Krebsbach - The Persians and Atum worship in Egypt’s 27th dynasty

The Persians and Atum worship in Egypt’s 27th dynasty Jared B. Krebsbach

Introduction In the past few decades, some valuable studies have helped shed light on Egypt’s 27th dynasty, also known as the First Persian Period (Kienitz 1953; Posener 1936). These studies have helped elucidate several aspects of this often enigmatic period. One such aspect is the Achaemenid Persians’ tendency to allow their subject peoples the freedom to practise their native religions unhindered (Allen 2005, 126ಥ127). At the same time, the Persians influenced their foreign subjects’ religious traditions to a certain extent, particularly with the taxation of temple revenues (Joisten-Pruschke 2008, 64). Similarly, to date, the influence of Egypt’s long enduring religious traditions on the Persians remains unexamined. Textual evidence, surviving in both Egypt and Persia, suggests that the Persians had a special affinity to the Egyptian god Atum and may have altered their own religion – at least publicly – to conform to a more Egyptian religious expression. This paper will explore why the Persians favoured Atum over other Egyptian gods, particularly Osiris, and how Atum related to the Persians’ own religious practices. Ultimately, it will be shown that the Persians’ decision to alter or modify their religion publicly, was less a matter of trying to conform to the conquered Egyptians’ religion, but rather a conscious decision that was in line with their own theological beliefs. That this decision also helped realize their political and propagandistic agenda further demonstrates the Persians’ political acumen.

Atum in 27th dynasty hieroglyphic texts The hieroglyphic texts in which the Persians invoked the Egyptian deity Atum are varied and appear to suggest the importance of this god to the foreign rulers. Probably the most interesting of these inscriptions comes from the Memphite Serapeum. Most inscriptions in the Serapeum – either on votive stelae donated by non-royals or epitaphs left by kings – invoked the syncretic deity Apis-Osiris (Malinine et al. 1968; Vercoutter 1962). Although the common Apis-Osiris was invoked in Serapeum inscriptions from the reigns of Cambyses and Darius I, there exist two notable instances of the syncretic Apis-Atum. Epitaph stelae from year 6 of Cambyses and year 4 of Darius I invoked Apis-Atum as he “who grants all life” (Posener 1936, 31, 37). It should be pointed out that although an Osiris-Apis-Atum-Horus is known from a 19th dynasty Serapeum inscription (Otto 1964, 19; Brugsch 1878, 38), these two mentions of Apis-Atum by the Persians are the most known from any dynasty. Another important primary source in which the Persians gave homage to Atum in a hieroglyphic inscription is the statue of Darius I from Susa. In this inscription the king is described

98

Jared B. Krebsbach

as “the son of Re born of Atum” while Atum is referred to as the “lord of Heliopolis” (Yoyotte 1972, 253ಥ266). The historical significance of this statue cannot be overstated because it is the only known intact example of Persian colossal royal statuary from the Achaemenid Period (Muscarella 1992, 219ಥ220), so the placement of Atum as foremost of the Egyptian pantheon is important. Two other 27th dynasty sources that place Atum in a central position are the naophorous statue of the doctor Udjahorresent (Posener 1936, 1ಥ26) and the Hibis temple in the el-Kharga oasis (Cruz-Uribe 1988). Although construction of the Hibis temple began in the 26th dynasty during the reign of Psammetichus II and continued through the Roman Period, Darius I’s cartouche is written in numerous places and there are several references to Atum and images of the king with this god (Cruz-Uribe 1988, 44, 62).

