Judging from numerous WG21 rock paintings found above the sand during our visit, white seemingly, was not used to depict anything special, and there are, so far, no indications that a specific symbolic value is associated with it. This is substantiated by a number of scenes that show that apart from “Nut”, white was also used to depict human figures of different shapes and size, animals and other complex compositions that echo no specific color symbolism. (figures 32 – 38)

 

 

figures 32 + 33: White quadruped shown in original coloration and in a color enhanced version. The hind end of

 the animal is supported by a pair of white hands/forearms.

 

 

figures 34 + 35: white feline(?) shown in original coloration and in a color enhanced version (courtesy of

 Andras Zboray)

 

f

figure 36: white quadruped and white accessories on human figure to the right

(courtesy of Andras Zboray; color enhanced)

 

figure 37: white quadruped superimposed onto a reddish-brown human figure

 standing next to a headless beast that is about to devour a human

 (color enhanced)

 

figure 38: white quadrupeds and human figures lined up above a

headless beast (courtesy of Andras Zboray; color enhanced)

 

If a color preference at WG21 had ever existed, it was obviously that of red or reddish brown. But it must be accepted that even red may have had no specific significance because, as in the case with white, it was indiscriminately used.

 

Sidenote 9: In ancient Egyptian art red and yellow-white were used for gender differentiation and reflected “…at least to some degree ...the traditional outdoor/indoor roles of the male and female in Egyptian society.” (Ibidem, p. 10) Thus “… red was used to present the normal skin tone of the Egyptian male without any negative connotation (Ibidem, p. 107)… in contrast to the paler skin tone of the woman.” (Ibidem, p. 115) However, in the Wadi Sura rock art,  “reddish-brown” was used indiscriminately to depict males and females, most probably signifying that there existed no difference in life style between the sexes in pre-dynastic gather-hunter and cattle herder societies as, in those times, life was more or less outdoor based for both genders. In this sense, the reddish-brown color is naturalistic as it seems to be based on objective reality, ie., on the actual skin color of the people of those times.

 

In comparison with the abundant use of reddish-brown in the Wadi Sura rock art, white and yellow are colors that were sparsely applied by the Neolithic artists. The meaning of these color preferences may never be fully understood. All that can be said at this stage about this restriction is that, in all certainty, it can be ruled out that such a sparing use of white and yellow was the result of convention.

 

Thus, based on the present evidence regarding the coloration at the Foggini-Mestekawi Cave, it is still too early to make comparisons as Barta does, and to draw conclusions about perceived similarities between the Egyptian sky goddess Nut as a manifestation of an anthropomorphic form of the Milky Way and the headless figure painted in white at WG21, which Andras Zboray, plain and simple, interprets as just another headless beast. At any rate, Andras´ view seems to be supported by the facts as they come to light with regard to “line and form” in the color enhanced version of the “White Nut scene” shown in figure 31 above.

 

Carlo Bergmann

Sehlis 11/21/2010

 

Sidenote 10: Examining more closely the corpus of photographs of the Wadi Sura rock art compiled by Andras Zboray (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.), one will notice further depictions of human and/or animal figures painted in white. A few of the scenes containing such depictions from the Foggini-Mestekawi cave and other rock shelters in its surroundings are briefly discussed here. Comments and attempts to interpret choices of color are included in the captions. Will this analysis provide answers as to why the color white was used and did this color perhaps have symbolic significance; at least in some of the paintings? It seems that the more such scenes are investigated, the more obscure any symbolism they contain appears. In the case of the ancient Egyptian culture, color symbolism is, according to Wilkinson, amongst other things, “…usually an expression of underlying religious beliefs which gave … (a piece of art) life, meaning, and power (R. H. Wilkinson: Symbol & magic. op. cit., p. 8). In the case of the Wadi Sura imagery, could it be that the juxtaposition or interchange of certain colors is purely based on stylistic considerations?

The conception of reality (German: Wirklichkeitskonzeption) is greatly influenced by colors. How colors are perceived, accepted, assimilated, “consumed” and interpreted as part of the physical space that surrounds people may express itself also in the Wadi Sura imagery. (At present, unlike in Neolithic times, our conception of the physical reality consists to a large extent of prefabricated experiences.) In this context an enigmatic relevancy, at least in parts, seems to be attached to the color white. At WG 21 for instance, a mythical creature, the “white Nut”, and her surrounding world of images, whose intrinsic symbolism may refer to a religious world in which the living exist alongside the dead (Note that, for the ancient Egyptian “...the mythical geography , and especially that of the underworld … (is) as ´real´ as the world of the living.” (Ibidem, p. 62)), coexists with other, conceptually dissociated white images, thus raising the question of whether or not the artists also intended that the latter are mysterious animals, persons or entities. So what about white depictions in other Wadi Sura rock shelters? Are they, simply speaking, just copies, illustrations or stylized reproductions of a once existing reality or do they also refer to a symbolical world?

