On the origins of the Egyptian P

On the origins of the Egyptian Pantheon

Results of a 4WD-trip to Gebel Uweinat and to the Gilf Kebir

12/1/2009 – 12/20/2009

- part one -

Carlo Bergmann

1. Introduction

In the course of their November 2008 Western Desert expedition Miroslav Barta, Professor of Egyptology at Charles University, Prague, and his team paid a visit to the Wadi Sura area of the Gilf Kebir, paying particular attention to the Cave of the Swimmers (WG 52; Andras Zboray classification) and the Foggini-Mestekawi Cave (Grotta Foggini; WG 21; Andras Zboray classification) which were top priorities on their agenda. At the latter site, like most of those before him, Barta was startled by the beauty and splendor of the largely cryptic rock art that embellishes the slightly concave rounded shelter and made an important discovery, when to his great surprise, he realized that some of the cave’s enigmatic paintings portrayed gods and goddesses from the Pharaonic pantheon. Consequently he concluded that ancient Egyptian mythological concepts were primordially linked to the Neolithic rock art of Egypt’s Western Desert, notably to the Gilf Kebir.

The Foggini-Mestekawi Cave (WG 21) was discovered in 2002 by the Italian desert enthusiast Massimo Foggini and his tour operator Ahmed El-Mestekawi. Although unilaterally renamed as Cave of the Beasts (“Grotte des Be´tes”; J. Le Quellec, P. and P. de Flers: Peintures et gravures d´ avant les pharaons du Sahara au Nil, Seleb 2005 ) by the prehistorian and prominent specialist in African rock art, Le Quellec et al., we shall adhere to its original name which was already consolidated into common usage long before the Frenchman, who had no involvement in the find, arrived there. The Cave of the Swimmers (WG 52) lying only 10 kilometres distant was discovered by the Hungarian explorer Count Laszlo Almasy in October 1933. Its name alludes to the notion that several small figures depicted on its walls vaguely recall humans in a floating or swimming posture. (figure 1)

figure 1: small human figures in swimming posture

2. Attempts to date the Wadi Sura rock art

Whilst Le Quellec tentatively dated the Wadi Sura rock art to around 4,500 +/- 500 years BC. (J.-L. Le Quellec, Une nouvelle approche des rapports Nil-Sahara d´apres lárt rupestre. Archeo-Nil 15 (2005) p. 73), Barta had assumed an age ranging between “…the Sixth – Fourth millennia B. C., and most likely to the period between 4,300–3,300 B.C…” (M. Barta: The origins of the goddess Nut and the predecessors of ancient Egyptian kings. Unpublished manuscript, received on 2/26/2010, p. 2), the latter time span being considered as the period of most intensive habitation in the Gilf Kebir and the surrounding area. (J. Linstaedter: Rocky islands within oceans of sand – archaeology of the Jebel Owenat/Gilf kebir region, eastern Sahara, in: O. Bubenzer, A. Bolten, F. Darius (eds.): Atlas of cultural and environmental change in arid Africa. Cologne 2007, 36 et seq. Note that for Neolithic sites in the Gilf Kebir Hoffmann suggests a period of habitation ranging from 6,000 to probably 4,000 B.C.. M. A. Hoffmann: Egypt before the pharaohs. London, Melbourne, Henley 1984, p. 232) However, as images of giraffes present in both caves (figure 2) point to an earlier era, Barta deviating from his original proposal, reasoned that the rock art in question “… must date to a wet period in the region as giraffes need rich water reservoirs. This wet period ended around 6,200 B.C. after which this mammal had to withdraw to the south.” (M. Barta: Origins, op. cit. p. 2) Thus, according to Barta, an earlier date seems to be more likely. (Ibidem, p. 2 ) Extending the time interval defined above, he finally concluded that the period of origin of the Wadi Sura rock art probably lay somewhere between circa 7,500 and 3,200 BC. (Ibidem, p. 2 )

figure 2: altar-cave (WG 61; Andras Zboray classification): a giraffe superimposed on a cow

So, various periods have been suggested: 7,500 B.C., 6,000 B.C, 4,500 B.C., 4,000 BC, 3,200 B.C. or even later? As is evident from the different styles and manifold superimpositions, the Wadi Sura rock art would seem to have been “… created in several, chronologically different phases.” (M. Barta,: Swimmers in the Sand. Unpublished manuscript, received on 3/10/2010, p. 12)

3. Wadi Sura – a Mecca for pilgrims from the Nile?

(see P. and P. de Flers, J. J. Le Quellec: Prehistoric swimmers in the Sahara. http//rupestres.perso.neuf.fr./page 76/assets/AC_, p. 61)

