THE BULLETIN OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR EGYPTOLOGY

VOLUME 22 2011

Editor

Dr Susanne Binder

Editorial Board

Dr Heike Behlmer, Gttingen Assoc. Professor Colin A. Hope Professor Naguib Kanawati Professor E. Christiana Khler, Vienna Dr Ann McFarlane Assoc. Professor Boyo Ockinga Dr Yann Tristant

The articles in this journal are peer reviewed.

All rights reserved ISSN: 1035-7254 Copyright 2011 The Australian Centre for Egyptology (A Division of the Macquarie University Ancient Cultures Research Centre) Macquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109, Australia Printed by Ligare Book Printers, 138 Bonds Road, Riverwood NSW 2210, Australia www.ligare.com.au

CONTENTS BACE 22 (2011)

Editorial Foreword The 2011 Field Season at Deir Abu Metta, Dakhleh Oasis The Pyramid Texts and Tomb Decoration in Dynasty Six: The Tomb of Mehu at Saqqara Notes on the Statuary from the Galarza Tomb in Giza The Geographic and Cosmographic Expression &A-nTr A Case of Sibling Scribes in Coptic Thebes Devouring the Enemy: Ancient Egyptian Metaphors of Domination Narrative in Old Kingdom Wall Scenes: The Progress through Time and Space Upper Egyptian Vessels at Tell el-Ghaba, North Sinai: Local Elite Sumptuary Objects Dating an Oil Lamp of Multicultural Design Siege Scenes of the Old Kingdom Gillian Bowen John Burn Vivienne G. Callender Julien Cooper Jennifer Cromwell Arlette David Miral Lashien

5 7 17 35 47 67 83 101

Silvia Lupo, Maria Beatriz Cremonte 115 Samah Mahmood Anna-Latifa Mourad 129 135

DEVOURING THE ENEMY: ANCIENT EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION

Arlette David Hebrew University of Jerusalem Iconographic motifs expressing the Egyptians' ideology regarding foreign enemies are many; since the earliest periods, the Egyptians pictured foreigners in submissive positions, a propagandist topos reflecting either true Egyptian domination or magic thinking meant to cast its spell on reality. The visual metaphors involved in these representations are reflected in textual sources, but also in the categorization processes of the hieroglyphic script: the hieroglyphic system classifies lexemes in semantic categories with the help of specific icons, the classifiers (traditionally called 'determinatives').1 These small pictures obey the representational rules of the artistic canon and may entail metaphorical processes similar to those reflected by pictorial, plastic, and textual documents. I shall examine four types of scenes where a dominating pharaoh interacts with a subdued enemy and propose a lexical expression for the scene, observe its categorization into a specific semantic field through the classifiers of the script, study the metaphors underlying the iconography and lexico-semantic usage, and complete the obtained picture with textual sources using similar metaphors. Of course, many more types of scenes express Egyptian domination; my focus is on the parallel visual, textual, and scriptural expressions involving the royal arm, feet, mouth (and gut) as increasingly dramatic metaphors of the pharaoh's domination. Type 1: Smiting the enemy The most obvious and famous image of domination is of course "smiting the enemy",2 a scene already present in the painted Tomb 100 of Hierakonpolis, circa 3400 BC.3 The motif has enjoyed remarkable longevity; two thousand years later the same idea is carved in a slightly different form on limestone with the king Ramesses II catching his three prototypical enemies by the hair, holding the battleaxe that he will later use to annihilate his enemies and their treacherous plans.4 A millennium later still, Roman emperors are represented in the same way on the walls of Egyptian temples.5 Along the way, variations have been conceived related to the number and type of enemies under the royal hand, their body posture, and the weapon used by the king. Although it is not
83

BACE 22 (2011) always clear where the enemy's smiting is staged, it seems to be in a post-war ritual context. The representation does not always allude to a specific event but has a general allegoric meaning: the royal function of establishing order and protecting Egypt against evil chaos is represented by the symbolic act of striking an enemy. Monumental royal documents express textually the representations described here; for example, in the Gebel Barkal stela of Thutmose III, line 2,6 we read
Thutmose (), the good god who seizes (iTi ) with his strong arm (xpS ), smites (Hw ) the southerners, beheads (Hsq ) the northerners, smashes (ssH) the skulls of the evil-natured (foes of Egypt).

One can observe that the texts accompanying such smiting scenes use various other verbs that translate the visuals more or less literally: on a Middle Kingdom block from the temple of Gebelein,7 for instance, the line above king Mentuhotep smiting his enemies reads
subduing (waf ) the head[s] of the Two Lands, re-establishing the order (grg) of the South and the North

The Egyptian verbs corresponding more literally to the royal activity in the 'to smite' (sometimes categorized with the mace , scene are primarily sqr a classifier in metonymic relation with the lexeme, the instrument for the action),8 and Hwi , 'to beat, strike, smite'9 (classified already during the Old Kingdom in the [COERCION] semantic category by the classifiers of the man using a stick or its metonymic abbreviation, the strong hand ).10 These imply an extension of the arm with harmful intent towards a hapless, helpless foe11 fallen on his knees (bdS , 'defeated, downcast,' the epithet of "the foes of the sun god"12). The [COERCION] category encompasses activities implying the use of constraint, sometimes violence, and both classifiers and used interchangeably represent an empowered hand by virtue of a weapon or a function/status symbol (the scepter). But another hieroglyphic icon exactly matches the royal posture in the scene: , sign A59 in Gardiner's list,13 which sometimes functions as the classifier of sHr 'to drive away (evil)',14 the ultimate goal of the smiting scene. The field of the semantic category represented by this icon is far more restricted than the [COERCION] category and it has few members. As exemplified in Figure 1, the image is clear: grasping a person's hair and hacking are certainly hostile activities, and the unmistakable picture shows literally who is in the hand of whom. The image conveys its message through the general posture of the protagonists and the specific arm position of the king
84

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION

Figure 1.

