Some Remarks on the Ritual of “Striking the Ball”

KÖNIGTUM, STAAT UND GESELLSCHAFT FRÜHER HOCHKULTUREN 3.1

6. ÄGYPTOLOGISCHE TEMPELTAGUNG Leiden, 4.–7. September 2002

Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume

Herausgegeben von Ben Haring und Andrea Klug

Harrassowitz-Verlag

KÖNIGTUM, STAAT UND GESELLSCHAFT FRÜHER HOCHKULTUREN 3.1

Herausgegeben von Rolf Gundlach, Detlev Kreikenbom und Mechthild Schade-Busch

2007 Harrassowitz-Verlag · Wiesbaden

6. ÄGYPTOLOGISCHE TEMPELTAGUNG Leiden, 4.–7. September 2002

Funktion und Gebrauch altägyptischer Tempelräume

Herausgegeben von Ben Haring und Andrea Klug

2007 Harrassowitz-Verlag · Wiesbaden

Inhalt Preface ............................................................................................................................ VII Joanna Aksamit Room C in the temple of Tuthmosis III at Deir el-Bahari ..............................................

1

Petra Andrássy Der Löwentempel von Musawwarat es Sufra – Zu Funktion und Raumstruktur eines meroitischen „Einraumtempels“ ..........................

11

Hans-Georg Bartel „Ich bin dieser große Phönix.“ Zu den Inschriften in den Kapellen des Memorialtempels Sethos’ I. in Abydos (Über den „Spruch beim Fortziehen der Riegel“ in Sanktuaren des Tempels Sethos’ I. in Abydos, Teil II)...............................................

35

Edith Bernhauer Die Hathorkapitelle von Bubastis....................................................................................

53

Monika Dolińska Temples at Deir el-Bahari in the New Kingdom .............................................................

67

Dieter Eigner Design, Space and Function: The Old Kingdom Temple of Tell Ibrahim Awad...........................................................

83

Ulrike Fauerbach Architektur, Licht und Schatten. Pylon und Hof von Edfu als Sonnenkalender? ................................................................ 105 Jochen Hallof Der Tempel von Esna – ein Tempel für zwei Götter....................................................... 119 Dieter Kessler Die Tempel von Tuna el-Gebel ....................................................................................... 131 Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball” in the liturgical environment of the Ptolemaic temples ................................................... 153

VI

Inhalt

Alexandra von Lieven Bemerkungen zum Dekorationsprogramm des Osireion in Abydos............................... 167 Benoît Lurson Des relations spatiales dans la conception du décor des temples de l’époque pharaonique................................................................................................. 187 René Preys Espaces de circulation et portes d’accès: architecture et décoration du temple............................................................................... 205 Joachim Friedrich Quack Die Götterliste des Buches vom Tempel und die überregionalen Dekorationsprogramme............................................................. 213 Akiko Sugi Iconography and usage of an anx-vessel in New Kingdom temple ritual ....................... 237 Alexandra Verbovsek Befund oder Spekulation? Der Standort privater Statuen in Tempeln des Alten und Mittleren Reiches.................. 257 Harco Willems Die Theologie der Innenräume des Schenhurtempels..................................................... 277

Index Sachindex ...................................................................................................................... Gottheiten und verwandte Begriffe ............................................................................... Könige, Königinnen, Kaiser .......................................................................................... Toponyme und Völker ................................................................................................... Museen und Sammlungen ............................................................................................. Ägyptische Wörter .........................................................................................................

291 297 298 299 300 300

Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball” in the liturgical environment of the Ptolemaic temples1 Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

1

Introduction

The ritual of “striking the ball” (sor HmA)2 appeared initially on the walls of the New Kingdom temples at Deir el-Bahari3 and Luxor,4 and it has been recorded more explicitly in the Late Period temples of Edfu,5 Dendera6 and Philae.7 The basic motif is essentially the same 1 This paper is a revised version of my presentation at the 6th “Ägyptologische Tempeltagung” (Leiden University, 4–7 September 2002) and falls within the scope of an extended monograph on Apophis and his ritual execution in preparation. I would like to thank the organisers of the Symposium, Dr. B.J.J. Haring and Dr. A. Egberts, for their warm hospitality and the successful outcome of the Symposium. I am most grateful to Dr. C.J. Eyre (University of Liverpool) and Dr. P. Wilson (University of Durham) for valuable suggestions on preliminary drafts of this paper. 2 LÄ I, 608–609, s.v. Schlagen des Balles. The basic study on the sor HmA ritual still remains the article by J.F. BORGHOUTS, The Evil Eye of Apopis, in: JEA 59, 1973, 114–150, who presents a translation of all the passages and a brief discussion of their context; for an opinion supportive of the sporting rather than the apotropaic/ritual character of the rite see C. DE VRIES, A ritual-Ball Game, in: Fs Wilson, 25– 35; brief references can also be found in P. DERCHAIN, Le sacrifice de l’oryx, Brussels 1962, 28; F. DAUMAS, Dendera et le temple d’Hathor, Cairo 1969, 76 and 78; S. CAUVILLE, Essai sur la Théologie du Temple d’Horus à Edfou 1, Cairo 1987, 79 and 173. The rite is also presented in W. DECKER, Sports and Games of Ancient Egypt, transl. by A. GUTTMANN, Cairo 1993, 111–116; W. DECKER/M. HERB, Bildatlas zum Sport im Alten Ägypten 1, Leiden 1994, 132–137; the sor HmA scenes at the exterior of the naos at Edfu have also been studies by B. WATTERSON in her unpublished Ph.D. thesis “An ancestral ritual from Edfu Temple: an investigation of inscriptions on the Naos exterior”, Liverpool 1976, 380–383. 3 Shrine of Hathor, Hall, eastern wall (right of the entrance) = Deir el-Bahari IV, 4 and pl. c; PM II, 351, (38). 4 Birth Room (room no XIII), north wall, second register (fourth scene); Chapel of Mut (room no. II), west wall, second register; Chapel of Mut (room no. II), east wall, second register. See GAYET, Temple de Louxor, pl. 68 (no. 74), fig. 213; PM II, 327 (153); PM II, 319 (111); Wb III, 93/12 and Wb, Belegst. III, 26; see J.F. BORGHOUTS, in: JEA 59, 1973, 123; quoted in Wb III, 93/12 and partly in Wb, Belegst. as a variant of the former; see BORGHOUTS, op.cit., 125. 5 Five examples are known: a. exterior of the sanctuary, west wall, b. interior of the Library, north wall, first register, c. exterior of the Naos, west wall, fourth register, d. exterior of the Naos, east wall, fourth register and e. interior of the eastern enclosure wall, third register. 6 Eight examples are known: 1. eastern wall of the Court room XII, second register, 2. eastern wall of the chamber B, eastern crypt no. 2, 3. eastern wall of the chamber C, eastern crypt no. 2, 4. Room F, west