Wadi Sura lies on the route of the ancient Kufra Trail and its side paths. (see “The Kufra trail – another pharaonic period road to the southwest” on this website; in preparation). This long distance donkey road was in use until 2,000 B.C. Although less probable, it may be that the religious concepts so evidently displayed in the Wadi Sura rock art, were brought there by Nile valley travellers on their way from Dakhla oasis to the west. Given the chaos of styles and motifs, we cannot say more than this about the possible age of some of the rock paintings. The only hope to establish a more precise date “… is future archaeological research in their vicinity, especially in the case of (WG 21) which has never been properly surveyed.” (M. Barta,: Origins. op. cit., p. 2)

4. Research strategy

Bearing in mind my modest resources, how could the issues raised by Barta´s discovery be thoroughly investigated? What was the function of the two caves? Were they merely art-embellished sites decorated for art’s sake only? Or were they gathering places for rituals as suggested by the inherently religious nature of the ideas displayed on their rock faces and by the sacrificial altar found at WG 61? According to Assmann, Egyptian cult rituals are “…rooted in the basic concept of a deity as resident in a locale; (they are ) not directed toward a distant divinity who must be summoned, but rather to one who is present and resident.” (J. Assmann, The search for god in ancient Egypt. Ithaca, London 2001, p. 48) Does WG 21 and its divine rock art qualify for such a place of worship? Where can one find sound evidence for such a proposition? How could datable elements in the material culture of the region’s prehistoric populations be identified? Since the 1930´s, this expanse of great natural beauty has been frequented by a vast number of tourists and also by a few Egyptologists, archaeologists, pre-historians and rock art specialists. Apart from the rock art itself, was there any chance finding anything in situ? Could the age of the rock paintings be revealed without destroying them? Determined to find answers to these questions, in the Spring 2009 I began to look out for participants to join me on this difficult venture.

In two successive expeditions, one in December 2009 and the other in January 2010, a bunch of desert addicts and myself (Uwe George, Uwe Karstens, Dominik Stehle, Christian Kny, Christian Philipp, all five of whom generously sponsored the project, and Roland Keller), hopped into 4WDs and headed together with Khaled Khalifa and his staff (Muhamed Khalifa, Ibrahim Muhamed Imam, Muhamed Abd el-Faraq, Muhamed el-Said) towards the destination of my dreams.

5. 1^st 4WD-trip (12/1/2009 – 12/20/2009

5.1 Resuming an earlier cancelled project

Memories awakened in me as we embarked on our first journey into the Land of Seth were, during the past 29 years I had left behind so many footprints. In the winter of 2002/3 Heino Wiederhold and myself had tried in vain to reach Almasy´s Cave of the Swimmers from Dakhla by camel. We managed to arrive at the top of the western escarpment of the Gilf Kebir only a stone’s throw away from the famous site, in the evening of the 1/21/2003 after a strenuous hike but shortage of water brought our lives to the brink of the abyss and in order to save ourselves, we were compelled, after only a few hours sleep at that spot, to commence the forced march back to Dakhla oasis together with our camels Amur, Maqfi and Rashid. Now, at long last, it was possible to resume the survey which had been deferred for almost seven years.

5.2 An unexpected discovery in Karkur Talh/Gebel Uweinat

Coming from Gebel Uweinat, the huge pluton which, together with its neighbouring mountains, Kissu and Arkenu, mark the direction of the drift of the African continental shelf during a distant geological epoch, we approached Wadi Sura from the south. In Karkur Talh I had bothered my companions with an (in their opinion) abstruse urge to identify mythological and religious traits in the Gebel Uweinat rock art (such as depictions of ithyphallic human figures or hand prints) that could be linked with ancient Egyptian religion. This aspiration unexpectedly yielded a result when Uwe George discovered a sandstone penis, measuring 2.30 metres in length. (figure 3) Sculptures are extremely rare in the Western Desert and to the best of my knowledge, apart from a large, carefully worked 2.5 ton sandstone block resembling a cow which was unearthed at Nabta Playa, this penis is the only other Neolithic sculpture found there so far. The phallus is comprised of two testicles (figure 4) and a clearly articulated glans. (figure 5) It’s form and size suggests it had been utilized for ritual purposes.

figure 3: sandstone sculpture of a penis discovered by Uwe George figure 4: close up of the testicles

figure 5: close up: clearly articulated glans figure 6: rock art found next to the phallus (detail)

The surface of the penis shows that it had been dressed by tools. It was found next to a horizontal row of inconspicuous engravings on a narrow rock terrace overlooking Karkur Talh. The event depicted in these engravings, shown in figure 6, may commemorate a group of humans being put to flight. Does this give a clue to the sculpture’s function? Even if one considers, that for the most part, the item might be naturally shaped, the fact that it bears anthropogenic marks indicates that it had attracted someone’s attention and thus, it must have possessed an important meaning of some kind. Was it the intention of the sculptors to erect the penis in an up-right position? In this case, would the object have to be considered as a megalithic monument intended to demonstrate virility and power according to the beliefs of an obscure cult? As the period when it was used certainly goes back to “… dimly distant prehistoric times which may lie forever beyond our grasp in terms of any full degree of understanding.” (R.H. Wilkinson, The complete gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt, Cairo 2006, p. 10) a reasonable satisfactory answer is not easy to find.