Detail from the Narmer Palette, ca 3100 BC, Cairo CG 14716, after Quibell, ZS 36 (1898) pl. 13 (drawing Mary Hartley).

Figure 2.

Detail of the throne of Amenhotep III from a scene in the tomb of Anen TT120: after N. de Garis Davies, BMMA 24/2 (1929) g.3 85

BACE 22 (2011) at the center of the scene. The body postures of both king and enemy represent conceptual orientational metaphors grounded in bodily experience and related to a spatial up-down orientation,15 in a mapping process from the concrete body as source domain onto the abstract domination as target domain: for pharaoh who stands erect GOOD IS UP, HIGH STATUS IS UP, LIFE IS UP, CONTROL IS UP and ACTIVE IS UP; for his victim BAD IS DOWN, LOW STATUS IS DOWN, 16 DEATH IS DOWN, LACK OF CONTROL IS DOWN and PASSIVE IS DOWN. These metaphors are emphasized by the way the king and the enemy hold their arms, the two figures are clearly opposed in the script as well as in the representations. On the Narmer palette (Figure 1),17 for example, the muscled and armed arm of the king extends upward while the foe's arms, devoid of visible musculature, are turned down; the active, muscular legs of the king are equally contrasted with those of the kneeling enemy that are without visible musculature. The king's smiting arm lends meaning to the whole scene; the king's 'strong arm' is a common metonym for the powerful royal person, conveyed by the arm's movement, the implied force and the capacity to hold and use a deadly weapon (metonymy THE HAND STANDS FOR CONTROL).18 The use of the omnipresent expression 'the king strong of arm' represents a hypallage as the epithet relates not only to the arm, but to the king's essence.19 In this type of scene, the enemy is still treated as a warrior since the king uses a weapon against him. Note that the smiting of the enemy is a motif also known in Mesopotamia20 as well as in later biblical sources.21 Type 2: Trampling the enemy A second category of domination scenes involving foreign foes is usually entitled "trampling the enemy";22 the motif is already used in protohistoric times23 and enjoys a long tradition. For instance, in the 18th-Dynasty Theban Tomb of Anen24 (Figure 2), as in many other representations of the scene,25 the king sits on a throne ornamented with a scene of pharaoh as a winged lion trampling Egypt's three traditional enemies: the feet of the lion-king crush the bones of the defeated, prostrate enemy, an act expressed by the Egyptian verbs titi , xnd , and ptpt , 'to trample (a foe)',26 usually categorized in the semantic category of [MOTION] by the walking legs icon .27 The classifier represents through a metonymic (the organ central to the action) process the category of [MOTION] in which leg motion is prototypical. Texts may label the representation, as for example the caption accompanying the representation of King Sahure of the 5th Dynasty, as a winged lion trampling his enemies:
Thoth, Lord of the Iwntyw (Asiatic nomads) and Soped, Lord of the foreign highlands, trampling (ptpt) the MnTw (Bedouins)28 86

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION Other parallel expressions describe the motif, as for example in the Coffin Texts where the deceased proclaims in CT 87:
I have gone up and have set my [defeated] foes under my sandals (Xr Tbwty.i), that I may have power over them, in accordance with what [the sun-god] Re commands for me.

Textually and iconographically, to be under someone's feet (Xr rdwy) is to be in that person's power; the expression is even used in legal contexts to express possession.29 The king may be represented trampling the enemy in human, lion, sphinx, griffin and bull30 form.31 He may not only trample them with his feet, but New Kingdom representations showing the king crushing his enemies under the wheels of his chariot also belong to this group. Metaphors within the domain of violent action often relate to animal behavior,32 and the composite image of the lion-king serves this violence perfectly: it refers to the powerful, dangerous nature of the lion33 and to its solar symbolism of pharaoh as the sun dispelling the forces of darkness.34 From the Old Kingdom,35 the king is associated with mAi HsA 'the fierce lion':
It is to let you trample (titi ) *Hnw that I [Amun-Re] came, the islands of WTntyw belonging to the might of your powers, and to let them see your majesty as a fierce lion when you leave them as corpses throughout their valley.36

Of course, to walk over someone represents at least a double metaphor: CONTROL IS UP (as in the other related metaphors seen above) with the upright position symbolizing control over one's body and the environment, and ACTION 37 IS MOTION through a prototypical motion of the legs. We have just seen that it was possible to strike evil: the royal combat against Egypt's enemies represented Maat's wrestling with disorder and evil;38 but one could stamp on it too; the same idea is expressed textually in the Dialogue of a Man with His Ba, 21: 'trampling on evil' (xnd Hr isft), pinning it to the ground. As exemplified in most representations of crushing evil, the larger-scale royal figure demonstrates the veracity of the metaphor BIGGER IS BETTER. But there is more to the scene: a closer look at the Nubian victim in Anen's example shows one of the lion-king's forepaws stopping his nose and forcing his head backwards, while with his other foreleg on the Nubian's back he pins the enemy down. Interestingly, real lions may perform a nose-blocking motion on their prey, sometimes breaking their neck.39 The visuals are also confirmed by Egyptian textual sources, where the defeated enemies are said to call Egypt 'she-who-breaks-our-back'.40 When the king breaks the victim's neck, he expels the breath of life from his nose; the image parallels textual expressions such as: 'My enemy is under my soles, life is for my nose (only)'.41
87

BACE 22 (2011)

Figure 3.