Choice of color or color combinations used by the Neolithic artists of the Wadi Sura region may never be fully understood by us, and it may well be that, in parts, a juxtaposition , e.g., white and reddish-brown paint within a scene was meant merely to create a contrast. Note also that, for instance, in “… groups of overlapping objects or figures… (ancient) Egyptian artist(s)… invariably alternate(d) the colors of otherwise identical subjects in order to differentiate them from one another… Even apart from practical considerations such as these, it is evident that the Egyptians enjoyed the use of color for its own sake in much of their art and decoration, and that the selection and use of colors could be for purely aesthetic purposes.” (Ibidem, p. 105) Why should this have been different in the preceding Neolithic period, in regions far to the west of the Nile valley?

 

 

figure 39: From WG 52. Recumbent human figures painted white suggesting annihilation, death and dying. It’s not clear that the two reddish-brown painted mourners(?) and the ostrich are partly superimposed onto the dead white bodies. It may well be the other way round. Such ambiguity could indicate that the scene was completed by the artist in a single operation. Does the presence of the ostrich which is a symbol of fertility, suggest a desire for an afterlife existence, for rebirth or for reincarnation? (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 40: Figure 39 may be part of a bigger scene shown here which is depicted in the “lower center left section” of the Cave of the Swimmers (see A. Zboray : Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.). Note however, that the recumbent human figures painted in white, the two reddish-brown mourners and the ostrich are separated from the main panel by an empty space. This main panel consists of a group of comparatively large reddish-brown human figures (on the right). As WG 52 is a “…badly eroded shelter which preserves only small patches of what was originally a completely decorated surface” (M. Barta, M. Frouz: op. cit., p. 69), it may well be that, at one time, this empty space was covered with depictions although a survey with bare eyes does not support such an assumption. The recumbent white human figures are barely visible. Their fairly isolated placement gives reason to qualify the small painting to which they belong, which also includes the mourners and the ostrich, as an independent grieving scene. However it may well be that, originally this scene had been embedded into a larger panel. What meaning and symbolic value this particular composition may have possessed in the context of the rest of the rock panel’s depictions, can not be discerned at this stage because of the poor state of preservation and the lack of access to advanced image enhancement technologies. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 41: From WG 21. A male human figure painted reddish brown exhibiting white body decoration and wearing a white loincloth. As the patterns of white body paint contrast perfectly with a tanned, outdoor complexion, the depiction seems to indicate that the selection and use of colors was based on purely aesthetic considerations. Detail from figure 43. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 42: From WG 21. A reddish brown male (left) and a female human figure (right) accompanied by two children(?) who are dressed in white. (Evidently, the clothing of the “child” on the left is, partly, of translucent nature) Note the recumbent human body below which, due to its faded color, may be much older than the “family” depicted above. Seemingly, the combined application of white and reddish-brown was meant to create a contrast and to distinguish between cloths or body paint and otherwise naked(?) human figures. Detail from figure 43. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 43: Scene from the “middle lower center section” (A. Zboray: op. cit.) of the Foggini-Mestekawi Cave (WG 21) in which a large gathering of individuals is shown. Note the gaping “mouth” of a headless beast in the lower left to which, amongst other things, a human corpse is being offered to be devoured. A complete image of the headless beast in question is shown in my “Report on the results of radiocarbon datings from the Wadi Sura area, Gilf Kebir, southwestern Egypt”, figure 15. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

  

 

figure 44: From WG 21. Two reddish brown human figures wearing white translucent dresses. Such translucent clothing may be merely the result of weathering that, over centuries, took away part of the white hue that originally covered the reddish brown bodies underneath. Detail from figure 43. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.) Note however that, in the 19^th dynasty and during the Amarna and Ramesside periods, white transparent vestments were in vogue among the Egyptian upper classes. (see F. Tiradritti: Ancient Egypt. Art, architecture and history. London 2007, pp. 79, 92, 97) (see also figure 45 a) Note also that on the wall painting in tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis, three human figures are depicted who hold their arms outstretched as if they were dancing. (F. Tiradritti: Egyptian wall painting. New York, London 2008, pp. 89 et seq.) Seemingly, these figures which are shown above a white vessel wear long transparent white skirts (see figures 45 b + c below) thus indicating that already in the Naqada II-c Period (circa 3,400 – 3,300 BC) translucent textiles were known or tailored in the Nile valley.

 

figure 45 a: Wall painting depicting scribes of the 18^th dynasty wearing white translucent robes. (tomb of Menna (TT 69), Thebes)

 

 

 

figures 45 b + c: Three dancers from the Naqada II-c period wearing long transparent white skirts. The dancer´s legs painted in reddish-brown appear to show through the textiles in question. (Interpretation based on a watercolor copy made by the discoverers of Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis in the late nineteenth century. The original wall painting which is on display in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo was ruined by improper use of glues thus making any further deciphering impossible.)