Nevertheless, we tried to find similar megalithic sculptures down in the Karkur Talh but only managed to spot one piece of rock art in which the unexplained and mysterious depiction of erect penises(?) is again in evidence. (figure 7) Revisiting a small rock shelter, in front of which I had camped with my camels 23 years ago (see picture 10 of “The road to Yam and Tekhebet – part one”, in: Results of the winter 2008/9 4WD trip to Gebel Uweinat; on this website), I cast a glance into the dimly lit interior and looked once more at the single inconspicuous piece of rock art showing a man with erect penis standing behind a quadruped; the glans of his member obviously bulging somewhat. (figure 8) From our brief survey of the vast number of anthropomorphic depictions in Karkur Talh, we concluded that phallic symbolism is relatively rare in the wadi.

figure 7: three dancers, two with erect penises(?) and knees bent (courtesy of Dominik Stehle)

figure 8: man with erect penis behind quadruped (colour enhanced for improved contrast)

5.3 Foggini-Mestekawi Cave/Gilf Kebir (WG 21; Andras Zboray classification)

5.31 A triad of nameless (Wadi Sura) deities evolving into a tetrad

When we arrived at WG 21, the enigmatic arrangement of those images engraved into the left freeze above the bulk of the rock paintings immediately attracted my attention. It consists of four human or divine figures, two of them outfitted with naturalistically shaped penises similar to the one shown in figure 8, two ostriches, two vulvae and a few negative hand prints. As shown in figure 9, the human figure slightly to the right of the centre is superimposed on an ostrich and also on the leg of a barely visible quadruped (the human figure thus probably being of younger age). This figure and the faint negative handprints immediately surrounding it, bear traces of reddish brown colour.

figure 9: nativity scene composed of two gods and a goddess, an umbilical cord, two ostriches and two pubic triangles.

Although the scene cannot be entirely explained, an attempt is made to unveil its possible meaning: The two human or, more generally speaking, the two anthropoid figures to the left of the picture, seem to represent a male holding his oversized penis with his right hand and a female of prominent status. The determinative-like, horizontal stroke or rectangle above the female’s head may be an indicator of this status but is so far uncorroborated. Linear strokes have been related to “owner’s marks”, “potter’s signatures”, “notational signs” etc. (M. A. Hoffmann: op. cit. p. 294; K. A. Bard: Origins of Egyptian writing, in: The followers of Horus. Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffmann. R. Friedman, B. Barich (eds.), Oxford 1992, p. 299; E. D´Amicone: The art of vessel production. Turin 2001, p. 25). One, two or three horizontal strokes are common below the Horus names of the early Egyptian rulers (G. Dreyer: Um el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 3./4. Vorbericht. MDAIK 46 (1990) p. 58 et seq.; G. Dreyer: Umm el-Qaab I. Mainz 1998, p. 89; http://xoomer.alice.it//francescoraf/hesyra/Dyn0serekhs.htm, F. Raffaele: Dynasty 0 “Serekhs”. Late predynastic Egyptian royal names) and occasionally, on jars (W.M.F. Petrie, J. E. Quibell: Naqada and Ballas, London 1896, pl. LIV; E. C. M. van den Brink: Corpus and numerical evaluation of the “Thinite” potmarks, in: The followers of Horus. op. cit., pp. 278, 288, 291, 293, 295; The international potmark workshop, http://www.potmark-egypt.com/Signs.asp?basic_sign-81. Note that the quality of oil was indicated by a horizontal stroke on jars found by Dreyer et al. at Umm el Qaab. G. Dreyer, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E. C. Köhler, V. Müller, F. Pumpenmeier: Umm el-Qaab, Ergänzungen, MDAIK 54, p. 140) and Clayton rings (figure 10).

figure 10: pot mark on a Clayton ring deposited at a way station on the Kufra Trail

The stroke’s possible function as an indicator of the figure’s female gender seems unlikely, as an umbilical cord emerging from between figure’s legs (that is, from the womb; figure 11) and fusing with a “child” engraved on the far right, already supplies sufficient proof of gender. If one interprets the meaning of the determinative-like rectangle or stroke above the head of the female figure as an accentuation of her elevated position then, on that score, the figure may be seen as the consort of a chieftain who is depicted to the left of her or as a goddess who a.) has just given birth or b.) is related by lineage to the figure (her and her divine husband’s child) on the right.