Atum in Egyptian religious texts In order to determine the significance Atum held to the Persians in the above inscriptions, one must first examine this deity’s origins and significance in Egyptian religion. Atum is first referenced in dozens of utterances from the 5th and 6th dynasty Pyramid Texts (Faulkner 1969). In these early religious texts, Atum was often depicted as a solar god who created the universe. As a solar god, he was sometimes paired with Re (Faulkner 1969, 44ಥ45, Utterance 217), but also stood alone as the sun, such as in Utterance 362 where he was the sun of the night sky (Faulkner 1969, 118). His creative attributes were described in many texts, since the “earth was issued from Atum” (Faulkner 1969, 49ಥ50, Utterance 222) but he also protected the dead king by “enclosing him within your arms” (Faulkner 1969, 42ಥ43, Utterance 215) and by making “the king sturdy” (Faulkner 1969, 131ಥ132, Utterance 402). The numerous references to Atum’s attributes as creator and protector in the Pyramid Texts demonstrates this deity’s theological importance in early Egyptian religion – at least in as far as it was articulated in writing – which no doubt contributed to his appearance in 27th dynasty texts. Atum continued to play a central role in Egyptian religion after the Old Kingdom, which can be seen in the Coffin Texts from the Middle Kingdom and the Book of the Dead and other literature from the New Kingdom. In the Coffin Texts Atum is referred to as the “Lord of All” (Faulkner 1973, I: 144, Spell 167; III: 167, Spell 1130) a title which coincides with his creative and kingly attributes, as revealed in the Pyramid Texts. The concept of Atum as the “Lord of All” or “All Lord” was also present in the New Kingdom tale The Contendings of Horus and Seth, as the god sat at the head of the Ennead which decided the fates of Horus and Seth (Lichtheim 1976, II: 214ಥ223). Atum was also prevalent in the New Kingdom Book of the Dead, as he possessed the same attributes discussed above but was also depicted as the destroyer of the universe (Allen 1974, 183ಥ185, Spell 175). One can list many more examples from all periods of pharaonic history that demonstrate the importance of Atum in the Egyptian pantheon. The theological reasons for the Persians’ acceptance of Atum have already been touched upon and will be discussed more thoroughly below in comparison with ancient Persian religion, but the elevation of Atum over Osiris must now be explored.

The Persians and Atum worship in Egypt’s 27th dynasty

99

Osiris and Egyptian mortuary cult and myth Like Atum, Osiris was referenced numerous times in the Pyramid Texts where he was associated with the dead king. The dead king’s fate in the afterlife was inexorably intertwined with Osiris, thus it is stated “if he lives this king will live” (Faulkner 1969, 46ಥ48, Utterance 219). The mortuary features of Osiris cannot be overlooked here as they played a key role in both the Osirian myth and cult. J. Griffiths stated: “The Osiris myth, in the sense that it grew out of the royal funerary ceremonial, may perhaps be classified as a cult legend, remembering that the cult is part of the cult of the dead” (Griffiths 1980, 35).

The dead king’s Osirian mortuary attributes, particularly mummification, are alluded to in the Pyramid Texts where he receives “natron that you may be divine” (Faulkner 1969, 140, Utterance 423) and is commanded to “gather your bones together” (Faulkner 1969, 150, Utterance 451). It is believed that the emergence of mummification – although primitive by New Kingdom standards – coincided with the emergence of the Osiris cult sometime in the Old Kingdom (Griffiths 1980, 53), which may have been the result of a “significantly improved method of treating the body of the royal deceased” (Lorton 1985, 119). Osiris’ importance as a mortuary deity associated with the dead king continued throughout Egyptian history and eventually combined with the divine Apis bull in the late New Kingdom to create a new syncretic deity who enjoyed a position of popularity among royals and non-royals alike. According to the transmissions of Manetho, the Apis cult was already active by the 2nd dynasty (Manetho 2004, 37ಥ39), while a black and white diorite bowl from the reign of ‘Aha, published by William Kelly Simpson, is the oldest known Egyptian text concerned with the cult (Simpson 1957, 139ಥ142). Although the Apis cult had existed since the beginning of dynastic Egypt, it was not until the late New Kingdom that the Memphite Serapeum, the necropolis of the sacred Apis bulls, was first built (Gomaà 1973, 39). Besides serving as the resting place of the sacred bulls, the Serapeum also became a repository for over thousand votive stelae (Vandier 1964, 130). Most of these stelae referred to the dead Apis bull as “Apis-Osiris” or “Osiris-Apis,” which combined the mythological attributes of potency and the chthonic into one deity. Although Cambyses invoked Apis-Osiris on the sarcophagus of an Apis bull interred in year six of his reign (Posener 1936, 35), the possibility that Osiris’ chthonic attributes appeared foreign to the Persians should be considered.

Persian funerary rituals During the Achaemenid Period, the bodies of dead Persian kings were placed in wax and interred in tombs but not mummified (Herodotus 1996, 64, Book I, 140; Olmstead 1959, 66). Eventually, Persians adopted a mortuary ritual in which the body of the deceased was left for vultures to consume (Clark 1998, 114ಥ117). The theological reason for the ritual of exposure originates with the Persian belief that corpses were unclean vessels of evil spirits. One scholar of Persian religion stated: “The greatest pollution in death, however, the priests maintained, was from the bodies of righteous people, for a concentration of evil forces was necessary to overwhelm the good, and these continued to hover round the corpse. So from the moment of death the body was treated as if highly infectious,

100

Jared B. Krebsbach and only professional undertakers and corpse-bearers approached it, who were trained to take ritual precautions. If possible the funerary service was performed the same day, and the body was carried at once to a place of exposure” (Boyce 2001, 44).