 

 

figure 46: From WG 21. Two reddish-brown male figures embellished with patterns of white body paint. They wear white loincloths and each one of them is holding a white bow in his hand. Note the human corpse or ”swimmer” below the bowman on the left. The fact that the coloration of the three figures is fairly equally degraded, may suggest that the three figures are part of the same composition and that it was the intention of the Neolithic artists to present the “swimmer” as a victim of the archers. Detail from figure 43. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 47: From WG 21. A male figure holding a white bow and white arrows in his hands. Note the reddish-brown feathers that are attached to the end of the arrows´ shafts. This particular choice of colors corresponds fairly well with the real world where bones, tendons or branches stripped of their bark reveal a whitish hue whilst the predominant shades of many feathers tend towards brown. Detail from figure 48. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 48: From “right lower center section” (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.) of WG 21. To the left of a hunter(?) holding a white bow and white arrows in his hands, a white feline(?) has been added to the scene. Note the headless beast (on the lower right side of the picture) and two more archers (top) who are aiming at the feline with their bows. These two bowmen are arched over the feline and the hunter first mentioned. Surprisingly, this hunter is facing away from the target. He does not seem to be engaged in the hunt. Even if this hunting scene is not related to the headless beast below, a mythical-symbolic meaning to the chase seems likely. Could it be that the game animal and the deadly weapons are depicted in identical white so as to signify that the inevitable and impending death of the prey have already rendered it as good as dead? Such an assumption seems to be supported by figure 49 below. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 49: Detail from the “lower right” (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.) section of the WG 45/A rock shelter that, apart from a headless beast and a running human figure, both painted in reddish-brown, is primarily decorated with depictions of white cattle. (See figure 59 below. Further badly weathered reddish-brown WG 45/A-figures, just barely visible to the human eye, are shown in Andras Zbaray´s rock art catalogue.) Note that the white bows and arrows next to the white game might, in an unconventional way, convey the idea of a hunt. Is the identical use of white paint for weapons and prey in this specific context therefore, an indication that the Neolithic artists wanted to highlight that the game animals that were being chased, were in a state in which certain death was inevitable? Yet, such an assumption must be prefaced by the caveat that, in the surrounding of the scene in question, further depictions, possibly painted reddish-brown, may have existed, which are now lost to us. (See for instance, a badly weathered depiction of a brown & white cow shown in figure 09f_0488 of the rock art catalogue) These missing elements irrevocably obscure the meaning of the artwork and make it impossible to understand the artist’s original intention. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 50: From WG 35. Herd of giraffes depicted on the right hand side of a small low shelter which contains “… several layers of remarkably well preserved paintings of giraffes, bovids in numerous colors and styles and human figures” (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.) Two of the giraffes are completely painted white whilst the other three are white from the knees down only, the rest of their bodies painted in reddish-brown. Note that the two beasts on the right are standing whilst the two in the center of the painting are shown trotting or galloping. This mode of movement could have been the reason why the two animals in the center are the only ones painted white. Yet, the giraffe on the far left, shown in reddish-brown coloration, also seems to be moving thus, disproving the idea that coloration was used here as an indicator of movement. On the other hand, is it conceivable that we marvel at a wonderful but unfinished piece of rock art? (Thus, the two white depictions in the center of the painting being mere preparatory drawings.) If this is true, the Neolithic painter would have sketched the giraffes in white color first before he applied reddish-brown paint to complete his work. We did not visit WG 35. This is why, at the present time, a definite view on this issue cannot be expressed.

 

Dual usage of colors, where, on the one hand,  “… objects are given the same hue as they appear in nature… (whilst) on the other hand … objects are assigned to colors to which they are symbolically linked…” (R.H. Wilkinson: Symbol & magic. op. cit., p. 110), may be another reason why two of the giraffes received a different artistic treatment. Does this method reveal a “magic code” or formal convention to which the Neolithic artists may have been adhering? Note that, if the “white Nut”, seen as just another headless beast that normally, was painted reddish-brown, received fairly the same color treatment as the white giraffes. This may signify that these giraffe were meant to represent more than just reality. Thus, the white coloration may have been employed to make a symbolic statement.

 

Note also that in Egyptian art a “…frequent juxtaposition of certain colors… (occurred) which is often understandable symbolically as signifying wholeness or completion through the combination of opposing or related colors. The symbolic opposites red and white (or its alternate hue yellow) find completion together as the colors of man and woman…” (Ibidem, p. 111). Applied to the case discussed here, would the white giraffes represent mares whilst the reddish-brown ones represent stallions? Unfortunately, the Neolithic artists made no attempt to draw in detail the reproductive organs of giraffes. (They did so in the case of headless beasts.) Therefore the issue raised here cannot be dealt with conclusively.

 

If, in case of the giraffes, “wholeness or completion” are regarded as implicit presuppositions on which, at one time, Neolithic artistic expression was based, the artist´s interest in color and (forward) movement could also be viewed as an attempt to depict the passing of time within the cycle of life, namely life (as represented by the giraffe on the far left), death (as represented by the two white beasts in the center), and rebirth (as represented by the two beasts on the right). Such symbolism would indicate that the inhabitants of the Wadi Sura region adhered to a belief according to which dying was not considered as the end of (human) existence but that death was linked to a possible afterlife or rebirth. Accordingly, the white giraffes in the center, together with the two beasts on the right, would represent a postmortem existence of some kind that, possibly, elapsed in a metaphysical sphere. At any rate, it must be pointed out again that one faces extreme difficulties when venturing to decipher hidden meanings inherent in a specific piece of rock art with the aim of breaking its code of underlying religious beliefs.