figure 11: nativity scene – a god and his divine consort (detail of figure 9; colour enhanced for improved contrast)

A painted female statuette found by Flinders Petrie and James Quibell at Naqada (W.M.F. Petrie, J. E. Quibell: op. cit. pl. LIX¸; figure 12) seems to suggest the divine nature of the female figure seen in figure 11. (Even though Petrie and Quibble have assigned such female figurines, tattooed or painted, to their “New Race” which they related to “…a slender European type…” (Ibidem, p. 34) or alternatively, to the “.. slave women of the previous steatopygous race…” (W.M.F. Petrie: Prehistoric Egypt. London 1920, p. 47, Pl. VI), Fekri Hassan ventures further and proposes their mythological association with early predynastic female deities. (F. A. Hassan, Primeval goddess to divine king. The mythogenesis of power in the early Egyptian state, in: Followers of Horus. op. cit., p. 313 et seq.) With regard to a similar figure he states: “Although other interpretations are possible, the female may be identified with a deity, perhaps the goddess Hathor or Bat.” (Ibidem, p. 315))

figure 12: Human figures found by W.M.F. Petrie at Naqada

Note that the two tall statuettes in figure 12 show signs “…linking the breasts and hips with water, grain, and plant symbols.“ (Ibidem, p. 314) Note that in addition to zigzagging water lines painted on her arms and legs, the figurine on the left is decorated with a horizontal rectangle at waist level in the region of the vulva whereas, the statuette on the right is decorated with zigzag water signs at the same body section. In many cultures women are frequently associated with water. “Water is connected… metaphorically with menstrual blood. The link between women and water is indicated in Predynastic iconography by the association of female figures with the sign for water and by the association with water shells (including cowries).” (Ibidem, pp. 314 et seq.) Because of its positioning and because of it being just a different representation of water, the enigmatic rectangle evokes associations related to reproduction or to female fertility. Note that the lines inside the rectangle (as seen from top to bottom) slope right to left. Later in the Pharaonic script, a lake, the sea or “ornamental water” were represented inter alia by, a hieroglyph consisting of a horizontal rectangle in the centre of which, a double line sloping in the opposite direction, is depicted. (see E. A. W. Budge, An Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, vol. 1, New York 1978, p. CXXVi, No. 66) In the case of the slim female goddess depicted on the rock face at WG 21 it seems only logical that, because of the narrowness of her torso, the said horizontal stroke or rectangle could not be placed in the region of her pubic triangle, so it was put above her head instead. However, even at the chosen place directly above the goddess, the small dimensions of the composition and the grainy nature of the sandstone, precluded the creation of a “rectangle in outline” by the method of incising two tiny pairs of vertical and horizontal lines because the horizontal lines at such small scale could not be cut into the rock so close together without removing the sandstone in between them, thus a single thick stroke was formed. The small dimensions of the rectangle also prevented the insertion of any zigzag water signs into the tiny triangle (Note that the WB 21 rock art does not feature zigzag water signs.), and any such attempt by the artist would also have fragmented the rectangle by the blows of his tools. Thus, at the given scale, it seems that there was no alternative other than to use a simplified variant of the sign as seen in figure 12, in the form of a broad horizontal stroke (a bar which, without elaborate discussion, some observers may instantly view as a rectangle in bas-relief).

When one has advanced to this point, it would come as no surprise that two ostriches are found positioned on the umbilical cord. The following quote may provide an interpretation: “Females are also associated since the Late Palaeolithic with the sky and birds…. Representations of a female figure with raised arms in association with boats, sycamore fig trees, and ostriches are documented for several Gerzean (late Predynastic, Naqada II) pots.” (Ibidem, p. 315) More precisely, “.. maternity (of the cows in the context of the Gerzean rock art of Nubia)… was generalized to include ostriches.” (Ibidem) Thus, drawing on evidence from the Upper Egyptian Neolithic, links between the female deity, the female character of the cord in question and possibly, the female gender of the “child” can be established. Even when leaving aside the gender aspect of the “child” “…this complex association of female symbols constitutes a schema related to birth.” (Ibidem)

With the exception of the arms, which are extended outwards, the “child’s” body whose legs are shown as a single element, gives the impression of a wrapped mummy in an upright position. If this “mummy” had been depicted with an erect penis, the notion that the god Min had just been born would have been evoked. From the “child” a double line, considerably less elaborate than the umbilical cord, runs down to another horizontal line representing the sky (Note that the use of the sky-hieroglyph has been confirmed as far back as the end of the Predynastic period only. S. Schott: Hieroglyphen. Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der Schrift. Mainz 1950, p. 24), into which a rain emitting cloud is incorporated. (figures 13 -15)

figure 13: child-god, rain-god, two clouds, a pubic triangle and an ostrich; colour enhanced

figure 14: detail of the dim vertical double line connecting the child-god with the upper cloud

figure 15: detail showing the two rain emitting clouds; the lower one superimposed on an ostrich; colour enhanced