154

Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

in both the New Kingdom and Late Period attestations of the rite. The king is depicted in front of a deity8 or a group of two or three deities,9 wearing the ceremonial kilt and royal crown and holding a round object that looks like a ball in his left hand, and a stick in his right. The scenes from Deir el-Bahari are completed with the presence of two priestly figures, an element that is absent from the Late Period parallels. De Vries in 1969 recognised two phases of the ritual: a New Kingdom one, as it survived in the temple scenes from Deir el-Bahari and Luxor, and a later one from the Ptolemaic Period onwards. He characterised the earlier performance of the rite, mainly, as a “religious game” performed by the king and two priests in the favour of the goddess Hathor (Deir el-Bahari), or Mut (Luxor), who was both the spectator and immediate beneficiary of the ritual act. He recognised some apotropaic elements against Apophis and other divine enemies only in the Ptolemaic attestation of the ritual, but he did not stress enough the magical character of the performance. De Vries’ opinion was followed by Decker, who included the sor-HmA ritual in his studies on sports and games of the Ancient Egyptians.10 Decker, also, noticed the apotropaic character of the ritual, but he confined that role only to the Late Period attestation of the rite. The leisurely character of the ritual was also emphasised by Piccione, who argued in favour of common elements of the sor-HmA rite with modern ball games. The most complete treatment of the ritual is that of Borghouts in 1973.11 According to Borghouts the ritual was primarily directed against the “evil eye” (wDAy or DfD in the texts) of Apophis, symbolically identified with the stricken round object in the reliefs. Borghouts stresses the role of the goddesses in the scene – Hathor, Sakhmet and Tefnut – as a manifestation of the divine eye of Re, which opposes that of Apophis, and that of the two principal ritual objects: the Hnm-ball and the bAo-stick. Borghouts, also, points out the presence of the two priestly figures in the Deir el-Bahari relief, whose role is that of catching the ball after it had been hit away by the King, and returning it back to him: . The divergence of opinion between the two scholars is mostly due to the reading of the word xnp and the sign next to it. Both read the inscription from left to right. De Vries translates xnp as “catch” and regards the throwstick sign as its determinative, implying that the prophets are catching the ball which the king hits: “it is the prophet who catches it for him (in Hm-nTr xnp n.f s)”, or “catching it for him by (i.e., on the part of) the prophet (xnp n.f s in Hm-nTr)”. Borghouts, on the other hand, takes the throwstick sign to be an abbreviating form of the verb omA ‘hit, strike’ and translates the whole phrase as: “Fetching by a god’s servant, after he has hit them away (xnp in Hm-nTr omA.n.f s)”. Another possible rendering of the verb xnp here could be that of “taking away” the life or breath,

7 8 9 10 11

wall, third register, 5. hypostyle room G, east wall, second register, 6. exterior of the western façade, fourth register, 7. exterior of the eastern façade, fourth register, 8. Mammisi, Ennead room, east wall, fourth register. Two examples are known: 1. Temple of Isis, exterior of the naos, east wall, second register and 2. Temple of Hathor, outer hall, façade, left. Hathor, Sakhmet, or Tefnut. Hathor and Harsomtus, Hathor and Horus of Edfu, Hathor and Ihy, or Ihy, Hathor and Horus of Edfu, and Ihy, Hathor and Harsomtus. W. DECKER, Sports and Games, 114–116. See n. 2.

Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball”

155

denoting thus the total destruction of the enemy.12 So, the caption above the priests could be translated as follows: “Being destroyed by the priest, after he has stricken them (sw, i.e. the balls)”. More than one ball was actually used in the rite.13 The appearance of the two priests, however, need not be of primary importance for explaining the character of the rite prior to the Late Period. Their presence is confined only in the scene from Deir el-Bahari, and their role is secondary compared to the main action of the striking of the ball by the king. It does however play a partial role in defining and justifying the material of the ball, as will be shown later in this paper. The revealing of the true motives behind the ritual action of the striking of the ball can only be achieved if the ritual is examined as a performative unity throughout the different chronological periods, besides the minor differentiation that exists in each one of them. Such an examination should be based on the analysis of the wordings of the ritual texts, seeking a common ritual pattern that defines the nature and supports the contextual continuity of the reliefs. Moreover, the performative identity of the ritual within the cultic environment of the temple precinct, as well as the possible overlap with other ritual ceremonies that make use of similar formulae and techniques – use of ball and stick – and convey related apotropaic attributes should also be considered.