Wooden statuette MMA 31.4.4. (12th18th Dyn.?) The Metropolitan Museum of Art / Art Resources, New York.

Figure 4.

Ostracon Cairo JE 63802, (19th 20th Dyn.). Drawing by Mary Hartley after J. Vandier dAbbadie, Catalogue des ostraca gurs de Deir el-Mdineh (Cairo 1936) no. 2226. 88

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION The victim may ask for mercy, as conveyed by the inscription on the torso of a bound captive from Qantir, probably held by a lion: '[Saying of] Keshy: Give me the breath [of life]'.42 By giving the breath of life, the king does the work of the Creator, and endows creation with order (Maat); this corresponds to the remarks by the protagonist in the tale of the Eloquent Peasant B1 177 that 'It is breath to the nose, doing Maat'.43 In this category of representations, the enemy is no longer treated as a warrior but is reduced to dust, to sand under the soles of the king's feet; interestingly, the classifiers representing an enemy may be replaced by the grain of sand sign (Gardiner N33) in the Pyramid Texts and New Kingdom religious documents (thus associating enemy, sand, desert, and chaos).44 The Ancient Near Eastern provides similar representations: Sumerian soldiers also trampled their vanquished enemies,45 their horses doing the same on the Ur Standard;46 Mesopotamian kings trampled their own foes.47 The Hebrew Bible emphatically conveys the same image:
I pursued my enemies and crushed them; I did not turn back till they were destroyed. I crushed them completely, and they could not rise: they fell beneath my feet. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, and I destroyed my foes. () I beat them as fine as the dust of the 48 earth; I pounded and trampled them like mud in the streets.

Type 3: The lion-king immobilizing the enemy A third series of motifs is based on the image of the 'lion king immobilizing the enemy': either the royal sphinx or a lion holds the enemy's head between his forepaws.49 In a Middle Kingdom example,50 the royal sphinx immobilizes a prostrate victim in front of him, his forepaws clutching the enemy's ears; in a Ramesside sculpture, a lion sits on a victim whose head is the only visible part between the animal's forepaws.51 The Egyptian verbs expressing this dominating royal attitude are nDrw 'to 'to subdue', or mH m ant 'to seize with grasp, arrest, hold to orders',52 waf a claw',53 again actions categorized mainly by the [COERCION] classifier of the strong arm (or ), while the defeated victim lies supine (sDr m sTsy or ). The metaphor of control is again obvious, as in textual sources such Xtb as a Medinet Habu text, where Ramesses III is described in this type of position:
a furious lion whose claws are upon the head of the Nine Bows, his roaring being in their heart. 54

89

BACE 22 (2011) The conceptualization of the enemy as prey to the Egyptian lion is specifically addressed in texts; for example, Ramesses II in his Qadesh Poem 19 is said to be
[dreaded] in the hearts of foreigners like a fierce lion in a valley of wild game 55

Holding down the enemy is based on the metaphors POSSESSING SOMETHING IS 56 HOLDING IT IN THE HAND and CONTROL IS UP / LACK OF CONTROL IS DOWN; the conflicting forces work to the advantage of the bigger and heavier predator. Movement restriction is a means of control. The elements of these traditional depictions correlate quite closely with the natural behavior of lions in attack which includes immobilization of their prey between the forepaws, the prey being "clutched with both paws, or they are simply grabbed with both paws, often while being knocked down by the violence of the contact. In either case, the lion immediately pulls the prey to its mouth and bites."57 This iconographic tradition will find another visual expression in the image of a lion standing on its hind legs, reared up and dominating,58 behind its enemy fallen on his knees (bdS ); the lion's forepaws crush his head, and its mouth is usually open (Figure 3).59 In many sculptural representations, the position of the lion(-king) or lion-god60 behind his enemy conveys the idea that the lion caught his foe running for his dear life before him, thus acting like a coward (Xsy). This is a notion often repeated in texts about Egypt's enemies, as for instance on one of his boundary stelae found at Semna, where Sesostris III declares:
Attack is valor, retreat is cowardice, A coward is he who is driven from his border. Since the Nubian listens to the word of mouth, To answer him is to make him retreat. Attack him, he will turn his back.61

Furthermore, the Egyptian metaphorical expression corresponding to PUNISH, PURSUE, is built with m-sA 'to be in the back of / to come after someone', which is exactly what the lion is doing. Accordingly, to watch one's back one needs 'all protection from behind' (sA nb HA.f), the very same metaphor. Of course, in nature, prey "is seldom attacked from the front because many species carry weapons there and because an animal is usually in flight with a lion in pursuit".62 Thus the enemy is now treated as a quarry or an object, dehumanized and neutralized. The motif exists in other cultures, and perhaps dates back to as early as 12,000 years ago in Gbekli Tepe, where a limestone sculpture was found representing an animal, referred to as "a lion-like animal", holding a human head between its paws.63
90

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION Type 4: The Egyptian lion devouring its enemy With the fourth category we now come to the most dramatic and expressive image of the Egyptian propaganda against its foes, the one that shows 'the Egyptian lion devouring its enemy'.64 Ancient images of the (royal) lion or other felines devouring enemies of Egypt have existed since the protohistoric ages;65 during the New Kingdom, the pet lion of the king is shown beside the royal chariot in combat,66 biting the enemies, and is specified as the "lion, who follows his majesty, slayer [of his enemies]".67 The main focus of this type of representation is the mouth and the gut : it concerns the absorption of the enemy68 to make him an integral part of voracious Egypt. The Pyramid Texts (1899e, Spell 665) offer an early textual version of the king, devourer of his foes:
[The king appears] as a lone star who eats his enemy.