In the later Pharaonic period “rain or dew falling from the sky” (E.A.W. Budge, op. cit. p. CXXiV, No. 4) was represented by a hieroglyph (Ibidem) very similar to the prehistoric depictions of this meteorological event. At Djedefre´s Water Mountain, two depictions, both vaguely related to this Hieroglyphic sign (see expedition report 2005/6 on this website) and also to the rain cloud in question can be seen. (figures 16 +17)

figures 16 +17: 4^th dynasty meteorological notations and K.P. Kuhlmann´s transcriptions

Below the rain emitting cloud there is yet another cloud which is superimposed on the image of an ostrich. (figure 18) There is also a pubic triangle on the left, almost connecting with this cloud, the connection serving as a roof-like “sky shelter” for a mysterious anthropoid figure. What is the meaning of this? A close look reveals that the enigmatic individual consists of a torso without arms on which a round head is mounted. The skirt like lower body lacks legs and feet which are replaced by a cluster of five vertical lines, enclosed on both sides by inward curved outlines. Doubtless, this odd figure which resembles a cloud itself, alludes to a rain-maker goddess. It is the rain giving deity herself! (figure 19)

figure 18: rain goddess below the “roof of the sky” the latter distorted by the image of an ostrich

figure 19: image of the rain goddess (close up)

To sum up, it may be ascertained that, in later times (when droughts had become a recurrent meteorological feature), the “child god” appears to have been established as a mediator between his parents, who are the pair of deities to his left and the composite deity or rain-maker goddess below him. The pictographic cluster consisting of pubic triangles, rain clouds, an ostrich and the rain-maker deity herself, may thus symbolize reproduction and female fertility or the urges connoted with it, during a period of infrequent rains at the end of the Neolithic Wet Phase as experienced in the Wadi Sura area. Hence, this cluster, its linkage to rainfall and to the “child god”, must have evolved out of a tangible need and therefore may have to be interpreted as a spell or a lamentation carved into the rock to prevent or to overcome human tragedies caused by absent or insufficient rainfalls. As the link between the “child god” and the upper rain-cloud is only faintly engraved, and as a “sky-extension” is superimposed onto the ostrich by means of the horizontal stroke that belongs to the lower cloud, it is likely that this link as well as the two clouds and the rain-maker goddess, were carved into the sandstone at a later date than the majority of the WG 21 rock art, possibly during a period of environmental stress. If this is true, such a notion would lead to the sound conjecture that, the rain goddess and her divine companions were considered as local deities by the Neolithic population of the Wadi Sura area. Furthermore (leaving aside for the moment the reddish brown coloured figure outfitted with a naturalistically shaped penis (see figure 9) which may be even of a later age, in order to concentrate on the other figures and their surroundings which are connected by the umbilical cord or by the double line), the nucleus of this family grouping which initially consisted of three deities, was extended when the Neolithic population of Wadi Sura became subjected to the pressures of climatic change. Thus from an existing triad of local gods it became a tetrad i.e., a group of four local gods. Looking in this way at this complex panel of prehistoric rock art, it becomes clear that these deities reveal a genealogy of the gods created in the desert that echoes the mythic symbolism of later Pharaonic times and that also gives insight into how and why these divine genealogies came into being.