2

Material of the ball

Clear reference to the material of the ball does not occur anywhere in the texts. Its definition, however, is quite important for revealing the semantics of the rite. De Vries supports a ball made from clay, while Borghouts believes that the ball was made from wood for two main reasons. The first is related to his interpretation assigned to the appearance and function of the two prophets, discussed above. A certain repetition of action that could not be fulfilled if the ball was made from clay, because of the vulnerable nature of this specific material: it would presumably shatter when hit. His second argument derives from the reador ), ing of the term HmA. Taking into consideration the plant determinative of the word ( Borghouts associates the HmA-ball with the Hm or Hmm-plant, as the latter appears on a fragmentary spell from Papyrus Leiden I 348. In that spell the Hmm-plant is identified as the place where Seth hid the eye of Horus after their fight. The Hmm-plant could be, thus, equated with the dnw or Tnw-plant attested in the funerary texts.14 Therefore, the former

12 Compare, for example, Edfou VI, 64/7: “to taking away the breath of the enemy”; “you (scil. divine falcon) have torn out (xnp; lit. taken away) the hearts of your enemies (royw.k)” (VI, 270/11–12); xnp equally applies to names and characteristics of gods or protective genii at Edfu: one of the names of Sakhmet is xnp.n.s HAtyw.sn “she who has torn out their hearts” (VI, 266/7); the name of a protective geni is he “who seizes the body (in fighting) he kills the foe with his knife” (VI, 330/4; translation after P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu, Leuven 1997, 732). 13 That is also clear from the extra balls in the priests’ hands at the Deir el-Bahari relief. 14 See, for example, Pyr. 133a and 695a and Book of the Dead, spell 174.

156

Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

could acquire hostile “Sethian” characteristics and, thus, it could have been used as the basic constructive material for the ball, symbolising the eye of Apophis, assimilated in the Later Period texts with Seth. A ball made from wood cannot be sustained, however, if one takes into consideration the verbalistic formula used in the sor-HmA texts to describe the royal activity. The term sor ‘strike, hit’ conveys a destructive meaning since its first attestation in the Pyramid Texts. The object of destruction could be either an enemy’s head or a ball. This basic meaning carries on to the Late Period and it is often used in Edfu to denote the ceremonially striking of foes by the king.15

3

Balls and vessels as apotropaic objects

Clay was quite prevalent prime material for the making of inscribed or non-inscribed anthropomorphic figurines, vessels or balls used as substitutes in execration rituals.16 This can be explicitly related to the activities of the creator god Khnum, as he fashioned mankind on a potter’s wheel.17 The magical properties of clay are best emphasised in a cursing spell dating from the Ramesside period, which identifies an enemy as a lump of clay, malleable and helpless in the hand of the magician.18 The apotropaic power of clay objects was enhanced by recitations and it was released during the ritual procedure through the techniques of “breaking” or “burying underground.”19

15 The relevant references are to be found in execration texts or offerings of meat portions symbolising the enemies, representing the destruction and butchery of the enemies. See, for example, Edfou VI, 142/13; IV, 30/6; Edfou II, 74/14; Edfou VI, 112/4; Edfou V, 53/7; Edfou VII, 62/10; 201/5–6; compare, also, the term sor-anx, which indicates the prisoner brought for ceremonial execution, lit. “The one who is for striking – alive” (Wb IV, 307/12–19); A.R. SCHULMANN, Ceremonial Execution and Public Rewards, Göttingen 1988, 8 ff.; cf. P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 939–940. 16 The bibliography behind the construction, function, symbolism, and magical attributes of the clay apotropaic figurines throughout the Egyptian magico-religious tradition is plentiful; for a more recent discussion see P. ESCHWEILER, Bildzauber im Alten Ägypten. Die Verwendung von Bildern und Gegenständen in magischen Handlungen nach den Texten des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches, Göttingen 1994, 89 ff.; R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practices, Chicago 1993, 136– 42; Y. KOENIG, Magie et Magicians dans l’Égypte Ancienne, Paris 1994, Chapter 4; S. QUIRKE, Figures of clay: toys or ritual objects?, in: IDEM, Lahun Studies, Surrey 1998, 141–151. 17 This tradition is described very clearly in the temple of Esna: Esna III, no. 250/6–21 (text); V, 94–107; cf. also M. LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature III, Berkeley 1980, 111–115. 18 See A.W. SHORTER, A magical ostracon, in: JEA 22, 1936, 165; cf. R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 138–139, n. 614. 19 For breaking see references in n. 72 below; for “burial” as execration formula in general, see R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 172–178; S. SCHOTT, Totenbuchspruch 175 in einem Ritual zur Vernichtung von Feinden, in: MDAIK 14, 1956, 181–89; IDEM, Drei Sprüche gegen Feinde, in: ZÄS 65, 1930, 41; for the use of this technique in the Apophis ritual see pBremner-Rhind, cols. 28/16–18 and 29/14.

Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball”

157

Clay vessels were ceremonially broken during the sD dSrw (“breaking of the red vases”) execration rite since the Old Kingdom.20 The pots were usually small and they were carried by the Xryw dSrw (“bearers of the red pots”) during the ritual, and broken at its termination.21 The breaking of the pots was obtained by the use of a mortar and pestle.22 The rite was fully adapted within the ceremonial framework of burial practices and mortuary liturgies inscribed on the walls of the Old Kingdom tombs and in the frieze of purification utensils on Middle Kingdom coffins.23 It was closely associated with the funerary offering meal,24 and formed part of rituals such as the “reversion of divine offerings,” “pouring cool water” and “burning incense.”25 From the New Kingdom onwards, the funerary application of the “breaking of the red vessels” ritual was combined with its first annexation into the divine liturgy.26 The king breaks the vessels by dashing them against each other, without using any kind of pestle, as in the Old Kingdom version of the rite. A third technique implied the throwing of the two objects on the ground.27 The archaic application of the ritual carried on well into the Late Period. dSrt-vessels are mentioned in the inscriptions on the walls of the Ptolemaic temples as being carried in purification ceremonies.28 The basic formula reads: “going round four times (pXr HA sp-4)

