From Karnak; Wasmuth 2017a: p. 248 Abb. 54a.
The most problematic representation of the king's cultural double role would have been the canonic scene of the Egyptian king slaying his (Nubian, Libyan, and Asiatic) foes on the pylon front of a temple. This was intentionally avoided at the temple of Hibis by omitting the pylon in the contemporary building plan; a screen wall featuring Darius embedded in the Egyptian pantheon occupies its place at the temple front (Davies 1953: pls. 38–43). However, the right‐hand panel conveys essentially the same message as the emblematic pylon scene (Figure 20.4): Darius – who appears in anthropomorphic form with falcon head and plumage – strikes the enemy par excellence (i.e. the serpent Apophis) with a lance evoking the weapon of the slaying scene (Sternberg el‐Hotabi and Aigner 2006: p. 543). Because of the setting and the accompanying legend, this last picture is associated with the god Seth (of the oases and in his function as a god of foreign countries) and is to be read: “Darius, the Persian, who guarantees maat by slaying his foes, the living foreign Horus” (Wasmuth 2017a: p. 238, see also pp. 235–238). Interestingly enough, the composition was adapted for Ptolemaic and Roman pylon decorations, where the originally Persian lion accompanies the slaying king (Sternberg el‐Hotabi and Aigner 2006: p. 543), and the hybrid depiction as anthropomorphic figure with falcon head and plumage becomes characteristic for “Seth of the Oases” (e.g. on the walls of the Roman temples at Dakhla oasis, see Kaper 1997).
Figure 20.4 Temple front of Hibis avoiding the emblematic “slaying of the foes” scene.
Source: Hibis, in situ; Wasmuth 2017a: p. 248 Abb. 54b.
Apart from these sources of mixed influences, sources within the Egyptian cultural tradition are known (cf. Bresciani 1958; Posener 1936; Willeitner 2003; Curtis and Tallis 2005: pp. 172–173; the series Excavations at North Saqqâra of the Egypt Exploration Society, London): for example, parts of Achaemenid Hibis and Ghueita temple decorations (both Charga oasis), evidence for building activities in several temples in the Nile Valley and Delta (Busiris, Karnak, Elkab), the religious epitaphs for Apis (Memphis), the stelae from the Serapeum (Saqqara), the mummies from the animal necropolis at Saqqara‐North, and cultic objects such as naoi (Tuna el‐Gebel), handles of sistra, vessels (Tanis, Tell Muqdam/Leontopolis, Memphis, Fayyum, Karnak). The only Persian aspect of these instances is a Persian royal name.
Meanwhile, objects of a predominantly Persian character are rare in Egypt. The few examples that point to a Persian background are hard to verify due to a lack of similar corpora of sources from the Persian heartland. Most small‐scale objects inscribed in Persian, namely an alabastron, a door socket, and a metal shoe of a carrying pole (Michaélidis 1943), are open to discussion regarding their genuineness due to their unknown provenance and the absence of comparable finds. Yet, there is evidence for Achaemenid metal vessels in the Tell el‐Maskhuta Hoard (for similar finds see, for example, Figures 95.2 and 95.3), some jewelry and lion vessels from Tell Muqdam/Leontopolis, and the fire altars in the canal region (see above and Cooney 1965).
Surprisingly, there is no stratigraphic evidence in Egypt for a certain type of Achaemenid vessels usually associated with Egypt: vessels made of calcit alabaster inscribed with a royal label (see Posener 1936: pp. 137–151; Westenholz and Stolper 2002; Schmitt 2001). During the reign of Darius I and in the early years of Xerxes I, the inscriptions follow the Egyptian phraseology: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, royal name, he may live eternally; year X.” A different contemporary version adds the cuneiform inscription “royal name, the king” in Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian. During the reigns of Xerxes I to Artaxerxes III, the Egyptian phraseology is replaced by rendering the cuneiform formula into Egyptian, either as pr‐‘3 p3‐‘3 or only pr‐‘3, thereby transforming the Egyptian vessels into a Persian one with a “royal tag” in four official languages. In comparison with the evidence from the canal stelae and the headless statue of Darius, it is to be postulated that p3‐‘3 is the Egyptian rendering of the Persian title “Great King,” therefore labeling the king either as “(Egyptian) Pharaoh and (Persian) Great King” or solely as “Pharaoh” (Wasmuth 2015 : pp. 218–224; Wasmuth 2017a: pp. 207–214).
A diversity of cultural traditions as well as idiosyncratic combinations characterizes the non‐royal representational sources of the mid‐first millennium. Stelae (see e.g. Vittmann 2009; Bresciani 1958: pp. 177–178) and tombs (see the discussion in Aston 1999a and the series Abusir of the Czech Institute of Egyptology, Praha) within the Egyptian cultural tradition face the same difficulties as contemporary statues. When not dated with the reigning king's name, they tend to be dated to the twenty‐sixth dynasty or Ptolemaic period because of their unequivocally Egyptian character. However, at least with the statues of Ptahhotep (Figure 20.5) and Udjahorresnet (Figure 12.1), who are comparatively well‐known figures in twenty‐seventh dynasty Egypt (cf. Bareš 1999: pp. 31–43; Lopez 2015), it can be shown that non‐royal art production for the Egyptian “elite” could be of the finest quality. Less definite is the interpretation of the statues' significance: although the inscriptions appear to suggest only a partial acceptance of the ruler (Rößler‐Köhler 1991: pp. 270–275), Persian decorations are conspicuous. Ptahhotep actually wears a Persian torquet as well as an Egyptian pectoral (Figure 20.5). Albeit possible that wearing the Egyptian adornment was meant as a subtle hint of opposition to the foreign ruler, it seems more convincing to interpret the statue as an act of loyalty toward both rulers: the twenty‐sixth dynasty pharaoh who had advanced Ptahhotep in the early stages of his career as well as the foreign ruler who promoted him later on (Wasmuth 2017c).
Figure 20.5 Statue of Ptahhotep displaying Egyptian and Persian “gold of honor” (unknown provenance).
The amount and state of sources available for determining how the Persian population was represented or presented itself leave much to be desired. Though completely un‐Egyptian representations in the round featuring Mesopotamian/Persian elements are preserved, their exact provenance is unknown. Among these are a man carved in ivory, a woman in high relief made of terracotta, and several heads of stone (Traunecker 1995; Vittmann 2003: pp. 151–152). Whether they are to be interpreted as divine, royal or non‐royal representations is still a matter of contention. Similar questions surround the terracotta heads from Memphis that feature characteristics of foreigners and probably date from the Achaemenid period (Scheurleer 1974: pp. 83–84).
Much better, though not exhaustive data are available for persons of non‐Egyptian and non‐Persian extraction as well as for persons of mixed parentage: notably funerary stelae for Arameans, Carians, eastern Ionians, and Phoenicians (Vittmann 2003). At least one example of unquestioned authenticity is known of a person of mixed parentage featuring Persian elements: the stela of Djedherbes (Mathieson et al. 1995; here Figure 20.6), son of a Persian father and an Egyptian mother, which in all likelihood dates to the fourth century BCE (Wasmuth 2017b). Probably, the composition of different registers with a mummification scene and a scene of offering/feasting is characteristic for persons of mixed parentage and/or multiple cultural identities. On close examination, the stela reveals an amazing number of different influences – elements of Persian, Egyptian, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Carian cultural traditions have been identified (Wasmuth 2017b). As the outcome looks homogenous, it can be postulated