Eating the enemy is also an image used in non-royal context: combining some of the motifs we have analyzed, a Ramesside magic spell for striking (Hwi ) a man states:
I will sever your bones and devour (wnm ) your flesh. I [will] seize your strength (xp), <to> put it <in> my hand. 69

An Egyptian onomatopoeic verb used to represent the lion's action is am(am) 'to swallow, absorb, devour';70 it is also the root used to designate the composite beast, part lion, part crocodile, part hippo, waiting behind the scales of Justice in the Netherworld to devour into oblivion71 the sinner whose heart is heavier than the feather of Justice. Other verbs are alluded to such as psH 'to bite'72 and wnm 'to eat'. All are classified by the icon of a man pointing to his mouth in the [MOUTH LINKED ACTIVITIES] category. Egypt is the containing body and agent of the absorption, the enemy the contained object and patient/victim. English metaphors relating to eating have been analyzed by the linguist Newman (1997) and classified into two categories: agent-oriented (hence related to the Egyptian lion in our case), and patient-oriented (the foreign victim). Some of the English metaphors originating in eating illuminate our motif: Newman states that an agentoriented metaphor "serves as a strong image of 'internalization', i.e. incorporating something into one's personal or private sphere".73 Thus eating conveys powerful metaphors related to acquiring possessions: Egypt is hungry for precious Nubian resources, swallows and absorbs them into its economy, digests them to keep strong, and enjoys a satisfactory takeover. On the other hand, patient-oriented metaphors target the effect of eating on the consumed
91

BACE 22 (2011) object: the visible and external object becomes interior, no longer visible, and suffers destruction by "mastication, involving chewing and biting", a "rather violent processing and transformation" as Newman puts it.74 These metaphors, then, involve physical destruction (the enemy is consumed by Egypt; it is chewed, swallowed and digested into something different) and elimination, as it is removed by being swallowed by the Egyptian lion; they have political and economic implications. By using the above-mentioned icon as a classifier for abstract economic concepts in the category [MOUTH LINKED ACTIVITIES], the ancient Egyptians apply a metaphorical process to link the semantic fields of alimentation and economic advantage.75 A few metaphors for this image of Egyptian political and economic absorption of foreign entities are RESOURCES ARE FOOD, 76 77 ACHIEVING A PURPOSE IS EATING and STRONG DESIRES ARE HUNGER. Food is sustenance, but also a representation of the enemy's chaos sacrificed and destroyed to reestablish order, Maat. The magical significance of such consuming behavior in Egyptian imagery is well understood when directed by the dead king to the gods themselves: in the Cannibal Hymn of the Pyramid Texts, the dead king "eats their [the Lords'] magic and gulps down their spirits"78 in order to take over their power. Ritner79 summarizes the magical act of swallowing: "consumption entails the absorption of an object and the acquisition of its benefits or traits. Alternatively, the act can serve a principally hostile function, whereby 'to devour' signifies 'to destroy'though even here the concept of acquiring power may be retained." In legal terms, the image designates the actual process by which Egypt appropriates the entity represented by the enemy; the Egyptian owner proclaims literally the three attributes of ownership, nicely named usus, fructus, and abusus in Latin,whereby usus is refers to the right to use the object owned, fructus (another food metaphor) the right to consume the produce of the object owned, and abusus is the ultimate right to dispose of the object.80 Although early depictions are dated to the reign of Amenophis III,81 during the Ramesside Period the image of the lion devouring the head of the enemy from behind, its gaping mouth enclosing its victim's skull, becomes all the rage.82 The lion (be it the king, a god, or the pet lion, it represents Egypt) sinks its teeth into its enemy, and the victim loses his head (note that in Egyptian tp 'head' also designates the headman / chief). Furthermore, the Egyptians conceived metaphorically the responsibility for a crime as 'falling on the head' of the perpetrator, which is exactly the case here.83 A particularly telling example comes from Deir el-Medina (Figure 4): in a sketch on an ostracon the bound Nubian, still alive, is so terrified that he may
92

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION be relieving himself,84 adding to the general idea of the fear inspired by the lion and the foe's cowardice. The scene is not entirely metaphorical: real lions attack isolated human subjects from behind, zeroing in on the prey's head or neck.85 The Egyptian metaphor complies with nature's cruel laws and claws. The same motif appears on the prows of ships86 and wooden shackles;87 it confirms with brutality88 the imperialist ideology of Egyptian supremacy over foreign territories and populations during the New Kingdom, and conjures up in terms of magic its eternal renewal. This propagandist iconography is used for Egyptian-Nubian relations when Nubia's status as an Egyptian colony was at its height, and the same image is applied in relation to the Asiatics and the Sea Peoples despite the difference in their situation.89 The enemy is now treated as food. The motif is known earlier in Mesopotamia,90 as illustrated by the example of a statuette from Susa V (20001940 BC);91 it also appears on a pair of famous Nimrud Phoenician ivories (900700 BC) featuring a lioness (Egyptian influence)92 and is expressed verbally in Numbers 24:89 in a way reminiscent of the Egyptian iconography:93
God brings him out of Egypt; and is for him like the horns of the wild ox; he shall eat up the nations, his adversaries, and shall break their bones in pieces and pierce them through with his arrows. He crouched, he lay down like a lion and like a lioness; who will rouse him up?