20 Pyr. § 249b (spell 244). The most recent discussion on this rite can be found in R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 144–147 with additional references; also J. ASSMANN, Spruch 23 der Pyramidentexte und die Ächtung der Feinde Pharaos, in: C. BERGER/G. CLERC/N. GRIMAL (eds.), Hommages à Jean Leclant I, Cairo 1994, 45–59; for a general overview of the ritual see LÄ VI, 1389–1396, s.v. Zerbrechen der roten Töpfe. 21 See A. GARDINER, A unique funerary liturgy, in: JEA 41, 1955, 16; cf. R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 145 and 58, nn. 267 and 269; for the magical meaning of the action implied by the term pXr see RITNER, op.cit., 57–67. 22 According to the determinative of the word “break”; see discussion in R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 144–145. 23 R.K. RITNER, op.cit., 145. 24 Meir IV, 50–51. 25 R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, refers to a Fifth Dynasty coffin of NN-xft-kA from Deshasheh. H. ALTENMÜLLER (Die Texte zum Begräbnisritual in den Pyramiden des Alten Reiches, Wiesbaden 1972, 98–100) has shown that the Sd-dSrwt ritual was also carried out simultaneously with the slaughtering of a bull in the slaughterhouse of the pyramid temple; cf. LÄ VI, 1392–1396, s.v. Zerbrechen der roten Töpfe; A. WILKINSON, Evidence for Osirian rituals in the tomb of Tutankhamun, in: S. ISRAELITGROLL (ed.), Pharaonic Egypt: the Bible and Christianity, Jerusalem, 1985, 334. 26 At the temple of Luxor, Amenhotep III is depicted striking together two pots. The scene occurs on the wall enclosing the door that gives access to the offering room for the cult image of Amun. See A. MORET, Le rite de briser les vases rouges au temple de Louxor, in: RdE 3, 1938, 167; cf. H. BRUNNER, Die südlichen Räume des Tempels von Luxor, AV 18, Mainz 1977, pl. 16, and see p. 79 ff. for the function of this room as “Speisetischsaal für das Kultbild”. Cf. also R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 146. 27 See R.K. RITNER, op.cit., 146, n. 655. 28 See Edfou I, 170/16–171/15; 428/2–7; II, 264/7–265/2; III, 338/14–17; IV, 59/14–60/12; VII, 53/10– 54/7; Wilson refers also to Edfou I, 48/10–15; III, 22/11–23/11 and 122/6–17, as possible references for red vessel purification through the identification of the dSrt with Sayt or nmst vessels; cf. Kasr elAgoûz, 75; this evidence overrides VAN DIJK’s assumption that the “breaking of the vessels” ritual had been abandoned in the Late Period, for it is not mentioned among the apotropaic formulae found in Late Period papyri and magical texts (LÄ VI, 1391); in fact, the purification with four dSrt-vessels in temples is first attested from the Eighteenth Dynasty temple at Deir el-Bahari; see KEES, Opfertanz, 56, as dSrt or nmst is quite vague. although the identification of the sign

158

Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

with four vessels of water (m 4 dSrt nt mw)”29 or “making purification (ir wab) with four red vessels of water (m 4 dSrt n mw).”30 Usually the four vessels were associated with protective divinities, as in the purification ceremony shown on the west wall of the exterior of the naos at Edfu.31 The red vessels containing the floodwater may represent the unification of Lower and Upper Egypt and once the water is poured out an imbalance in the order is created, so that the red vessel has to be destroyed.32 The purification is performed by the king in praise of Horus who, in return, rewards the performer with either the destruction of his enemies,33 or with the purification of his body.34 Thus, the apotropaic aspect of the ritual is still present in the Ptolemaic cultic environment, and it is fulfilled with the breaking of the vases after the termination of the ceremony.35 A similar apotropaic function is served by the casting of the clay balls in prophylactic rites in praise of Amun, initially, and later of Osiris, as described in papyri and temple inscriptions from the New Kingdom onwards.36 Four balls, each of them inscribed with the name of a protective deity, were thrown towards the four cardinal points. A cultic version of the rite in favour of the god Amun appears in the Edifice of Taharka at Karnak.37 The private adoption of the rite has been recorded in a spell to avert a snake’s threat from the Brooklyn papyrus.38 The ritual action is identical in both occasions, besides the differentiation in the target or the ultimate purpose of the specific operation.39 This action is de29 Edfou III, 338/14. 30 Edfou I, 428/2 and pl. CCCIL. 31 “Purification with four red vessels of water. Recitation: Sayt come to your majesty, purifying your form with what is in them, one is the nurse in Heliopolis, the second is Mehenet, the third is Bastet and the fourth is the eye of Horus, Wedjat” (Edfou IV, 59/14–60/1 and pl. LXXXVI). 32 P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 1211. 33 Edfou I, 170; IV, 59. 34 Edfou I, 428; IV, 59. 35 Note that the apotropaic function of the “breaking of the red vases” rite has also been related to the “Play of Horus” by A.M. BLACKMAN/F.W. FAIRMAN, The myth of Horus at Edfu – II, in: JEA 28, 1942, 37–38, as well as with the rtH pat rite, “subjugating humanity”, by M. ALLIOT, Les rites de la chasse au filet, aux temples de Karnak, d’Edfou et d’Esneh, in: RdE 5, 1946, 106–110. 36 The main sources are (after J.-C. GOYON, Textes mythologiques II. « Les révélations du mystère des quatres boules », in: BIFAO 75, 1975, 349–352 and R. PARKER et al., The Edifice of Taharqa, Providence, 1979, 61–65 and n. 17): pBerlin 3037, cols. 1–3; pBrooklyn 47.218.138, col. XII, 15–25, to col. XIII, 1–16; pLouvre 3237 and 3239; pNew York MMA 35.9.21, cols. 26–32. 37 “Recitation: Let the king (?) himself [throw] the four balls toward the south, the north, the west, and the east in front of this god, [during his solemn procession to Kôm-Djemê, when he goes (there) to make a halt at the Mound of Osiris, at the side of Mut, the mistress of the sky, according to the fact he is the lord of the month for whom is celebrated the beginning [of the decade], (when) he comes out of the Opê-of-the-South to take care of his temples, in which he rests every day, like Re in the sky” (translation after R. PARKER et al., The Edifice of Taharqa, 65). 38 pBrooklyn 47.218.138, XIII, 14–16: “Another formula for closing the mouth of all the Ddft-snake(s). Recitation upon [four] balls of clay (bnnw [4] nt sin). To be thrown (xAa) to the south, north, west (and) east. Recite this spell tied as a papyrus roll, (and) place at his neck, so that it will save him (nH[m].f sw) from the disaster in the water and on earth. See, it is a great protection in truth”. Compare J.-C. GOYON, Un parallèle tardif d’une formule des inscriptions de la statue prophylactique de Ramsès III au Musée du Caire (Papyrus Brooklyn 47.218.138, col. X+13, 9 à 15), in: JEA 57, 1971, 154–159; IDEM, in: BIFAO 75, 1975, 350; R. PARKER et al., The Edifice of Taharqa, 62–63; similar formula occurs also in the pNew York, 26/1 ff. and 32/16 ff. (J.-C. GOYON, in: BIFAO 75, 1975, 366 and 398). 39 Surely, the casting of four balls was closely associated with the four cardinal points.

Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball”

159

scribed by the verb xAa ‘throw, thrust’, which is damaged in the Karnak version of the rite.40 Yet, in the relevant iconic representation in the Edifice, the king is shown holding a clubshaped object, which was probably used for casting off the four balls.41 Such balls, now in the Louvre Museum, were found in an Osiris crypt in the Greco-Roman necropolis at Tehneh.42 The balls were inscribed with the name of the four protective goddesses – Ouadjet, Sechemtet, Oubastet and Sakhmet – whose apotropaic role at the time of the funeral journey of Osiris is well known from contemporary sources.43 So, the use of a clay ball is similar to both rituals – sor-HmA and 4-balls rite – but there exists a differentiation at the actual symbolism encrypted behind the liturgical role and character of the balls. While in the former rite the ball consists of an allegoric representation of the evil eye of Apophis that has to be repelled and destroyed, in the throwing of the balls ceremony the four balls were regarded as the “protections of Re, born of him (sAw nw Ra pr im.f)”, or as “coming into existence for Re (xpr n Ra)”.44 Even this apparent opposition, however, has been eliminated in the Edfu version of the ritual, where the balls were associated with enemies from Napata. The latter were exorcised during the fourteen-day Festival of Behdet: “To know the interpretation of the trampling of the fish. They are the enemies who are in the water. As for these balls, they are the corpses of Napata. As for these gbywgeese who are in these nets, they are the souls of the dead. As for these fans of dom-palm, they are their hair”.45 The reference to the hair of the enemy is interesting, as locks of hair have been found in two of such balls now in the Manchester Museum.46 To summarise so far, it could be noted that the sor-HmA ritual appears to be an inherent part of a category of similar contemporary magico-religious practices that involve the breaking of clay objects – balls or vases – as a physical action to accompany the main apotropaic formula to avert evil.47 Despite the fact that the sources presented previously connect 40 Wb III, 227/3–228; at Edfu the verb describes the hunting of Seth by Horus through the use of a harpoon, which Horus hurls with his right hand and pays out the rope with his left; see P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 701, for Edfu attestations of the term. 41 The second example from the papyrus does not seem to imply the usage of any similar tool, although such omission could easily be explained from the nature of the private ceremony itself, which gives more emphasis to the prophylactic aspect of the performance, through the manufacture and application of the papyrus amulet worn by the patient around his neck, rather than to the actual action of casting the balls. 42 See G. LEFEBVRE, Sarcophages égyptiens trouvés dans une nécropole gréco-romaine à Tehneh, in: ASAE 4, 1903, 227–231; for the association of these findings with the 4-balls ritual see C. ZIEGLER, À propos du rite des quatre boules, in: BIFAO 79, 1979, 437–439 and pl. LX. 43 See P. DERCHAIN, El Kab I. Les Monuments Religieux à l’entrée de l’ouady Hellal, Brussels 1971, 17 and 31; N. de Garis DAVIES, The Temple of Hibis in the Khargeh Oasis III: Decoration, New York 1953, pl. XX, east wall, col. 17; for the role of these deities in the protection of the king during the 12 hours of the night, see Edfou Mam., 112/9–10. 44 p.New York 35.9.21, col. 27/12 and 27/14 respectively; see R. PARKER et al., The Edifice of Taharqa, 63. 45 See M. ALLIOT, in: RdE 5, 1946, 520–527, 529–530 and 533; R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 209–210. 46 See R.K. RITNER, op.cit., 210, n. 971; the balls were found in a tomb at Kahun by Petrie who dated them in the Twentieth Dynasty. 47 Note the pun that occurs between the verb for “breaking, smashing by pestle” sHm and the homophones sHm “to drive away, cause to retreat”, especially in the Late Period texts; see Wb IV, 215/8 and cf. R.K. RITNER, The Mechanics, 144–145.