There is yet more evidence to substantiate the notion that the rain-maker goddess image created by Neolithic people and interpreted by Le Quellec et al. as a medusa (J. Le Quellec, P. and P. de Flers: op. cit., p. 214, figure 599) was in fact intended to represent a deity proper. Her “rain skirt” consists all together of seven strokes. This “..is certainly not accidental, but it is constructed according to a system of cultural references that is now lost to us.” (B. Midant-Reynes: The prehistory of Egypt. Oxford 2000, p. 179) For comparison: eleven vertical strokes are attached to the upper rain cloud and twenty two to the lower one. What is the reason for the sparse use of strokes when it comes to the design of the deity’s skirt? Although it is somewhat speculative “…to extrapolate back from the (Pre-) Dynastic period into prehistory… (since) new myths are grafted onto old rites until almost all sense of their original identity has been erased” (Ibidem), some parallels should be drawn: On the Narmer macehead, the Narmer palette and also on the mace head of the Scorpion king, a symbolic element consisting of a rosette with seven petals can be seen. (See K. A. Bard: op. cit., pp. 298, 302, 303. Note also that Saad found a pendant in the form of a small wheel of green faience which he interpreted as palm tree with seven braches and a trunk and which he viewed as a representation of the goddess Seshat. Z.Y. Saad: The excavations at Helwan. Norman 1969, pp. 57, 59). In case of the Scorpion king the ruler’s name itself consists of such a rosette and the image of a scorpion. Although the political meaning of the three artefacts remains obscure, one may reason that the rosette itself as well as the number seven as evidenced in the rosette’s petals, possibly constituted a component of the king’s name. Hartung assigned a similar rosette found on a seal belonging to the tomb of U-j, to a high Pre-Pharaonic office involved in the control of long distance trade. In later times such trade became the sole privilege of Egyptian kings. (U. Hartung: Prädynastische Siegelabrollungen aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab). MDAIK 54 (1998), pp. 211, 213) Contesting Hartung´s interpretation that the Scorpion King’s rosette constitutes a part of the spelling of a rulers name, Baumgärtel argues that it is a symbol of a goddess. (E. J. Baumgärtel, in ZÄS 93 (1966) pp. 9 et. seq., cited from G. Dreyer: Ein Segel der frühzeitlichen Königmetropole von Abydos. MDAIK 43 (1987) p. 42) Leaving this aside we consider the idea of Dreyer who sees seven-petal-rosettes as an expression of (the king’s) divineness, thereby, partly reconciling both interpretations. Could this expression of divinity also apply to the number seven independently of the floristic motif? Venturing from the realm of probability into the realm of prudent speculation, I propose that the number seven could be considered as having been sacred in Neolithic times, imbued with a “religious” or ritual meaning, signifying the divine.

Side note: Aldred has pointed out that the Egyptian concept of the god-king derived from the “…prehistoric rainmaker who kept his tribe… (and their domestic animals) in good health by exercising a magic control over the weather... (who was)… transformed into the Pharaoh, able to sustain the entire nation by having command over the Nile flood.” (C. Aldred. The Egyptians. New York 1963, p. 157) Such a transformation cannot be inferred in the case of the WG 21 rock art as the depiction of a chieftain with a mace who just has smitten an enemy, (figure 20) whom Barta considers the prototype of the ancient Egyptian kings (M. Barta: Swimmers. op. cit., p. 6.) is seemingly not endowed with any rain-making qualities. Such qualification seems to rest solely on the rain-maker goddess to whom, in periods of drought, the Wadi Sura tribe may have performed sacrifices.

figure 20: prototype of the ancient Egyptian king smiting enemies

Although there is no evidence, neither from the Neolithic period nor from the Pharaonic as to what happened to the rainmaker-chieftains or kings during times of severe drought, we are informed about their fate in recent times and from various regions of Africa “… and there are anthropologists who believe that the ceremonial killing of the Pharaoh was sometimes revived in moments of crisis.” (C. Aldred: op. cit., p. 157) In the period between 8,500 – 5,000 B. C. serious droughts may have occurred more often in the area of the Gilf Kebir than the term “Neolithic Wet Phase” suggests as, according to Bolten and Bubenzer, the annual precipitation at that time did not exceed 100 mm. (A. Bolten, O. Bubenzer: Watershed analysis in the Western Desert of Egypt, in: Atlas. op. cit., p. 22) Bearing in mind the prevailing high evaporation rates during this period and the fact that the rains may have fallen only episodically or seasonally, water may not have been easily available all year round. However, the first stratigraphic evidence ever, recovered from a small settlement site in the area confirms that despite this difficulty, a semi-sedentary life at around 5,700 B.C. was possible for at least one hundred years in the Wadi Sura area, lying as it does, at conveniently close quarters to several palaeodrainage systems, thus suggesting this period to be the most likely one in which the bulk of the rock art of the region may have been created. (for details see part two of this report) With this in mind, we may conclude that it did not necessarily require the lasting desiccation that gradually set in around 5,300 B.C. (see R. Kuper, Environmental change and cultural history in northeastern and southwestern Africa, in: Atlas. op. cit. p.9), to cause people to call upon a rain-maker goddess. Such invocations might have been a frequent occurrence long before the onset of the period of dwindling rainfalls which, more than 2,000 years later, (beginning circa 3,000 – 2,000 B.C.) led to the creation of the hyperarid desert, devoid of vegetation, as we know it today.

Sehlis 4/13/2010

5. 32 Or is it a tetrad evolving into a pentad?

Rethinking the issue of the goddess depicted with her divine male consort by her left side (see figure 9 above), the composition suggests that:

- she has either just given birth to the small figure connected with her by an umbilical cord (figure 11) or she

- is related by kinship or lineage to this same small figure (in case of the latter the umbilical cord symbolising and expressing such an affiliation) in a way which may have been typical at the time (see preceding chapter).