A powerful example of the combined force of these metaphors lies in a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 11:2094 by Rev. Philip Doddridge in 1834,95 where the author uses even more of the metaphors of domination studied above than found in the original biblical text itself:
if a man enslave you, and even trample upon your liberty, if he devour [you] by his exorbitant demands, if he take and seize [on your possessions,] if he exalt himself as if he were your supreme and absolute sovereign, if his mad passion were to transport him even to blows, and he were to smite you on the face ().

Doddridge's prose certainly demonstrates how much the metaphors expressing domination analyzed here are timeless building blocks of the human conceptual world.

93

BACE 22 (2011)
1

3 4

6 7

9 10

11

12 13 14

On the principles of the ancient Egyptian categorization system based on classifier signs, see mainly O. Goldwasser, From Icon to Metaphor, OBO 142 (Fribourg / Gttingen, 1995) and Lovers, Prophets and Giraffes: Wor(l)d Categorization in Ancient Egypt, GOF IV, R 38/3 (Wiesbaden, 2002). D. Wildung, "Erschlagen der Feinde" in Lexikon der gyptologie II, 1417; R.K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54 (Chicago, 1993) 11319; S. Schoske, Das Erschlagen der Feinde: Ikonographie und Stilistik der Feindvernichtung im Alten gypten (Ann Arbor, 1994) esp. 65 ff. Cairo JE 201: C. Aldred, Egypt to the End of the Old Kingdom (London, 1965) 33, fig. 21. Painted limestone relief Cairo JE 46189 (Mitrahineh, 19th Dynasty, Ramesses II): M. Saleh / H. Sourouzian, Catalogue officiel. Muse gyptien du Caire (Mainz, 1987) no. 206. Actually, it is a presentation of the enemy (Schoske, Erschlagen der Feinde, 229 ff.) without the swinging motion of the arm, the battleaxe being held against the shoulder; still, the presence of the axe in the royal hand does not bode well for his prisoners. See e.g. Tiberius in the temple of Philae: R. Lepsius, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien: Nach den Zeichnungen der von Seiner Majestt dem Knige von Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm IV. nach diesen Lndern gesendeten und in den Jahren 18421845 ausgefhrten wissenschaftlichen Expedition IV (Osnabrck, reprint 1970) pl. 74. Boston MFA 23.733 (18th Dynasty): W. Helck, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Heft 17: Historische Inschriften Thutmosis' III. und Amenophis' II. (Berlin, 1955) 1228.1820. Cairo TN 24.5.28.5 (11th Dynasty): L. Habachi, "King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep: His Monuments, Place in History, Deification and Unusual Representations in the Form of Gods" in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 19 (1963) 39, fig. 17. Already used on a 1st-Dynasty ivory label of King Den (BM EA 55586) on which it labels a scene of the king smiting an enemy: E.R. Russmann, Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum (London, 2001) 6768 (no. 2). The apparent earliest example of the mace classifier appended to the lexeme appears in a 5th-Dynasty text: S. Hassan, Excavations at Gza 1929-1930, I (Oxford, 1932) 18, fig. 13. R.O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford, 1962) 165; the lexeme already appears in Old Kingdom documents. See A. David, Syntactic and Lexico-Semantic Aspects of the Legal Register in Ramesside Royal Decrees, GOF IV, R 38/5 (Wiesbaden, 2006) 2728 on the [COERCION] category and the classifiers that represent it. Which may also be a "rebel," an Egyptian enemy: e.g. the Gebelein temple relief of Mentuhotep I (Cairo TN 24.5.28.5, 11th Dynasty) where an Egyptian victim is smitten by the king in front of the traditional Libyan, Asiatic, and Nubian enemies, all being on their knees: Habachi, in: MDAIK 19 (1963) 39, fig. 17. Faulkner, CD, 86. A.H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs (Oxford, 31957) 445. See, for example, Urk. IV, 618.7 (18th Dynasty); in Medinet Habu (20th Dynasty): 94