160

Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

each of these rites with a cultic and liturgical environment, that of itself does not seem to emphasise the significance of the apotropaic technique of breaking, the latter is present and quite specifically in all the phases of the rites. The breaking of objects consists of a multifunctional and multipurpose execration act, the results of which could fluctuate from simply imposing terror upon one’s enemies, or inducing the magical repulsion and destruction of the enemy through the complete smashing of the clay objects.48

4

Application of the stick and anti-snake allegory

The king uses a rod to hit the ball, which is depicted as a straight stick of a standard length and form.49 It is described as xt n bAo “the club made from bAo-wood”,50 which has grown “from the eye of Re”.51 There is here a clear opposition between the ball/eye of Apophis and the bAo-stick originating from the eye of Re, as Borghouts very clearly pointed out.52 The word xt (“mace, lance or harpoon”)53 has strong polemical functions, used in a variety of contexts as the principal weapon against divine or human enemies.54 The use of sticks or rods as defensive weapons against snakes55 could be traced as far back as the funerary texts of the Middle Kingdom.56 They are usually made from wood, 48 For the magical technique of “breaking” see R.K. RITNER, op.cit., 148–53. 49 It seems to be slightly longer in the New Kingdom relief at Luxor. 50 Compare for example Edfou I, 62/8; IV, 149/11; 305/13; Dendara V, 67/1; VI, 134/5 = J.F. BORGHOUTS, in: JEA 59, 1973, 133; Dend., Mam., 175/4. 51 Edfou I, 62/9. J.F. BORGHOUTS, in: JEA 59, 1973, 125; the author points out that something similar is said about the bAo-oil in the laboratory text of the Edfu temple: “I bring you the moringa-oil (bAo), pleasant of smell, from the drops (Dfdw) of the eye of Rea”; see also, pSalt 825, col. 2/2 ff. and Edfou III, 185/15 for the divine origin of certain perfumes or oils. 52 J.F. BORGHOUTS, in: JEA 59, 1973, 138–140. 53 Wb III, 340/19; P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 753; cf. also Wb III, 339/10–341 xt “tree, wood”. 54 Compare for example its appearance and the use of the stick in a harpoon text at the exterior of the ) to naos at Edfu: “Bringing the harpoon. Recitation: This harpoon (xnt) is the stick/weapon (xt pierce (wnp) your foes (wn-mw.k; lit. Those who are disloyal to you)” (Edfou IV, 230/6–7), and below in the same text: “He (scil. Horus of Edfu) is the protector with his lance/stick (xt )” (231/4); in the XXVII LE nome Horus is addressed by the king as the one “who throws (wd) his stick/lance (xt ) to overthrow (sxr) the wbr-snake, to strike (Hw) the enemies of ? (and) to burn the r-snake” (Edfou VI, 27/6). Compare, also, the expression a-xt, which literally means “state (rA-a) of the stick” (Wb II, 394/11–395/5) but which in general means “combat, fighting, war” (Wb II, 394/12; P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 572; J.-C. GOYON, Les Dieux-Gardiens et la Genèse des Temples, Cairo 1985, 15, n. 6). It often applies to Horus as the “lord of the fighting” (see, for example, Edfou V, 43/4–5; III, 251/4), or Hathor, as for example in Edfou V, 90/7; there is also a book in the sacred library of Edfu entitled “all the writings (sS nb) of war (rA-a-xt)” (Edfou III, 351/8 and not 351/7 as cited by WILSON, op.cit., 572). 55 I am not concerned here with the other possible interpretations and functions of these rods, as listed by B. GEORGE, Drei altägyptische Wurfhölzer, in: Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 15, 1980, 7–15. 56 For throwsticks functioning as votive offerings to Hathor, see G. PINCH, Votive Offerings to Hathor, Oxford 1993, 295–298, fig. 6 and pl. 62, with references; C. LOEBEN, A throwstick of princess Nfr-

Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball”

161

imitating a snake form with a “single” eye and a line that looks like a snake’s mouth on their broad part.57 An application of such sticks is observed in the so-called harvest or agricultural rites, as for example the ceremony of driving the calves (Hwt bHsw ritual), which Arno Egberts has so extensively and clearly analysed in his monograph.58 The basic motif presents the king in front of a divine figure driving four calves held by four tethering ropes to their legs. He holds a wavy rod in his left hand and a straight rod terminating in a snake’s head in his right. According to Egberts, the function of this rod would be that of any type of goad for beating the animals or just urging them on.59 Yet, in two cases it is used as a weapon for chasing away snakes or worms, which constituted a fatal threat for the grain: “I cut up the worm (dm) which destroys the grain, I split it into two. I grasp its head in my right 60 hand, I grip its tail together with the rope(s).” “I have hacked (wsf) at the pHdty-snakes … the aHa-snakes, I have severed their heads and cut off 61 (stf) their tails …”

The term wsf does not appear in the Wörterbuch. It might have a similar meaning to either the verb ws(i) “cut”, and consecutively “destroy”,62 or wsH “cut down”.63 Yet, both meanings serve the destructive application conveyed in the text. The reading of the word dm as “worm” follows Egberts’ argumentation in favour of a worm’s rather than snake’s appear-