Thus it may well be that the small rectangle above the head

- signifies that the personage is a female or

- signifies that the personage is a deity or

- signifies that the personage is both female and also a deity.

Thus, as Miroslav Barta has put it, we may see here not only, “… a rare combination of ´power and dominion´ (= mace) and fertility (= penis) so typical for later pharaohs” (M. Barta: pre-print, p. 92; initially Barta had envisioned the male figure as holding a mace in his right hand; a weapon I cannot discern), but also a combination of male and female fertility on an equal footing as well as a representation of lineage or kinship. (see similar view in F. A. Hassan: Primeval goddess to divine King. The mythogenesis of power in the early Egyptian state. op. cit., p. 312 et seq.).

Merging with my view that the engraved line connecting the female figure and the “child” is an umbilical cord, Barta subsequently states “Fertility cult and kin was of great importance even for the prehistoric populations in the Gilf Kebir – chieftain with a large penis in the Cave of the Beasts. He is followed by a woman with umbilical cord and with a child… This may be one of the oldest representations of a kinship.” (M. Barta, M. Frouz: Swimmers in the Sand. Dryada 2010, p. 96) If the figures in question are considered deities (as has been proposed in the preceding chapter), we may see here the nucleus of a family group that qualifies as a representation of a Triad of divine creatures who, (if the rain goddess is included in our considerations) developed later into a Tetrad.

But what about the “dressed individual” in figure 9 seen in the centre right, at the highest level of the composition (for a close-up see figure 21 below) who, like the male divinity to his right, is also holding his penis with the help of his (left) hand? This anthropoid figure is clearly not as closely connected with the other four deities as they seem to be with each other. His rather more detached status is evident by the fact that he is not attached to the umbilical cord or to any other engraved line, nor is he holding hands. He is superimposed onto an ostrich and the faint engraving of a quadruped´s legs. The skyline and the rain cloud (below the child god) that are also depicted, are also superimposed onto another ostrich. (see figures 13 + 15 above) These superimpositions indicate that the “dressed individual” is younger than the Triad thus, most probably, of the same age as the depictions of the clouds and the rain goddess.

figure 21: dressed individual with “unnaturally” erect and extraordinary large penis

figure 22: for comparison: naked hunter with flaccid penis (from WG 72)

Why does this enigmatic attired individual stand somehow lost in the scene? And why is his penis not fully erect (in contrast to the ithyphallic character to his right who boasts a fully erect member)? Seemingly, his penis, although sexually aroused and incredibly extended, is not in the normal upward pointing or horizontal angle you would expect in a fully erect penis (which, amongst other deities, later became a characteristic feature of the god Min) but instead is pointing down. Such a defective curvature can be hardly explained as a possible medical condition (of the penis) during an erection. However, could it be that we see here an old but still powerful man? Is this the reason why this individual is shown fully dressed (his attire is the only item in the scene bearing traces of reddish brown ochre paint) and why he is depicted with such a large penis? (Does he constitute a symbol which may represent the combined qualities “enduring might” and “old age”?) By contrast, figure 22 displays a naked predecessor of the “Libyan hunter” from a slightly later period wearing a feather on his head, his penis (not sexually aroused) depicted in a rather naturalistic state. The depictions provide credible evidence for the existence of refined artistic articulation that could, in a masterly manner, clearly differentiate between various kinds of sexual arousal.

A close look at figure 9 (an enlargement of which is presented in figure 23) reveals that, in contrast to the penis belonging to the male deity on the leftmost side of the penal, the penis of the “dressed figure” is clearly directed towards the “child”. This leftmost male deity together with his female consort, also seems to be walking leftwards and westwards (and/or is shown in a position that that is averted to the “child”), with the female following the male, thus, both are moving away from the “child”, whilst the “dressed personage” from his position in the scene, the orientation of his feet and featureless head (note that this head is positioned on the corpse slightly to the centre right), seems to be facing this “child”.

Why do “parents” of high social status abandon their “child”, even though this child is still connected by the umbilical cord with his mother? In my view, such conduct is not the natural behaviour one would expect from human beings which suggests (mythologically justified) that these are the actions of gods. As the “dressed anthropoid figure” is of younger age than the Triad, the fact that it was added to the scene at a later time could be indicative of a change in the mythology of the people concerned (or of an advancement to their “tales of the gods”) and it seems there had existed a need to make such a shift explicit in the rock art.