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION

H.H. Nelson / The Epigraphic Survey, Festival Scenes of Ramesses III, MH 4, OIP 23 (Chicago, 1940) pl. 231; in the tomb of Tjanefer (19th Dynasty), H(w)y and sHr appear side by side, both classified by in K.C. Seele, The Tomb of Tjanefer at Thebes, OIP 86 (Chicago, 1959) pl. 4; precursors of the sign during the Old Kingdom are found e.g. in PT 653c, Spell 372 (sHr classified by the hand holding a stick in the same position as in ). Other classifiers may be appended to sHr, such as and variants of a man holding a stick. During the Middle Kingdom, and are mainly used; in the New Kingdom , , , and are all attested. G. Lakoff / M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago, 1980) 1421. Lakoff / Johnson, Metaphors, 1416, 24. Cairo CG 14716 (ca. 3100 BC): F. Tiradritti (ed.), Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Vercelli, 1998) 41. S. Csbi, "Polysemous Words, Idioms and Conceptual Metaphors: Cognitive Linguistics and Lexicography" in: A. Braasch / C. Povlsen (eds.) The Tenth EURALEX International Congress, Copenhagen - Denmark, August 1317, 2002: Proceedings I (Copenhagen, 2002) 251. The strong hand/arm of the king is alluded to in several other expressions such as TmA-a, wsr-xpS, and nxt-a 'strong of arm', TmA a.k 'strong is your arm', aA-xpS 'great of arm'. For the analysis of exocentric compounds as hypallages, see A. David, "Composs attributifs exocentriques, hypallage et mtaphore" in Lingua Aegyptia 12 (2004) 17. Victory stele of Eannatum (Vultures stela, Early Dynastic III: 26002330 BC), fragments Louvre AO 50 and 2346: I.J. Winter, On Art in the Ancient Near East II, CHANE 34 (Leiden/Boston, 2010) 40, 42, figs. 1, 3. For the diffusion of the motif, see O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, 1997) 296. J.K. Hoffmeier, "Some Egyptian Motifs Related to Warfare and Enemies and Their Old Testament Counterparts" in: J.K. Hoffmeier / E. Meltzer (eds.) Egyptological Miscellanies: A Tribute to Professor R.J. Williams. The Ancient World 6 (1983) 5456. Schoske, Erschlagen der Feinde, esp. 295 ff.; Ritner, Mechanics, 11936. See e.g. the Battlefield Palette (BM EA 20791, 3200 BC); the later and remarkable sandstone door socket from Hierakonpolis (Pennsylvania Museum E 3957, 1st or 2nd Dynasty): B.V. Bothmer, "On Realism in Egyptian Funerary Sculpture of the Old Kingdom" in: Expedition 24 (1982) 37, fig. 26; this socket is conceived as a bound enemy pinned, pierced and crushed by the door, and to be trampled when a person crosses the threshold. In this case as in the preceding motif, the trampled victim may be Egyptian, usually represented as the rxyt bird symbolizing the Egyptian subjects; see, for example, the base of a limestone statue of King Djoser (Cairo JE 49889, 3rd Dynasty): D. Wildung, Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im Alten gypten, MS 36 (Munich / Berlin, 1977) pl. 1. Tomb of Anen TT 120 (18th Dynasty / Amenhotep III): N. de Garis Davies, "The Graphic Work of the Expedition" in: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 24/2 (1929) 39, fig. 3 and color facsimile MMA 33.8.8. See, for example, G. Jquier, Le monument funraire de Pepi II, III: Les approches 95

15 16 17 18

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

BACE 22 (2011)
du temple, Fouilles Saqqarah (Cairo, 1940) pls. 1516 for a winged lion and a griffin trampling foes (6th Dynasty), and similar representations in the Meroitic temple of Musawarat es-Sofra (early Ptolemaic Period): Lepsius, Denkmaeler V, pls. 7475. The verb ptpt is already classified by in the Old Kingdom, xnd is attested in the Old Kingdom but not with this classifier, and titi appears in the Middle Kingdom. Other classifiers are also attested, such as , , , , and ; sometimes two of them occur together. See A. David, "Ancient Egyptian Forensic Metaphors and Categories" in: Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 134 (2007) 114. L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Knigs Sahu-Re II, WVDOG 26 (Leipzig, 1913) pl. 8; see also the right column of hieroglyphs in Anen's scene (Figure 2). A. Thodorids, "Mettre des biens sous les pieds de quelqu'un" in: Revue d'gyptologie 24 (1972) 18892. As for example on the Narmer palette (Figure 1). On "Tiere in der Ikonographie der Feindvernichtung", see Schoske, Erschlagen der Feinde, 356ff. P. Pauwels / A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, "Body Parts in Linguistic Action: Underlying Schemata and Value Judgements" in: L. Goossens / P. Pauwels / B. Rudzka-Ostyn / A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen / J. Vanparys (eds.) By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in Cognitive Perspective (Amsterdam / Philadelphia, 1995) 69. U. Rssler-Khler, "Lwe, L.-Kpfe, L.-Statuen" in: L III, 1080. Rssler-Khler, in: L III, 1081; E. Hornung, Idea into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought (New York, 1992) 154. See, for example, PT 573a (Spell 355): "Your [the king's] tail is of a fierce lion." Thutmose III's Poetical Stela from Karnak (Cairo CG 34010), line 19: Urk. IV, 61617. Lakoff / Johnson, Metaphors, 15; David, in: ZS 134 (2007) 7. D. O'Connor, "Egypt's Views of 'Others' " in: J. Tait (ed.) 'Never Had the Like Occurred': Egypt's view of its past (London, 2003) 160, 167, 174ff. M. Sunquist / F. Sunquist, Wild Cats of the World (Chicago / London, 2002) 291: "Lions sometimes hold the nose of the victim with one paw, pulling the head down to the chest so that the animal breaks its neck when it falls. During the struggle the lion's hind legs usually remain on the ground." K.A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical V (Oxford, 1983) 65.12 (Ramesses III). Magic spell of the New Kingdom pLeiden I 346, 2, 1: B.H. Stricker, "Spreuken tot beveiliging gedurende de schrikkeldagen, naar Pap. I 346" in Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 29 (1948) 5570. M. Hamza, "Excavations of the Department of Antiquities at Qantr (Faqs District)" in: Annales du Service des Antiquits de l'gypte 30 (1930) 46, pl. 1; but note that the torso has been connected to the wrong head of an Asiatic (Cairo JE 64312, 3512427, 19th dynasty / Ramesses II). R.B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant (Oxford, 1991). P. Lacau, "Suppressions et modifications de signes dans les textes funraires" in: 96