 

There is yet another point to which attention must be drawn. The alternate use of white and reddish-brown “…may represent the unity of the two colors as perceived in sunlight under different circumstances in nature…” (Ibidem, p. 112) If this is true the giraffe motif shown in figure 50 is the result of an arbitrary yet widely accepted convention. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 51: “…painted cattle and an  archer… from the left vertical wall … of a very narrow shelter… Two cattle are tethered to a tree, similar to several such scenes at Uweinat.” (WG 46) (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.) It seems as if the brown & white cow on the left is partly superimposed onto a white quadruped and the legs of a white giraffe. Such a superimposition may indicate that the overpainted images are older than the depiction of the brown & white cow. Hence, was there a time when white depictions were en vogue, or when, for some time, only white pigments were available? Or, on the contrary, did artists intend to make visible distances between the beasts in question by superimposing one onto another? Commonly, giraffes would not graze amongst a cattle herd guarded by herdsmen or a herd that is staying nearby a cattle herder’s camp. Thus, could it be that the said scene represents a situation as it appears in nature? A real life scene without specific symbolic connotation with regard to the colors used? If, against all odds, this interpretation is fairly correct the Wadi Sura rock artists would have practiced a primitive form of perspective drawing. Only calibrated direct dating of paint samples taken from the scene elements mentioned above will supply reliable answers to the questions raised here. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 52: From a “…small cave (WG 61) on the southern side of the … western tributary of a .. wadi. Exceptionally well preserved paintings of cattle, humans, giraffes, and a unique facing pair of hands on the rear ceiling. Some of the paintings overlie older engravings of cattle and giraffes.” (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.)

 

It is not easy to decide whether the white giraffe in figure 52 is superimposed onto the reddish-brown cow. It could, in fact, be the other way around as the cow may have been painted on top of the giraffe. In the first case there may have existed a deeper (mythical?) reason for such a superimposition as seemingly, the rock face allows for the depiction of such a small giraffe without interfering with an already existing(?) composition. In the second case such an underlying reason seems unlikely as the cow belongs to a larger scene (see engraved fellow creature on the right facing the cow) which was intended either to replace the giraffe, to weaken its effect or to coexist with the comparatively small-sized white beast. Thus, superimposition (and the contrast of the colors white and reddish-brown) may have been deliberately provoked as a reflection of encounters of cattle with giraffes that, once in a while, Neolithic herdsmen experienced in the vast expanses of the dry savannah. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 53: From WG 35, “…a low shelter… with several layers of remarkably well preserved paintings of giraffes, bovids in numerous colors and styles and human figures… , left” section. (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.) We did not visit the site and from Andras Zboray´s description it is not clear whether some, if not all of the images had been painted on the roof of a ceiling instead of onto the walls.

 

A herd of cattle consisting of white, reddish-brown, white & yellow and brown & yellow beasts. The herd is superimposed onto three giraffes of pale brown color which are lying down(?) and which may have been hunted down by a group of archers shown in the lower left of the scene. See also figures 50 - 52 for comments . (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

If the scene including the giraffes in question had been depicted on the ceiling, my statement above is resting on shaky ground especially as the giraffes were painted before the cattle by the same or by earlier artists. Thus, it could be that the artist who painted the giraffes imagined the ground in a different direction than the painter of the cattle. Furthermore, some of the archers are probably part of the later cattle composition whilst the “crouching” figures together with the “strongmen” next to them, probably belong to the giraffe composition. Only calibrated direct dating of paint samples taken from the scene elements in question will supply answers to questions such as a.) How many years are separating the giraffe from the cattle composition? b.) Were both scenes painted by the same artist who, only slightly, washed his first composition in order to create a complex artistic statement? or c.) Did a later artist who painted the cattle scene use the older painting as a source for such a complex statement, and what message did this artist want to convey to spectators?

 

 

figure 54: From WG 35, cattle herder period. Detail of figure 53. White & yellow spotted cow with a collar X superimposed onto the white outlines of another earlier(?) cow. Seemingly, this naturalistic scene indicates that, the Neolithic artists enjoyed the use of color for its own sake. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 55: From WG 35. Detail of figure 53. Cattle herd superimposed onto an older giraffe hunting scene(?). The fact that the giraffes, in relation to the hunters on the center left of the picture who are depicted in the same faded hue, are shown lying(?) on their side may indicate animals that were hunted down or killed. The bowman partly shown in the upper left part of the picture and the human couple on the lower edge of it (of which the individual on the right is also holding a bow in his hand) are both painted in vibrant brown. Contrary to the group of hunters(?) on the center left, they are superimposed onto (white) cows thus, possibly indicating their engagement in protecting the herd of cattle. See also caption to figure 53 for comments. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