Although the Achaemenid kings did not practice the ritual of corpse exposure themselves – there is evidence of Persian nobles participating in this ritual during the Achaemenid Empire (Boyce 2001, 59) – it probably originated during their rule. Herodotus observed that some Persians performed this burial ritual in his time: “There is another practice, however, concerning the burial of the dead, which is not spoken of openly and is something of a mystery; it is that a male Persian is never buried until the body has been torn by a bird or a dog. I know for certain that the Magi have this custom, for they are quite open about it. The Persians in general, however, cover a body with wax and then bury it. The Magi are a peculiar caste” (Herodotus 1996, 64, Book I, 140).

Modern scholars of Persian religion believe that at around the time of the Achaemenid Empire the Magi, who “were a hereditary caste entrusted with the supervision of the national religion” (Zaehner 1961, 163), introduced the practice of exposing corpses to vultures, among other traditions, that would later become known as “Zoroastrianism.” Zaehner wrote: “It does, however, seem fairly certain that it was the Magi who were responsible for introducing three new elements into Zoroastrianism – the exposure of the dead to be devoured by vultures and dogs, the practice of incestuous marriages, and the extension of the dualist view of the world to material things and particularly the animal kingdom” (Zaehner 1961, 163).

It should be noted that although the Achaemenid kings did not practice the ritual of corpse exposure themselves, their tombs still separated the living from the unclean corpse. The tomb of Cyrus demonstrates “with what care Zoroastrian kings prepared their sepulchers so that there should be no contact between the embalmed body – unclean in death, even though there was no decay – and the living creations” (Boyce 2001, 53). Perhaps the Egyptian ritual of mummification – with its excessive handling and reverence of “unclean” corpses – seemed too foreign to a people who were accustomed only to burial, but were on the verge of accepting a new practice that involved the annihilation of the corpse. Therefore Osiris, a god associated with mummification, by extension may also have been viewed as strange and foreign to the Persians.

Achaemenid Persian theology Osiris’ subordinate position to Atum in many of the Pyramid Texts (Faulkner 1969, 46ಥ48, Utterance 219) and his association with mortuary myth and cult, may have played a role in his subordination and/or omission in 27th dynasty religious texts, but in order to truly understand why the Persians chose Atum over Osiris one must examine the royal Achaemenid inscriptions from Persia, particularly those of Darius I. In terms of written texts, Egyptian religion was much older than Persian, so was therefore articulated in a much more complex way, but we do have texts at our disposal that can aid in the understanding of Achaemenid Period Persian theology. The trilingual inscription of Behistan – which was inscribed on the face of a cliff above an ancient caravan route in Persia – relates the accounts of Darius I’s suppression of rebellions in the Achaemenid Empire. In the five columns of Old Persian inscriptions, Ahuramazda, the primary Persian god, is invoked seventy times (Kent 1953, 116ಥ134). In these texts, Ahuramazda

The Persians and Atum worship in Egypt’s 27th dynasty

101

mainly serves as a protector of Darius and bestower of his role as the king of the Achaemenid Empire. Lines 48ಥ61 of column one proclaimed: “After that I besought the help of Ahuramazda; Ahuramazda bore me aid; of the month Bagayadi ten days were past, then I with a few men slew that Gaumata the Magian, and those who were his foremost followers. A fortress by name Sikayauvati, a district by name Nisaya, in Media – there I slew him. I took the kingdom from him. By the favor of Ahuramazda I became king; Ahuramazda bestowed the kingdom upon me” (Kent 1953, 120).