57

58

59

60 61 62

63

Nfrw-Rea, with additional notes on throwsticks of faience, in: ASAE 71, 1987, 143–159 suggests that the object depicted under Osiris’ funeral bed at Abydos protects the god from Seth and his companion. Note, also, W.J. CHERF, The function of the Egyptian forked staff and the forked bronze butt: a proposal, in: ZÄS 109, 1982, 86–97, who discusses the function of the Egyptian forked staff and the forked bronze butt as the principal instrument for immobilising and catching snakes. See G. DARESSY, Fouilles de la Vallée des Rois (1898–1899), Cairo 1902, pl. 27, nos. 21332–2133; for faience parallels in a similar snake form, see two Ramesside fragments, one from Serabit el-Khadim (London BM 41817, as cited by G. PINCH, Votive Offerings, 295) and two from Timna (in B. ROTHENBERG, The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna, London 1988, fig. 45/5, 6 (= colour pl. 6), and 7 (characterised by the author, p. 309, as a magical wand); also, M. EATON-KRAUSS and E. GRAEFE, The small golden shrine from the tomb of Tut-ankh-amun, Oxford 1985, 37–38. The throwstick that is depicted on the second register of the side B of the golden shrine of the king is a short wavy staff which ends in a snake’s head. It is similar to the one that appears in Ay’s royal tomb KV 23 (J. BOURRIAU, Pharaohs and Mortals. Egyptian art in the Middle Kingdom, Cambridge 1988, 114–115). For a complete translation, commentary and analysis of the scenes, see A. EGBERTS, In Quest of Meaning: A Study of the Ancient Egyptian Rites of Consecrating the Meret Chests and Driving the Calves, 2 vols., Leiden 1995. See G.M. JÉQUIER, Matériaux pour servir à l’établissement d’un dictionnaire d’archéologie Égyptienne, in: BIFAO 19, 1922, 73–74; A. EGBERTS, In Quest of Meaning I, 373; Egberts further interprets the symbolism behind the snake-headed end of the rod as an ornament with purely pastoral connotations: “by making the straight rod the symbol of a snake, it was felt to be more efficient means of driving the calves, which were considered to run for their lives” (op.cit., 373). A. EGBERTS, In Quest of Meaning I, 285. Edfou III, 168/12–13. Wb I, 358/11–14; P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 255–256; cf. Edfou VI, 217/12–15: wDAw wsi m wAt … wrw ws m ir.n.f “the wadju animals are cut from the way … and the great hippopotamus is destroyed for what he has done”. Wb I, 3646–3648, which mentions the Book of the Dead where it is used for cutting off the hair and killing rebels; this translation is introduced by Fairman and followed by P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 255.

162

Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

ance and a threat in the Hwt bHsw ritual texts. Egberts, acknowledging Kees,64 justifies his preference on the basis of the nature of the worm, as a destroyer of the grain.65 Nevertheless, the appearance of snakes in the texts of “driving the calves” must not be totally excluded. Snakes are closely associated with the fields and harvest and constitute a serious hazard to the harvesters and working/grazing animals altogether. Various types of snakes are referred to under the terms pHdty, Hnpt, iart or aHa. Yet, the Egyptians did not clearly differentiate between snakes and worms, which means that both of these last terms could pertain to worms as well as snakes. Now, the method of destroying reptile species by cutting or splitting them apart makes frequent appearances in the magico-religious corpus. The first text, which is discussed by Egberts, comes from Dendera and it is related to the Osiris Mystery:66 “The consecration of the mrt-chests and the driving of the calves are performed from the 23rd to the last day of the fourth month of Axt … The four calves of the children of Horus are with them, treading above the cave of this god. There is an Apophis snake in two pieces behind them during 67 the treading and the dragging of the mrt-chest.”

Τhe mention of a snake called Apophis (HfAw n app), a name which could have either pragmatic or symbolic connotations,68 in a text about the rituals of “driving the calves” and “consecrating the mrt-chests” is purely descriptive and does not have any implications for the character of both of these rituals.69 What the text presents here is an indirect allusion to the familiar concept of a snake split into two parts. This allusion has already been expressed by the use of the verbs wsf and stf in the passage from the Hwt bHsw rite presented above. The continuity of this concept is evidenced in a spell from a Greco-Roman papyrus that describes a similar action undertaken against a snake personified with Apophis’ name: “If you want to kill a snake say: ‘stay, for you are Apophis’. And taking a green palm branch and holding its heart, split it [longways] into two, saying the name over it seven times. At once the 70 snake will be split (or will break open).”

The term viyān hlorān (green palm) in this text implies a stick made from a bay staff. Thus, the two parts of the rod held by the practitioner could be regarded as a symbolic iconic representation of a snake cut into two: the left-hand rod clearly represents the tail portion of a snake and the straight rod the head part.

64 Farbensymbolik in ägyptischen religiösen Texten, Göttingen 1943, 476. 65 See A. EGBERTS, Python or worm? Some aspects of the rite of driving the calves, in: GM 111, 1989, 44, n. 2; IDEM., In Quest of Meaning I, Leiden 1995, 287, n. 6, for a collection of references that present dm as worm. He stresses emphatically that “… snakes are predators and accordingly do not damage corn” (GM 111, 1989, 38). 66 See É. CHASSINAT, La Mystère d’Osiris au mois de Khoiak 1, Cairo 1966, 126–127 = col. 83–85. 67 Translation after A. EGBERTS, In Quest of Meaning I, 381. 68 It could either refer to the mythological enemy of the sun god or to a real species of snake; cf. the term HfAw aA n app “great Apophis snake” which occurs in pBrooklyn 47.218.48 and 85 (S. SAUNERON, Un Traité Égyptien d’Ophiologie, Cairo 1989, 148–149) and refers to a species of snake appearing with that name. 69 A. EGBERTS, In Quest of Meaning I, 343. 70 PGM XIII, 261–264 = H.D. BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Chicago 1986, 180.

Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball”

5

163

The wording of the sor-HmA ritual – Orality as performance

The composer of the sor-HmA texts makes extensive use of the standard literary devices of the Egyptian literary craft: puns and paranomasia, homophony, alliteration and wordplays on meaning. The realisation of these techniques is not confined only to the ritual under discussion. They are well known from the funerary texts of the Old Kingdom and continued to be an important feature of funerary and temple texts, until the end of the Egyptian language, when Coptic magical texts continued the tradition. The exceptional environment of the Ptolemaic rituals is encrypted in the way these techniques are used contextually and performatively to justify new words or to manipulate the existing ones in order to hide or explain in a more subtle manner the notion behind the phrase. Especially in the sor-HmA ritual texts, these literary devices are used to create a standard imagery analogous to that expressed by the execration technique of striking the ball. In order to achieve this phonetic imagery successfully the ritualist must have a wide understanding of the way in which similar sounding words actually differ, and then be able to construct sentences or phrases in which they can be used without making the sentence unintelligible.