figure 56: From WG 35. Detail of figure 53. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.) The giraffe hunting party may well also be a group of warriors engaged in battle. Apparently, the winners of the fight are depicted larger than the losers of whom many are shown slain (in a lying or upside down position). (As stated in captions to figures 53 + 55, the “slain figures”  and the archers next to them onto whom white cows are superimposed, could belong to an earlier painting and thus, would have nothing whatsoever to do with the archers herding the cattle. The latter archers are not seen here but in figures 53 + 55.) Such a “battle scene” may indeed signify dominance and rigid exercise of power. Note that a few of the “crouching victims” are depicted as if they were swimming thus, possibly, foreshadowing the “…deceased souls in the waters of Nun” (M. Barta; M. Frouz: op. cit., p. 59) in Egyptian art. In this context the three giraffes to the right of the combatants may be variants of the so-called sitting giraffes even if they were depicted some time earlier, as the creator of the “battle scene” could have integrated the three beasts as a source into his work to make a more complex artistic statement. Sitting giraffes could also symbolize death.

 

 

 

figures 57 + 58: Evolution of pictorial symbolism regarding the portrayal of defeat, destruction and death in art.

 

Figure 57: Detail from figure 53; slain enemies; Western Desert Cattle Period or older.

 

Figure 58: Detail from the Battlefield Palette; slain enemies, Late Predynastic period (3,100 BC.).

 

Even if the scene in figure 57 was created at least a millennium earlier than the one in figure 58, there is, as far as the symbolism inherent in the depictions is concerned, much common ground between the two images. Whilst, for instance, in the first scene strongmen are stepping(?) on the bodies of the deceased (actually all these dominant human figures are superimposed onto the corpses of defeated enemies), the idea of the domination of one group over another materializes, in the second scene, in a king in the guise of a huge lion (partly visible in the upper part of figure 58) devouring a dead foe. (New arrangement of caption made on 8/23/2011)

 

 

figure 59: From WG 45/A. Another herd of white cattle indicating that white colorations, albeit not as common as the reddish-brown, were frequently used in the rock shelters of the Wadi Sura area. To determine if white imagery as depicted in WG 45/A, had symbolic meaning, one would need to know if, in reality, completely white cattle had existed in the Wadi Sura area in the period of the creation of the rock art. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

Note that, with regard to the issue of white coloration as a possible form of artistic expression of the sacred, the decoration in the “Painted Tomb” at Hierakonpolis (the only known example of wall paintings in the tombs of the Naqada II Period (circa 3,550 – 3,200 BC)) not only provides scenes of a funerary flotilla but also representations of white animals depicted in a highly symbolic visual language. Figure 60 shows that some of the animals are filled in with solid white color inside reddish or black outlines.

 

figure 60: Representations of quadrupeds filled in with solid white color inside reddish or black outlines. (from Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis)

 

 

figure 61: From WG 73/B. A shelter which is sparsely decorated with paintings of a skirted female figure and only two cattle. (A. Zboray: Rock art of the Libyan Desert. op. cit.) For the record only: a white bovid depicted above a brown & white one. (Image shown in a color enhanced version. Courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

 

Carlo Bergmann

Sehlis 11/23/2010

 

Amendments to sidenote 10 in blue made on 1/5/2011.

Correction in red made on 8/23/2011.

 

Summary and outlook:

In this chapter we have examined several rock paintings in an attempt to understand the use of white color by the prehistoric artists of the Wadi Sura area. (see figures 32 - 61) Although this inquiry raised a number of questions, no firm conclusions could be drawn because no interpretation provided unequivocal answers free of contradiction. It may be that the use of white to depict various animals and other objects or entities was a symbolic statement inspired by underlying religious beliefs or perhaps these artists may have used white for purely aesthetic reasons or for reproducing reality according to the cultural conventions of their time. One could also go so far as to label some of the rock paintings, namely the white feline (figures 34, 35 and 48), the cattle herds and associated wildlife (figures 59, 49 and 53) and the giraffes (figure 50), as works of “magical realism” i.e., the paintings project onto the spectator several versions of reality which do not exist. More than likely, we are confronted here with a mix of two enigmas: the mystery of art and the mystery of the natural world. From this crucible arouse those ideas that eventually became myths and religious beliefs. For instance, from the white feline, a beast thoroughly known for its vicious nature, came an icon that perhaps simply symbolized danger. Based on this view, the images of headless beasts painted in reddish brown, although consisting of incomplete composite torsos, but otherwise painted in a hyper realistic way, may be interpreted as the result of a process of evolution taking place in the world of ideas that eventually transposed the “danger” represented by the vicious “feline-like” icon into a beastly deity of the metaphysical-religious sphere. (Thus, the feline image which may originally have presented danger, over the times was utilized for a religious concept. Similar metamorphoses have been described at length by Feuerbach. According to the German philosopher mankind tends to create its gods according to its needs. See Ludwig Feuerbach, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 7, Theogonie. W. Schuffenhauer (ed.), Berlin 1969, pp. 31 ff.) Did the artistic realization of this punishing & life-giving archetypal deity emerge as the result of the cultural-religious sublimation of a physical explorable reality? Is then, the headless beast, weathered over the millennia and interpreted as an early divine creature or deity, a metaphysical complement to a real lion or any other vicious feline? Finally, can the white headless beast be seen as an artistic attempt at visualization of the sacred whereby a deity is placed into the context of the stars and the night sky? Thus, may we envision Barta´s “white Nut” in WG 21 as a predecessor of the goddess Nut of the dynastic period? (see M. Barta; M. Frouz: op. cit., p.51) If we do, some of the paintings presented in this chapter may indeed be imagined as windows to another world.