26

27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41

42

43 44

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION

Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 51 (1913) 1820, 6364; Ritner, Mechanics, 15657. Victory Stele of Eannatum (26002330 BC), fragments Louvre AO 50 and 2346: Winter, Art II, 41, 4546, figs. 2, 8, 10. BM 121201 (Early Dynastic III): Winter, Art II, 48, fig. 13. J.H. Walton / V.H. Matthews / M.W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible background commentary: Old Testament (Madison, 2000) 552; see, for example, the victory stela of Naram-Sin (Louvre Sb4, 23rd century BC): Winter, Art II, 10304, figs. 12. Samuel 22:3843; for other biblical examples, see Hoffmeier, in: The Ancient World 6 (1983) 5664. U. Schweitzer, Lwe und Sphinx im alten gypten (Glckstadt / Hamburg, 1948) 39ff. Of course, the trampling motif may be viewed as a special case of the immobilizing motif, but where the immobilization is caused by the lion's four legs instead of its forepaws. Ivory sphinx (BM EA54678, Abydos Tomb 477, 12th Dynasty): Schweitzer, Lwe, pl. IX.3. G. Rhlmann, "Der Lwe im altgyptischen Triumphalbild" in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universitt Halle-Wittenberg [Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe] 13 (1964) pl. IId. The motif of the immobilization by sitting on the victim is already mentioned textually in the Pyramid Texts ( 651 52, Spell 372): "Horus has caused Thoth to bring your enemy to you (); take your place upon him, come forth and sit on him, do not let him rise from (under) you." Faulkner, CD, 145. In Medinet Habu, Ramesses III is presented as a "dangerous, powerful lion seizing with his claw": H.H. Nelson / The Epigraphic Survey, Earlier Historical Records of Ramesses III, MH 1, OIP 8 (Chicago, 1930) pl. 28, line 55. H.H. Nelson / The Epigraphic Survey, The Calendar, the "Slaughterhouse," and Minor Records of Ramesses III, MH 3, OIP 23 (Chicago, 1934) pl. 182, line 7; see also W.F. Edgerton / J.A. Wilson, Historical Records of Ramesses III: The Texts in Medinet Habu (Chicago, 1936) 76, 112. KRI II, 9. Csbi, in: EURALEX, 251. G.B. Schaller, The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations (Chicago / London, 1972) 264. As already in protohistoric times in the imported motif of the Master of the Lions, e.g. in Tomb 100 of Hierakonpolis (Aldred, Egypt to the End of the OK, 33, fig. 21); see also C. de Wit, Le rle et le sens du lion dans l'gypte ancienne (Leiden, 1951) 3435. Wooden statuette MMA 31.4.4 (Thebes?, 12th18th Dynasty?): W.C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom (New York, 1953) 225, fig. 141; also an ivory hairpin (BM 30847, Hu, 12th Dynasty): W.M.F. Petrie, Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 189899 (London, 1901) pl. 26. Schweitzer, Lwe, 3940 suggests that this typology is foreign. The New Kingdom saw the advent of a warrior lion deity, destroyer of his foes, sharing the same name/epithet as the king and the attacking lion mAi HsA "furious 97

45 46 47

48 49

50 51

52 53

54

55 56 57 58

59

60

BACE 22 (2011)
lion" (Rssler-Khler, L III, 108486). M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings I (Berkeley, 1973) 119; Berlin 1157 (12th Dynasty): Lepsius, Denkmaeler II, 136h. Schaller, Serengeti, 265. K. Schmidt, "The Urfa-Project 1996" in: Neo-Lithics 2/96 (1996) 3 and "Beyond Daily Bread: Evidence of Early Neolithic Ritual from Gbekli Tepe" in: NeoLithics 2/98 (1998) fig. 1. See, for example, the blue frit and gold miniature MMA 1989.281.92 (Qantir, 18th or 19th Dynasty): A.P. Kozloff / B.M. Bryan, Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World (Cleveland, 1992) 224 (no. 33). See, for example, the Battlefield Palette (BM EA 20791, 3200 BC); a Middle Kingdom example of the motif: 12th or 13th Dynasty ivory "magic wand" (MMA 15.3.197, Lisht, Tomb 493 of Nakht, 12th or 13th Dynasty): Hayes, Scepter of Egypt I, fig. 159. For example oCairo CG 25124 (20th Dynasty, Ramesses IV): Hamza, Qantr, 50, fig. 9. See, Ramesses II, Temple of Derr: Lepsius, Denkmaeler III, 183b and Hamza, Qantr, 48; ironically, the motif of the pet lion biting at the king's enemies is represented in Nubia at the feet of the Nubian king and queen smiting their enemies: pylon of the lion-temple of Naga (early first century AD): E.S. Hall, The Pharaoh Smites his Enemies: A Comparative Study, MS 44 (Munich / Berlin, 1986) fig. 88. On "swallowing" in Egyptian magic: Ritner, Mechanics, 10210. Ostracon Armytage, lines 5-6: A.W. Shorter, "A Magical Ostracon" in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 22 (1936) 16568. See, the lion-king called "the great devouring lion" on Stela Berlin 2268, line 2 (Dongola, Late Period): Urk. III, 140. J. Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory (Stanford, 2006) 92. psH mAi "Lwenbiss" in: pHearst XII, 8; W. Wreszinski, Der Londoner medizinische Papyrus und der Papyrus Hearst (Leipzig, 1912). J. Newman, "Eating and Drinking as Sources of Metaphor in English" in: Cuadernosde Filologa Inglesa 6.2 (1997) 216. Newman, in: CFI 6.2 (1997) 224. David, Decrees, 2425 and The Legal Register of Ramesside Private Law Instruments, GOF IV, R 38/7 (Wiesbaden, 2010) 93. G. Lakoff, "The contemporary theory of metaphor" in: A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge, 1993) 242. On the network of general conceptualizations based on the source domain EATING, see H.-G. Wolf / F. Polzenhagen, World Englishes: A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Approach, ACL 8 (Berlin / New York, 2009) 7071. PT 403c (Spell 274); C. Eyre, The Cannibal Hymn: A Cultural and Literary Study (Liverpool, 2002) 15374, esp. 158: "Cannibalism () is a metaphor () which asserts control over the power of chaos and disorder." Ritner, Mechanics, 103. A 6th-Dynasty papyrus of Elephantine (pBerlin 9010): K. Sethe, "Ein Prozessurteil aus dem alten Reich" in: ZS 61 (1926) 6779 and A. David, De l'infriorit la perturbation: L'oiseau du "mal" et la catgorisation en Egypte ancienne, GOF IV, 98