5.1

Alliteration/homophony

a. Edfou IV, 305/6–8 Dd-mdw iT n=k nTrt n n(i)k m npD Df=s im=s m tStS Recitation: Receive for yourself the divine eyes of the nik-snake, as something cut out, its iris and its pupil as something pounded. A constant alliteration is created by the use of the n-sound as in the words nTrt, n, nik, npD. The verb npD ‘cut, slaughter’ consists of a n-formation which explains its frequent usage with such terms as NbD, niAw, nhs, nfrw.71 The action acquires also a more emphatic denotation from the reduplicated form of tS as tStS ‘cut to pieces, pound’.72 b. Edfou IV, 305/9–10 ptpt.n=i ptrty n pfy I have destroyed the eyes of that one.

71 Compare Edfou V, 169/13; 173/8; VII, 148/11; 269/5; 308/6–7; V, 94/16 (with nbD as object); V, 293/8 (nhs); I, 565/3 (niAw). 72 For Edfu examples see P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 1154.

Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

164

Although the original meaning of ptpt is “tread on something, trample”,73 it is often determined, as in our text here, by a knife sign, thus becoming gradually an alternative for “killing, destroying” concepts. Again, repetition of homophonous words here – ptpt, ptry, pfy.74 c. Dendara IV, 194/1–2 Wbt wbr sw nsrt aAt sxm.tw m pHty=s aD n aApp The wbr-snake is on fire. She (scil. Hathor) is the flaming goddess, the great one. She is powerful through her strength, slaughtering Apophis.

5.2

Paranomasia/homophony

a. Edfou IV, 305/10–11 Hnw n=T i nb(t) hy nb(t) hnw Hnty Hnt m sAxt=i Praise to you, o Lady of Rejoicing, Lady of Praise! The Hnty-snake is slaughtered with my knife. There is a constant repetition of the h-sound through the double repetition of hnw. To my knowledge, the word Hnty with a snake determinative does not occur outside Edfu. Artificial creation of a demonic name/being through the homophonic manipulation of words and phonetics. b. Edfou IV, 149/7 r-Daf Daf n wn-mw.n=f sfTx sTrt=f sfT The r-Daf-snake is burnt (and) the sfTx-snake shall not be anymore, because his gleaming eyes are cut off. 4fT “slaughter” is especially used in a butchery context and it often appears as a punishment of the deceased in the funerary compositions of the New Kingdom.75 Here, it forms the artificial Apophis name of the sftx-snake.

73 Wb I, 563/9–16; P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 379–380. 74 Edfou IV, 395/9; compare also Edfou V, 47/7: ptpt – pfy (after P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 380). 75 Wb III, 443/15–24; P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 837; cf. J. ZANDEE, Death as an Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions, Leiden 1960, 151.

Some remarks on the ritual of “striking the ball”

5.3

165

Symbolism/homophony

a. Edfou I, 62/5–7 Df n wDAt wDA m st=s The iris of the wDAt-eye is safe in its place. In the above example there is a clear confrontation of the evil eye of the nik-snake with the divine eye (wDAt). b. Edfou I, 62/8–9 NSd DfD n wAmmty (The king) tears up the iris of the wAmmty-enemy. The verb nSd is derived from the verb Sd “cut, take away, remove” with the addition of the prefix n.76 It often appears with alliteration of n or even nS, indicating the total destruction of the enemies of the pharaoh by Horus through the use of his ‘claws’ (agAt, ant).77 There is a clear parallelism here between the recitative destructive meaning of nSd and the action of ‘splitting a snake into two’ undertaken by the private practioner of the ritual in the spell from the Greek magical papyrus presented above. Similarly, in the text that accompanies the burning of offerings rite on the second register of the eastern wall of the room IX at Edfu, the king “tears up (nSd) the eyes of the raging one (nSn), burning the enemies of Mehyt, the great one who dwells in Behdet”.78

6

Conclusions

Summarising the above, one could argue that the frequent use of rods/sticks as defensive weapons against any type of snake indicates that the utilisation of the rod/stick in the sorHmA ritual is not accidental or recreational, but is part of a series of applications that are characterised by their strong and destructive power against Apophis, the snake par excellence. The result of the action undertaken through the use of the stick could vary from the “smashing off the head” of the snake or “cutting its body into two”, to its complete destruction by the striking and breaking of the clay ball which symbolises its evil glance.

76 P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 550–551; the prefix n is a common word-building element that creates standard formations; cf. OSING, Nominalbildung I, 324; W. SCHENKEL, Zur Rekonstruktion der deverbalen Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen, Wiesbaden 1983, 226–227. 77 See Edfou I, 270/13; 381/10; 575/3; II, 20 (66); VIII, 106/1. 78 Edfou I, 313/15–16; those words are uttered by the king who performs the rite in praise of the gods, and not by Mehyt as stated by P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, 550–551.

166

Panagiotis I.M. Kousoulis

At the same time, the phonetic performative imagery of destruction is expressed through the constant repetition of certain polemical verbs and verbalistic conjugations, the meaning of which are re-enhanced with the presence of different names and epithets that designate implicitly or explicitly Apophis’ malevolent nature. Such verbs as nSd, xbxb, npD, tStS, khb, ptpt, or sfT complete and strengthen the initial formula of destruction of the ball/ eye of Apophis, introduced with the verb sor. They also contain certain threat formulae addressed to Apophis and his evil glance in the mythological sphere by visualising and applying them in the course of the ritual action. Yet, these verbal expressions seem to justify to a great extent, through the extensive use of punning and paranomasia, the use of certain names and epithets, which would not have any solid ontological character outside this specific ritual framework. The inner magical mechanism of the latter, especially through the exploitation of sounds and recited formulae, artificially creates and manipulates names and, thus, divine or demonic beings, since the former are indelibly connected to the essence of the latter.79

79 See P.I.M. KOUSOULIS, The Double Persona of the Demonic: the case of the four Apophian Snakes, in: P.I.M. KOUSOULIS/M.A. COLLIER (eds.), Magic and Demonology in Ancient Egypt, Swansea, in press.