Does the depiction allegorize the outcome of a paternal quarrel; a fight in which both ithyphallic creatures were involved? Or, to phrase it more cautiously, had there existed an urge to make it retrospectively clear, who really was the father of the child god? Can we here envision the “dressed figure” as a god? Half way between this “dressed” god and the divine couple something has been obliterated. Would the missing depiction have given us additional insight into the interpretation of the scene?

figure 23: Enlarged detail of figure 9

To the best of my knowledge there are no accounts in Egyptian mythology/religion that resemble the tale that is being told in this panel (figure 23). Even the fight between Seth and Osiris, with the latter´s resurrection by Isis (see E.A. W. Budge: Egyptian religion – Egyptian ideas of the future life. London 1987, pp. 41 ff.) so that he could conceive an heir (Horus), would not seem to be conclusively related to the scene in question.

Sidenote: Whilst I was photographing this rock art panel at Foggini´s cave, the ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus came to mind. It seemed to me that a revelation similar to the one that disclosed that Sisyphus was the father of Ulysses and not Laertes, was here being related. After Sisyphus (= dressed individual to the right) had seduced Antiblia (= the female on the left), she became pregnant and hastily married her fiance Laertes (= the male on the far left) thus, awarding the unearned joy of fatherhood of the child (= the small figure on the far right) to Laertes.

It had been assumed by Wilkinson (R. H. Wilkinson: The complete gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt. op. cit., pp. 12-15, 20) that in pre-historic times gods in human form had emerged or developed more slowly than zoomorphic type deities. Similarly, Assmann states a “… preceding ´prepersonal´ phase in the history of Egyptian religion… (moulded) the classical form of Egyptian polytheism..” (Jan Assmann, The search for God in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca and London 2001, p.101) concluding that, with “.. the coming into being of the persons of deities – that is, with the personalizing and thus the anthropomorphizing of the Egyptian concept of the divine – polytheism came into being…” (ibidem) If here, we leave aside the issue of whether or not Egyptian religion originated from a stellar cult (see Report on the results of radiocarbon datings from the Wadi Sura area, Gilf Kebir, southwestern Egypt, attachment 1 – additional 14C-datings, sidenote 4), we may, for a moment, unquestioningly follow Assmann´s further conclusion that, as the “.. history of religion knows many forms of apersonal concepts and experiences of the numinous…(,) animal, plant, and fetish forms of many Egyptian deities point to a preanthropomorphic and thus probably also prepersonal phase of the form of the numinous.” (ibidem, p. 101 et seq.)

Indeed, until now, the evidence in the archaeological record from Nabta Playa in Egypt´s Western Desert confirms that the earliest worship of animals, believed to be gods in animal form, may have considerably preceded the creation of human type divine beings. Examples of such evidence are:

a.) offerings of domestic animals (dated to 5,900 – 5,500 BC; see M. Barta, M. Frouz. op. cit. p. 79),

b.) a regional ceremonial centre comprising cow and sheep burials at around 5,500 – 5,400 BC (Ibidem, p. 83)

c.) a carefully worked sandstone block which resembles an animal, most likely a cow, which also may reflect such a progression. (The sculpture cannot be dated but may be associated to the megaliths and tumuli believed to belong either to the period of 5,500 – 4,600 BC or to the interval of 4,500 – 3,100 BC.) (Ibidem, pp. 83 + 87)

However, the older, enigmatic type, pre-cattle pastoralist portion of the imagery at the Foggini-Mestekawi Cave (dated to around 6,000 – 5,600 BC) suggests that the tendency for animal deities to evolve faster than the human deities cannot be confirmed there because the depicted scenes include both the strange zoomorphic “headless beasts” and also the antropomorphic deities (shown in large scale) and human figures that surround them (pictured in small scale; see chapter…. below). Furthermore, the anthropomorphic divine Triad/Tetrad/Pentad engravings ie., the proposed birth scene discussed at length above and in chapter 5.31 which, most likely, are contemporaneous with the “headless beasts”, are portrayed without divine zoomorphic companions. Do we perhaps see here the oldest representations of gods in human form known so far in the Egyptian hemisphere?

Returning to the statements of Wilkinson and Assmann, if one accepts that this group of anthropoid figures depicted in the birth scene is indeed either a Triad/Tetrad/Pentad, it again weakens the proposal that the development of zoomorphic deities had considerably preceded the creation of gods in human form. At the same time, however, it strengthens the proposition that the Egyptian pantheon and religion partly originated in much earlier times from the Libyan Desert. In this case the birth scene would serve as further evidence which adds to the sparse and ambiguous records of gods in human form from early pre-dynastic Egypt, extending the earliest date of their creation further back into prehistory.

Carlo Bergmann

Sliema, Malta 8/13/2010

posted on this website 8/31/2010

to be continued

Results of a 4WD-trip to the Gilf Kebir

1/6/2010 – 1/22/2010

- part two -

Carlo Bergmann and Christan Kny

in preparation