 

For readers who prefer clear-cut answers, such reasoning may sound unattractive. These readers may also be somewhat disenchanted that my initial arguments against a color symbolism existing in the Wadi Sura rock art are downplayed in sidenote 10. They might be further irritated when, in chapter5.346 below, they are introduced to the idea that “headless beasts”, by no means, may be considered as incomplete mythical composite torsos but instead, that these beasts do represent an existing animal species. If this is true, “headless beasts” would have been part of the physical reality which surrounded the Neolithic artists in like manner as giraffes or other animals of the savannah and desert-steppe. And: the production of images thereof would comply perfectly with the concept of natural realism mentioned above.

 

Yet it is not the intention of this paper to deliver an accurate account of Neolithic artistic expression or of the clues relating to possible hidden or disguised meanings. Why are attempts at interpreting the use of white color in the Wadi Sura rock art destined to remain incomplete and inconclusive? Why at best, do such interpretations remain in the realm of merely plausible approaches? Indeed, there are as yet, “ no firm grounds for establishing a method of interpreting the paintings and reliefs, produced…” (B. Adams; K.M. Cialowicz: Protodynastic Egypt. Princes Risborough 1988, p. 36) during the Neolithic up to the Predynastic period. Thus, any scheme to decipher in retrospect the mysteries of Neolithic rock art meets its limits right from the start, because there are no written documents from this period before recorded history and the meanings intended by the artists cannot therefore be elucidated. All that remains is the suspicion that a specific myth or idea may have provoked a certain choice of color. But which idea is it? It seems that answers will remain unsatisfactory and ambiguous for years of rock art research to come.

 

The cultures that produced the Wadi Sura rock art were lost a long time ago, sometimes between 6,000 – 3,500 BC. Too long ago for us today to penetrate the mists of this vanished period. So, in the absence of any real knowledge about the minds and spirits behind these unique creations, the paintings we see today, if we are honest, are not much more than colored forms of humans and animals. In other words, the disappearance of the Neolithic painters, also spelt the disappearance of the meanings of the numerous images they projected on the rock faces. Yet, let us recall why the investigations in this chapter were undertaken. We were reviewing Barta´s assumption, according to which the headless beast’s “…unique white color.. allows for the possibility that at this early stage she was already considered to be an anthropomorphic form of the Milky Way.” (Ibidem, p. 51. See also R. H. Wilkinson: The complete gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt. op. cit., p. 161 et seq.)

 

Although it may seem quite daring to prehistorians to extrapolate “… the known symbolism from Dynastic times back into the Predynastic” (B. Adams: Predynastic Egypt. Aylesbury 1988, p. 45) and further back into the Neolithic, the reader’s attention, at last, has to be drawn to a detail from the astronomical ceiling in the burial chamber of the tomb of Seti I (Valley of the Kings; KV 17; 19^th dynasty; figure 62) which shows a recumbent yellowish-white lion partly surrounded by (twenty) white stars painted on a field of dark blue. Apparently, the beast is about to devour one of these stars. Also, a horizontal array of five stars at his hind leg may indicate the delivery of these celestial bodies from his “womb”.

 

figure 62: Bi-chrome reproduction of animal figures from the astronomical ceiling in the tomb of Seti I showing a recumbent lion surrounded by a formation of stars. (courtesy of Christian Kny) For a complete view of the colored ceiling of the burial chamber see Sandro Vannini´s photography in: http://heritage-key.com/blogs/images/sandro-vanninis-photography-tomb-seti-i-kv17-burial-chamber.

 

(For comparison see the delivery(?) of a small human figure from the hind end (“womb”) of a standing headless beast (figure 63) that is about to devour a human whilst other human figures are depicted tampering, as it seems, with its imaginary penis(?) or, less likely, with its udder(?). (figure 64) These depictions raise the question about the animal’s gender. However, this beast may also combine both male and female qualities. Thus perhaps, can the animal in question be imagined as an androgynous deity despite the fact that the dual sex of this divine creature is not clearly elaborated? Note that two of the headless beasts depicted in the Foggini-Mestekawi Cave seem to be giving birth to human beings whilst others (including Barta´s White Nut) are provided with male genitals (for more information see next chapter).

 

  

figure 63: Delivery(?) of a small human figure from the womb of a headless beast. Detail of figure 64.

figure 64: A headless beast devouring a human figure whilst giving birth(?) to another.