In the fourth column of the Old Persian inscription from Behistan, Darius further explained that Ahuramazda gave him aid because “I was not a Lie follower” (Kent 1953, 132). The Lie – known in Persian as Drugh – is, in the Behistan texts, explicitly equated with the rebellions against Darius, on both a physical and metaphysical level, as “a violent onslaught against the established order” (Zaehner 1961, 156). As such, Darius was viewed as “Ahuramazda’s chosen representative on earth [...] who maintains the just moral order within society while protecting society from rebellion” (Malandra 1983, 47). The Behistan inscriptions were written to commemorate Darius I’s victory over numerous usurpers, but gives us a glimpse into the theological functions of the god Ahuramazda as protector, upholder of order, and bestower of kingship. Other Achaemenid Period inscriptions from Persia also describe this deity as the creator of the universe. Inscriptions from the magnificent palace at Persepolis, built during the reign of Darius I, and his tomb at Naqsh-i Rustam also reveal much about how the Persians viewed Ahuramazda. At Persepolis, Ahuramazda is credited as the one who “created Darius the king, he bestowed on him the kingdom” (Kent 1953, 136) while at his tomb the god is described as the one “who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man” (Kent 1953, 138). Perhaps the most important Old Persian inscription, as far as the current topic is concerned, that invoked Ahuramazda and his attributes as a creator is on the statue of Darius I mentioned above. The Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite cuneiform inscriptions on the robes of the statue proclaimed Ahuramazda as the god “who created the sky and the below, who created man, who created happiness for man” (Vallat 1974, 161ಥ170). The fact that Ahuramazda is invoked on the same statue as Atum – and is the only known such occurrence – suggests that Atum is extremely important when considered in the context of the current study. The Persian affinity for Atum appears to originate with their own religious beliefs, as Atum’s attributes concerning creation, kingship, and protection most closely mirror those of their own god, Ahuramazda. Ahuramazda’s hatred of the Lie and love of the Truth can also be seen in the Egyptian idea of truth or Maat, versus chaos or Isfet. The Persians would have had access to the Egyptian priesthood and knowledge of Egyptian myth and cult, as seen in the example of the Egyptian priest/doctor and ‘collaborator,’ Udjahorresent mentioned above (Posener 1936, 1ಥ26), so therefore would have been able to choose an Egyptian deity in 27th dynasty texts who most closely represented their own theological ideas. As much as the functions and attributes of Atum corresponded closely to Ahuramazda, Osiris, who ruled from the Underworld and was associated with death and mortuary cult, may have appeared foreign and strange to the Persians. These theological factors for the Persians’ affinity to Atum are compelling, but a final reason for their worship of this god which concerns the Persian concept of kingship must be examined.

102

Jared B. Krebsbach

The Achaemenid Persian concept of kingship and Atum Unfortunately due to a dearth of textual evidence, the Achaemenid concept of kingship was rarely articulated in writing. Henri Frankfort believed that the origins of Achaemenid Period kingship can be traced directly to Mesopotamia. He wrote: “In the ruins of Pasargadae, Persepolis, and Susa we have material proof that kingship under Cyrus the Great and Darius I was given a setting for which there were no Persian precedents and in which the Mesopotamian ingredients are clearly recognizable. If the pillared halls of the Achaemenian palaces had prototypes in the vast tents of nomadic chieftains, the walled artificial terrace, the monstrous guardians at the gates, the revetments of sculptured stone slabs, and the panels of glazed bricks derived from Babylon, Assur, and Nineveh, even though they were executed by craftsmen from all over the empire and transfused with a spirit demonstrably Persian” (Frankfort 1978, 338).

The Mesopotamian idea of the king as the ruler of the world can be traced back to Sargon of Akkad who first designated himself as “he who rules the Four Quarters” (Frankfort 1978, 228) while his son Naram-Sin took the epithet “King of the Four Quarters” (Frankfort 1978, 228). Later, the Assyrian king Shamsi-Adad would modify the epithet further to “King of the Universe” (Frankfort 1948, 229). It was from these ideas of kingship that Cyrus, the first king of the Achaemenid Empire, styled himself as ruler when he marched victoriously into Babylon in 539 BC as is written on the Cyrus Cylinder. On the cylinder Cyrus was very explicit that he was king not just of Persia and Mesopotamia, but of the entire world. He stated: “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims of the earth” (Oppenheim 1992, 316).

As mentioned above, Atum was often referred to in religious texts as the “All Lord” or “Lord of All” which coincides with the Persian concept of kingship. When Cambyses conquered Egypt he found a god, Atum, who not only corresponded theologically in many ways with his god, Ahuramazda, but also with his inherited position as king and lord of the universe.

