region of the modern Suez Canal, northwestern Sinai, the Nile Delta and Valley to its adjacent desert areas and the oases. There are royal, “elite” and “non‐elite” sources; representational and functional sources; “state,” temple, and “private” sources; sources in situ, in progress of excavation, in collections, and lost sources (i.e. having been transferred or destroyed since antiquity). Moreover, the sources reveal sacral, funerary, profane, and representational activities. Still unrivaled collections of data are provided by Posener (1936) and Bresciani (1958).
Most of the known sources date, or are commonly dated, to the first Persian period (twenty‐seventh dynasty). This is due to the presence of the royal name of “Darius,” although that may refer to either Darius I, II, or III. Fortunately, some of the most monumental and longest‐known sources (e.g. the canal stelae), but also private stelae from the Serapeum in Saqqara, can definitely be attributed to Darius I because of the regnal year mentioned. Many other objects (e.g. handles of sistra, vessels, etc.) derive from insufficiently known stratigraphic contexts and should be given an ambiguous date, though they are likely to originate from the much longer first Persian dominion. Accurate dating of non‐royal art and architecture is particularly difficult as independent dating criteria are still to be established (e.g. Josephson 1997: p. 14). Statues composed within the Egyptian cultural tradition tend to be dated to the twenty‐sixth dynasty because of their “trueness to original”; statues incorporating foreign elements that cannot easily be assigned to a specific cultural tradition are usually thought to stem from the Ptolemaic period. However, without a major project that reevaluates the complete corpus of private statuary from the twenty‐fifth dynasty to the Ptolemaic period within its prosopographic context, an evaluation of private representational art under Persian rule remains impossible. Most dating criteria for the Persian period that focus on style or composition can be shown to be under‐determined: e.g. the so‐called “Persian gesture” and “Persian garment” are neither specifically Persian nor restricted to the Persian period, but can already be found on twenty‐sixth dynasty monuments (e.g. Schulman 1981; Vittmann 2009: p. 97). Persian period pottery and “small finds” like amulets pose similar challenges. Even though there is evidence from recent excavations (cf. the discoveries at Tell el‐Herr: e.g. Valbelle 1999, and Abusir: Bareš et al. 2005) suggesting a potential Persian period origin, the majority of comparative material is often generally dated to the Late Period (e.g. Müller‐Winkler 1987, who omits the twenty‐seventh to thirty‐first dynasties from her chronological table of artifacts; see also Aston 1999a with respect to the dating of tombs).
The old scientific paradigm notwithstanding, building and cultic activities in the king's name, continued in all regions of the Egyptian realm: in the canal region with a focus on Persian cultic activities, in the Nile Valley, the Delta, and northwestern Sinai with a focus on the continuation of Egyptian cultic traditions and fortification, and in the oases with boosting cultivation and settlement (see Wasmuth 2017a including the map on pl. I; see already Gamer‐Wallert and Schefter 1993). Apart from actual in‐situ finds, this can also be deducted from the Achaemenid period quarry inscriptions found in the Eastern desert (e.g. Bongrani Fanfoni and Israel 1994; Posener 1936: pp. 98–130).
One core area of royal monumental display is along the canal joining the Red Sea and the Wadi Tumilat and thus providing a navigable waterway from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. This waterway was reopened under Darius I and marked at strategic points – i.e. the gulf coast (Suez/Kubri), the southern edge of the Bitter Lakes (Kabret/Shallûf), and the junction between the north–south and east–west canal at the northern edge of the Bitter Lakes (Serapeum) – by a monumental stela (the so‐called “canal stelae”), but also by a fire altar, and at least one further monument. Accordingly, these locations did cater for Persian cultic/festive/representational functions besides being visible markers of a route of transport (Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 125–199, 263–269, pls. I–III; see also Tuplin 1991; Bresciani 1998; Posener 1936: especially pls. V–XV). At the first major town in the Wadi Tumilat, nowadays Tell el‐Maskhuta, a further monumental stela was placed (Posener 1936: pl. IV), which is based on a different master copy. The construction inscription is substantially shortened in favor of a more detailed comment on the legitimacy of the king's rule over Egypt (Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 144–146). While the Kabret and Kubri stelae combine predominantly “Persian” and “Egyptian” faces, the Maskhuta stela has only an “Egyptian” face (Figure 20.1). To date, there is no evidence for an additional stela featuring a “Persian” version (Schweiger 1998: pp. 184–185, 605–608).
Figure 20.1 Reconstruction of the “Egyptian” and “Persian” faces of the Kabret stela.
Source: From the Suez canal region; Wasmuth 2017a: Pls. II‐III.
Not a juxtaposition as on these stelae but a close combination of Persian and Egyptian elements within one monument or at least one distinct part of a monument occurs in the lists of toponyms on the “Egyptian” faces of the stelae (i.e. Kubri, Kabret, and Maskhuta) and on the base of the by now headless statue of Darius I that was produced in Egypt and transferred to Susa in antiquity (Kervran et al. 1972; Perrot et al. 1974; Trichet and Vallat 1990; here Figure 94.8). Rather than choosing the most characteristic gesture, posture, attribute, etc. within Achaemenid and/or Egyptian tradition, the artists went for elements of high representational value and of similar associations, meaning, and functions within both cultures (and, if possible, also within Mesopotamian royal tradition; for a detailed discussion see Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 101–124). Its original site of erection is still open to discussion; so far the temple areas of Tell el‐Maskhuta and Heliopolis have been suggested (see Bresciani 1998: pp. 103, 110). The same is true for the question of how explicitly the Persian nature of the king was given prominence on this monument: dress and attributes are Persian; the inscriptions are predominantly Egyptian; posture and gesture may derive from either tradition; the head is missing and the headdress can plausibly be reconstructed to have been in either Egyptian or Persian style (as on the coins with depictions of Artaxerxes III wearing Persian court dress and an Egyptian double crown, see Allotte de la Fuÿe 1928 and here Figure 20.2, or a Persian crown like several other monumental statues at Susa, see Luschey 1983; see also further reading).
Figure 20.2 Stater commemorating the reconquest of Egypt.
Source: From Susa; Wasmuth 2017a: p. 201 Abb. 50.
A third strategy of representing the king in his double role as Egyptian pharaoh and Persian Great King works by means of association. It is mainly attested in sacral art stylizing Darius not only as legitimate king of Egypt but also as a living god of the Egyptian pantheon (Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 245–249). On plaques from Karnak, his image evokes the god Hapi (Müller 1970: p. 178; here Figure 20.3), and several depictions from the twenty‐seventh dynasty temple front in Hibis (Charga oasis) present Darius as living Horus: Darius (identified by a legend) is shown as a falcon receiving “life (ankh)” from the gods (Davies 1953: pl. 39). Similarly, Darius in the form of a falcon is worshipped on the stela of Padiuserpare (Vittmann 2003: p. 139 Figure 60; Sternberg‐el Hotabi 2009).