably much older than the Pyramid Texts.
To the centralising forces of Upper Egypt, c3100 BCE, Orion presented an unlikely symbol for a
supreme deity; a more apt one would be found in the reliable and dominant sun. The sun god, as Re,
or Horus, the sky god in the form of a falcon with his two eyes representing the sun and moon,
expressed rulership and absolute divinity. The Narmer Palette and other Early Dynastic iconography
with the Horus names of the first documented rulers suggest the early identification of Horus as both
god and ruler. This association continued throughout the Dynastic period, with the living king
identified as Horus on the throne.
The sun god, represented by Horus, especially in his form of Re-Harakhty, rules the living (the day),
while Osiris, especially in his celestial form as Orion, rules the dead (the night). In some of the
Pyramid Texts the dead king becomes Osiris, ruling the Underworld, while the sun as Horus,
290
continues to rule the earth. By assigning the king responsibility for both rulership and the afterlife, the
Egyptians reconciled two separate and asynchronic, but equally vital, natural cycles: the sun and the
Nile (as governed by Orion/Osiris).
While the sun presented a better metaphor for rulership than Osiris/Orion, so Orion presented a more
apt symbol for the god of the Underworld and the cycle of death and resurrection. An agricultural
people more dependent on the life-sustaining cycle of Orion and the Nile than the beneficence of the
king or sun, would favour Orion rather than the sun as their symbol for immortality in the afterlife.
In Upper Egypt, more so than in lower Egypt, Predynastic burials placed the deceased in a north-
south position with the head to the south and the face to the west. Osiris, with the title, "Lord of the
Westerners" placed the resurrected dead under his care and rulership in the West. While the east is
associated with resurrection in both the Osiris and Re eschatologies, only the Osirian myths refer to
the West as a place of resurrection, as Osiris, not Re, is called the Foremost of the Westerners (Pyr.
1666, 2021). Resurrection with Re is always in the east, for Re is the deity of the eastern horizon
(Pyr. 362, 368, 585, 621, 1669, 2025). As a star who goes to Re, the dead king rises in the east with
or as the newly risen sun:
May I ascend and lift myself up to the sky asthe great star in the midst of the East. (Pyr. 1038)
My seat with Geb is made spacious, my star is seton high with Re, I travel to and fro in the Fields ofOfferings, for I am that Eye of Re which spendsthe night and is conceived and born every day.(Pyr. 698)
As unification took place, those myths most relevant to rulership became more important than the
myths surrounding agriculture and the Orion-Nile connection – more important to the elite, that is.
The average villager would still look to Orion and Sothis for sustenance, while the priests and nobility
would look increasingly to the king as a representative of the sun god. When the Heliopolitan priests
organised the cosmogonic gods into the Ennead, with the sun god in the form of Atum at the head,
Osiris took his place as the son of the earth god, Geb, and the sky goddess, Nut. If the Ennead
represented a cosmic hierarchy, then the sun, as creator and sustainer of life is supreme, while Osiris,
291
as an agricultural fertility god, takes a subordinate position, despite his role as father of Horus, the
temporal sun god on the throne.
CONCLUSION
The connection between Orion and the agricultural cycle could have provided the Predynastic
Egyptians with a model upon which to develop their eschatology as well as their calendar. Like Orion,
the Nile, and the vegetation, the human being grew, flourished, subsided and died. After death, the
human soul remained in the Underworld for 70 days, after which it was resurrected in the West, just
as Orion, the Nile and the vegetation were resurrected after a period of fallow. The combination of a
dying vegetation god, a god of fertility, and sometimes a god of immortality is a common theme in
early agricultural communities from Canaan to Sumer and even Japan, removed from any Near
Eastern influence, and is repeated in the lunar-like resurrection of Christ after three days in the tomb.
Such an association of a male god with agricultural fertility may also be present in the Tantric myths
of India, in which Shakti revives her spouse, Shiva, after a period of dormancy.
It is significant that Orion's life and death take place at night, while the sun god is in the Underworld,
not during the day, when the sun god's power is at its height. That Orion is a celestial being of the
night possibly also contributed to his unsuitability as a supreme deity and confined his activities to the
Underworld, with his son, Horus, actively ruling by day. Orion, therefore, is both a celestial and
chthonic power. He is an "invisible god", yet capable of representation through a celestial entity. As
a cosmogonic god, like Ptah, Atum, Re, Amun, Nut, Geb, Shu, and Tefnut, he finds his most
appropriate expression in anthropomorphic form. During the Predynastic, this form may have been
purely mental, as in other similar cultures, but with associations in the stars. In the Dynastic period,
with the development of official doctrines, centrally organised religious rituals, elaborate temples and
public festivals, the need for statuary and visual representation developed as well. The
anthropomorphic gods of the imagination took artistic expression in human form. The deities
associated with Osiris who had theriomorphic or therianthropic expressions in the Predynastic
revealed their anthropomorphic natures. Isis, Nephthys, and Horus – three bird deities with
292
relationships with Osiris — demanded a more human presence in the historic period, but their birdlike
attributes persisted as physical attributes and textual references throughout the Dynastic period.
In this chapter, I have argued for the presence of Osiris, or a proto-Osiris, as a main mortuary deity in
the Predynastic period in Upper Egypt. Without any material evidence, the only connections for
Osiris to the Predynastic period can be gathered from non-archaeological sources, such as historical
texts (the Pyramid Texts), ethnography (specifically the Nuer and Dinka), insights from comparative
religion, and the implications for religion taken from the natural environment. Such evidence can
never be conclusive, but only present possibilities consistent with later historical developments.
The argument for the Predynastic existence of Osiris prepares the ground for the interpretation of at
least some of the grave figurines as components of the Osirian mortuary cult. In the following
chapter, I present such an interpretation, focusing on Isis, Nephthys, Hathor, and Nut — the first three
are anthropomorphic deities with celestial power, each with a particular and intimate relationship to
Osiris, while Hathor, a popular goddess, has an intimate relationship with the dead.
A connection between these deities and the figurines would explain the absence of the figurines in
upper class graves. As part of the Osirian rituals, the figurines would not be so important to the upper
classes, who looked more to the increasing dominance of the solar cults, eventuating in the focus on
Horus and Re. The figurines, as part of the "folk culture" of ordinary people, could have been
considered "common", and to distinguish themselves above the common folk, the upper classes
would have developed their own exclusive rituals, choosing objects such as the wavy-handled pottery
to signify their status. Such separation of official cult and devotional religion, typical of Dynastic
religion, continued at least until the New Kingdom (Baines 1991c: 197). In the late Predynastic and
Early Dynastic, the gradual incorporation of Osirian deities and beliefs into elite practice, indicated
perhaps by the mortuary shift from Nagada to Abydos, resulted in their uncomfortable relationship
with Re in the Pyramid Texts, and the reinstatement of the Osirian female deities in rituals
surrounding the death of the king.