 

Reverting to the question of whether or not the “Seti lion” (figure 62) can be interpreted as a hermaphroditic feline predator, it has to be admitted that my assumption as put forth above, merely draws on the array of five stars which, strangely, are depicted on the beast’s hind leg. The “Seti lion” reveals no female attributes but only male ones and it is only the array of the said five stars that indicate the animal might be a hermaphrodite thus possibly, having usurped female qualities, for instance from the small lioness which is depicted at the top left hand side of figure 62.

 

Some years ago, Gisela Vögler drew attention to the phenomenon of male imitation of female body functions in occidental religious art. (G. Vögler: Der gebärende Mann. Erst Männerrituale machen Kinder zu Menschen, in: Neue Züricher Zeitung, NZZ Folio 03/98.) According to the author, concepts of male parturition and male motherliness seem to have played a decisive role in the exercise of gender polarization in many cultures. In Greek mythology for instance, Athena was born of the head of Zeus, the father of the gods who also delivered Dionysus from his thigh. Another male variation of childbirth is exemplified by the birth of Aphrodite who was believed to have come forth from spume of the sea, which accumulated around the truncated genitals of the sky god Uranus. Later, in Christian mythology, male childbirth fantasies make their mark in the creation of Adam who is even nowadays considered being the product or delivery of a male god. With this in mind, it is not surprising that Eve emerges from Adam’s rib. Note further that, in the early days of Christianity bishops, when referring to god and the holy scriptures, occasionally used phrases such as “the breasts of the word”, “divine breasts” and “milk that comes forth from the father”. (see V. Mollenkot, cited from A. Barth: Der Herr mit den Brüsten. Der Spiegel 26/1985). Such phrases indicate that Christian spirituality drew on myths that, long before, had perverted female birth-symbolism and that these myths may have been known from the depths of time. (Ibidem) In this context it comes as no surprise that, most probably, at the dawn of the Pharaonic civilization, a reverence shown for the royal placenta had existed. This unusual aspect of Early Dynastic religion which “…may have belonged to an ancient African substratum of Egyptian culture.” (T. A. H. Wilkinson: Early dynastic Egypt. London, New York 1999, p. 266) is confirmed by one of “…the divine standards which frequently accompany the king on early royal monuments.” (Ibidem, p. 299) According to Seligman, Murray, Blackman and Rice this particular standard “…apparently shows the (royal) placenta.” (Ibidem) Could such a strange representation on a cult object give rise to the suggestion that, early Dynastic iconography portrayed a hermaphroditic ruler, a strongman who, in his urge for power and omnipotence, had usurped even female qualities? The standard concerned consists of a “…bag-shaped sign, later associated with the god Khonsu. (Ibidem, p. 198) “Ethnographic parallels from other Hamitic African cultures provide support for the possible deification of the royal placenta in Ancient Egypt… It is possible that the royal placenta was regarded as the king´s stillborn twin; it may have been associated with the royal ka, the divine essence passed from ruler to ruler which played an important part in Egyptian kingship ideology from the earliest times.” (Ibidem, p. 199) Furthermore, when later, “…elements of the cosmos and environment were rendered in concrete form, they usually took human shape. Geb (the Earth) and Nut (the Sky) for example, were pictured as a man and a woman… Hermaphroditic or androgynous images were rare, though fecundity figures were sometimes portrayed as such.” (D. P. Silverman: Divinity and deities in ancient Egypt. in: Religion in ancient Egypt. B. E. Shafer (ed.) Ithaca, London 1991, p. 21) However, in the Heliopolitan creation myth Atum, the (male) creator god, ejaculated “…out of himself Shu (“air” – male) and Tefnut (“moisture” – female)” (L. H. Lesko: Ancient Egyptian cosmogonies and cosmology. In: Shafer (ed.), op. cit., p. 92), and according to Coffin Text spell 76 the eight Heh (chaos) gods were made by Shu “…from the efflux of his limbs…” (cited from L.H. Lesko, op. cit., p. 94) The same text states that Shu “…was not fashioned in the womb,… (that he) was not bound together in the egg,… (and that he) was not conceived, but… (his) father, Atum, spat …(him) out in the spittle of his mouth together with … (his) sister, Tefnut.” (Ibidem, p. 94 et seq.) Reference to a hermaphrodite or androgynous mode of being is also made in the “…Theban version of the creation story… best preserved in the Khonsu Cosmogony…” (Ibidem, p. 105) which describes Amun-Re as “… father of the semen, mother of the egg…” (Ibidem). At last, “one final Egyptian cosmological concept deserves mention here. In Ptolomaic… (hieroglyphic) writing…(the) name (of the god) Ptah, the “fashioner” god, incorporates both the male aspect of Geb and the female aspect of Nut, and the writing carries further the concept of Ptah´s androgyny found earlier in the Memphite Theology.” (Ibidem, p. 121 et sec.) 

 

In summary, it can be concluded that,

a.)   if a semi-divine Dionysus emerged from the thigh of Zeus, if  the eight Heh (chaos) gods were made by Shu from the efflux of his limbs, and if Amun-Re is described as “… father of the semen, mother of the egg…” (Ibidem) the arrangement of the stars around the “Seti lion”, despite its male gender, is suggestive of this animal delivering stars from its hind leg

b.)    it is not so far fetched to envision the headless beast in figure 64 as a male deity that also embodies female qualities, and

c.)     a possible deification of the royal placenta in Early Dynastic Egypt may have been an offshoot of a much older symbolism as, for instance, confirmed by some depictions of headless beasts at WG 21.