61 62 63

64

65

66 67

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

78

79 80

DAVID, DEVOURING THE ENEMY: EGYPTIAN METAPHORS OF DOMINATION

R 38/1 (Wiesbaden , 2000), 40 refers to the right to consume revenues without inflicting damage on an estate (wnm n sbn), applying a similar eating metaphor to temporary possession. Karnak 3rd pylon: Kozloff / Bryan, Dazzling Sun, fig. 33a; perhaps also the blue frit and gold miniature MMA 1989.281.92 mentioned above; see also the 18th-Dynasty bronze dagger from Semna: D. Dunham, The Egyptian Department and its Excavations (Boston, 1958) 97, n.68. See limestone group Cairo JE 37647 (Mitrahine, 19th Dynasty, Ramesses II): Hamza, Qantr, 48, fig.6; sandstone group Cairo TN 20.11.24.4 (Abu Simbel, 19th Dynasty, Ramesses II): Hamza, Qantr, 47, fig.5; a group of faience statues from the palace of Qantir (19th Dynasty, Ramesses II) such as MMA 35.1.23 inscribed "The wretched chief says: (Give) to Kush the breath (of life)": Schweitzer, Lwe, pl. 12; and faience head and torso Cairo JE 64312, 3512427: Hamza, Qantr, pl. 1 wrongly matched; linchpins of Ramesses III's chariot wheels on a relief from Medinet Habu: H.H. Nelson / The Epigraphic Survey, Earlier Historical Records of Ramesses III, pl. 17. Judicial Papyrus of Turin 3, 2 (KRI V, 350): imi xprw pAw i.irw.w nb r DADA.w. oCairo JE 63802 (Deir el-Medina, 19th20th Dynasty): J. Vandier d'Abbadie, Catalogue des ostraca figurs de Deir el-Mdineh (nos. 2001 2255), DFIFAO 2.1 (Cairo, 1936) no. 2226; J. Vandier d'Abbadie, Catalogue des ostraca figurs de Deir el-Mdineh, DFIFAO 2.3 (Cairo, 1946) 5354 interprets the interrupted lines . as pearl ornaments; but see the explicit hieroglyphs Sunquist / Sunquist, Wild Cats, 291: "Lions subdue their victims in various ways, depending on the size of the prey and how vigorously it defends itself. Small animals such as Thomson's gazelles, hares, and antelope fawns are knocked over with a quick blow, grabbed with both paws, and killed with a bite to the neck or throat." Lions may devour their prey's head (Schaller, Serengeti, 26871), although the head-bite does not always lead to it. For an example of a lion attacking the head of its human victim, see J.C.K. Peterhans / T.P. Gnoske, "The Science of 'ManEating' among Lions Panthera leo with a Reconstruction of the Natural History of the 'Man-Eaters of Tsavo'" in: Journal of East African Natural History 90 (2001) 18; I thank Dr Linda Evans (Macquarie University) for this reference. Schweitzer, Lwe, 52; A.P. Kozloff, "Symbols of Egypt's Might" in: Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 5 (1983) 6166; Kozloff / Bryan, Dazzling Sun, 224 n.33. Z.Y. Saad, "Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Department of Antiquities at Saqqara 1942-1943" in: ASAE 45 (1943) pl. 34B; H. Chevrier, "Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak 19521953" in: ASAE 53 (1955) pl. 1, fig. 1; R.K. Ritner, "Enigmatic Throne Element is Probably a Manacle" in: KMT 5/1 (1994) 2; K. Kller, "Noch Einmal: A Symbol of Egypt's Might" in: Gttinger Miszellen 187 (2002) 8390. O'Connor, in: Tait (ed.) 'Never had the like occurred', 157 speaks about "metaphorical brutality towards foreigners" being usual in Egyptian literature. See the prow of the Egyptian warships on the reliefs of the temple of Medinet Habu: Kozloff, in: BES 5 (1983) figs. 34. M.J. Mellink, "Review of Lwe und Sphinx im alten gypten by U. Schweitzer" in: 99

81

82

83 84

85

86 87

88 89 90

BACE 22 (2011)
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12 (1953) 214; see, for example, an Old Babylonian terracotta from Nippur in E.D. van Buren, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria, YOS 16 (New Haven / London, 1930) 152 n.722, pl. 42, fig. 200 and various seals in E. Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, I: The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library, BS 14 (Washington, 1948) 4445, pls. 5253. On the different associations and values of the Near Eastern lion, see for example Rhlmann, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universitt 13 (1964), 65455. Louvre Sb 11389: A. Spycket, La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien (Leiden / Cologne, 1981) pl. 122. BM 127412: R.D. Barnett / L.G. Davies, A Catalogue of Nimrud Ivories in the British Museum (London, 1975) frontispiece, 190; and Iraq Museum 56642: S. Soldi / T. Padrazzi, La Grande histoire de l'art, IV: L'art phnicien et du MoyenOrient (Paris, 2006) 37. On lion metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: B.A. Strawn, What is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, OBO 212 (Fribourg/Gttingen, 2005). "For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face". P. Doddridge, The Family Expositor; or, a Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament (New York, 1834) 636.

91 92

93

94 95

100