Conclusion It is well documented that the Persians left their conquered subjects free to practise their native religions throughout the Achaemenid Empire. But numerous Persian inscriptions also indicate that the Persians held strongly to their own religious beliefs. Examination of 27th dynasty religious texts reveals a pattern in which the Egyptian god Atum was given a place of prominence by the Persians because of his similarity to their own god. The Persian theological ideas of the Lie versus Truth also paralleled the Egyptian concepts of Maat and Isfet. Ultimately, the Persian’s elevation of Atum had to do with this particular god’s association with kingship and the Persian concept of kingship. In Egyptian texts Atum was the “Lord of All” while the Persian king was described as the “king of the world.” It is clear that Persian theologians made a conscious decision to elevate Atum to a place of prominence in the 27th dynasty. This elevation helped them legitimize their rule over Egypt while never forfeiting that which was important to them on a spiritual level. University of Memphis, United States of America

The Persians and Atum worship in Egypt’s 27th dynasty

103

Bibliography Allen, L. (2005) The Persian Empire. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Allen, T. G. (1974) The Book of the Dead: Ideas of the ancient Egyptians concerning the hereafter as expressed in their own terms. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Boyce, M. (2001) Zoroastrians: Their religious beliefs and practices. London, Routledge. Brugsch, H. (1878) Ein wichtiges Denkmal aus den Zeiten Königs CêSÓnq I. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 16, 37ಥ41. Clark, P. (1998) Zoroastrianism: An introduction to an ancient faith. Portland, Sussex Academic Press. Cruz-Uribe, E. (1988) The Hibis Temple Project. Vol. 1. Translations, commentary, discussions and sign-list. San Antonio, Van Siclen Books. Faulkner, R. O. (1969) The ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Faulkner, R. O. (1973) The ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. Vols. 1 and 3. Oxford, Aris and Phillips. Frankfort, H. (1978) Kingship and the gods: A study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the Integration of society and nature. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Gomaà, F. (1973) Chaemwese Sohn Ramses II und Hoherpriester von Memphis. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz. Griffiths, J. G. (1980) The origins of Osiris and his cult. Leiden, Brill. Herodotus (1996) The Histories (translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt). London, Penguin. Joisten-Pruschke, A. (2008) Das Religiöse öse se Leben der Juden von Elephantine in der Achämenidenzeit. ämenidenzeit. menidenzeit. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz. Kent, R. G. (1953) Old Persian: Grammar, texts, lexicon. 2nd edition. New Haven, American Oriental Society. Kienitz, F. K. (1953) Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis is zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende Zeitwende. Berlin, Akademie Verlag. Lichtheim, M. (1980) Ancient Egyptian literature. Vol. 2: The New Kingdom. Los Angeles, University of California Press. Lorton, D. (1985) Considerations on the origin and name of Osiris. Varia Aegyptiaca 1, 113ಥ126. Malandra, W. W. (1983) An introduction to ancient Iranian religion: Readings from the Avesta and the Achaemenid inscriptions. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Malinine, M., Vercoutter, J. and Posener, G. (1968) Catalogue des stèles du Sérapeum de Memphis. 2 Vols. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale. Manetho (2004) Aegyptiaca (translated by W. G. Waddell). Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Muscarella, O. W. (1992) Fragment of a royal head. In P. O. Harper, J. Aruz and F. Tallon (eds.) The royal city of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern treasures in the Louvre, 219ಥ221. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Olmstead, A. T. (1959) History of the Persian Empire. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Oppenheim, L. (1992) Babylonian and Assyrian historical texts. In J. B. Pritchard (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament, 265ಥ317. 3rd edition. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Otto, E. (1964) Beiträge äge ge zur Geschichte des Stierkulte in Ägyptien gyptien. Hildesheim, Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. Posener, G. (1936) La première ère re domination Perse en Égypte: gypte: Recueil d’inscriptions hiéroglyphiques éroglyphiques roglyphiques. Cairo, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Simpson, W. K. (1957) A running of the Apis in the reign of ‘Aha and passages in Manetho and Aelian. Orientalia 26, 139ಥ142. Vallat, F. (1974) Les textes cunéiformes de la statue de Darius. Cahiers de la Délégation élégation légation égation gation Archéologique éologique ologique Française çaise aise en Iran 4, 161ಥ170. Vercoutter, J. (1962) Textes biographiques du Sérapéum: érapéum: rapéum: éum: um: Contribution à l’étude étude tude des stèles votives du Sérapéum érapéum rapéum éum um. Paris, Honoréé Champion.

104

Jared B. Krebsbach

Yoyotte, J. (1972) Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques: éroglyphiques: roglyphiques: Darius et l’Égypte. Égypte. gypte. Journal Asiatique 260, 253ಥ 266. Zaehner, R. C. (1961) The dawn and twilight of Zoroastrianism. New York, G. P. Puntnam’s Sons.