 

(Amendments to Summary and outlook in blue made on 7/10/2012)

 

At this point I leave it up to the readers to dwell further on this issue.)

 

Do we see in figure 62 a depiction of celestial movement? Are the stars shown rising from the womb, continuing on and along the beast’s backbone and then moving over its cranium until, one after another, they disappear in the lion’s jaws? (Note that in one version of the Heliopolitan myth, the stars were “… thought to travel along the river that flowed through ..(Nut’s) body during the day to reappear each evening… (Such) myths gave rise to one of Nut’s many epithets: ´she who eats her children´.” Z. Hawass; S. Vannini: The royal tombs of Egypt. Cairo 2006, p. 270. Note also that, in cases in which Nut is depicted in her bovine form … the stars are often shown sailing across the underside of her body.” R. H. Wilkinson: The complete gods and goddesses. op. cit., p. 162)

 

Most probably, the “Seti lion” who is shown to the right of a number of decans (small constellations “… located in a band south of the ecliptic” (R. A. Wells: Astronomy, in: D. B. Redford (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt. Vol. I, p. 148) which first appeared in ´coffin lid´ tables of the 9^th and 10^th dynasty. (Ibidem)), represents a cluster of circumpolar stars (i.e., “…stars that circled the north pole, and neither rose nor set.” Z. Hawass; S. Vannini: op. cit., p. 278) According to this view, Wilkinson seems to suggest that, in New Kingdom times, the feline equates to the modern constellation of Leo. (see R. H. Wilkinson: The complete gods and goddesses. op. cit, p. 91) But could the “Seti lion” also represent Nut? (Note that as early as the 5^th and 6^th dynasties, Nut appears almost 100 times in the Pyramid Texts. Ibidem, p. 161) “In fact, astronomers and Egyptologists still have not succeeded in correlating most of the Egyptian star clusters with actual star groups” (Z. Hawass; S. Vannini: op. cit., p. 270) and with the corresponding divinities. In the case of the ceiling in Seti´s tomb, decans and circumpolar star constellations conceptualized as divinities are depicted in yellowish-white. But what about the unique starry line surrounding the lion in a semi circle and what about the single star depicted above the tip of the lions tail? It seems unlikely that Nut, who is the embodiment of the sky as a whole, who’s head is formed by the constellation Gemini and who’s legs are partly shaped by the constellation of Cygnus (Ibidem, p. 266) would here be conceptualized as a yellowish-white feline. Yet, seemingly, the “Seti lion” is giving birth to white stars and later devouring them in a Nut-like way. Could it be that the starry line in figure 62 represents a grouping of circumpolar stars? Would however, a cluster of circumpolar stars depicted in zoomorphic form and thus conceptualized as a divinity, eat up the celestial bodies of which it is made up? The fact that the cluster of stars surrounding the “Seti lion” is painted white whilst the body of the lion exposes a yellowish-white hue may hint that this is indeed so.

 

From time immemorial people of the desert savannah and the Nile valley have watched the starry skies. As indicated by “… aligned megalithic structures and stone circles found adjacent to Middle and Late Neolithic (7,000 – 5,000 BCE) settlements at Nabta in the Western Desert of Egypt…” (R. A. Wells: Astronomy, op. cit., p. 145) which are “...clearly related to astronomical observations” (Z. Hawass; S. Vannini: op. cit., p. 270), sages long before the pharaohs seem to have paid attention to single stellar bodies as well as to stellar groupings, each of which they may have attached a meaning to. Did these age old endeavors take place in mortuary contexts only? If in Seti’s burial chamber, stars, circumpolar stars and decans are depicted in white or yellowish-white hues this coloration may have been chosen to correspond with the actual lighting of the night sky. Also evoked is the idea that such coloration may owe its origin to artistic concepts that are based on old myths which were handed down from the Neolithic to the pharaohs suggesting that depictions of whitish colored animals found in Wadi Sura rock shelters, may indeed represent divinities of the night sky, their age being as old as the hills. With this in mind, Barta´s remark that, the white headless beast in question may represent the Milky Way is cautiously supported. Yet the documentation presented in this chapter resolves the uniqueness of Barta´s “white Nut” and widens the view towards the possibility that other iconographic material painted in whitish tints may also have had a celestial connection.

 

Carlo Bergmann

Sehlis 4/5/2011

 

5.345.2 Excursus: conceptions of death and the afterlife expressed by rock art depicting associated headless beasts, swimmers, handprints, giraffes, ostriches and aardvarks

 

Another unique feature noted in some instances at the Cave of the Swimmers and at the Foggini-Mestakawi Cave is that headless beasts are accompanied by swimmers. This “… association is highly specific, and very localized, which must be taken into account in any approach to meaning.” (J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one read rock art? op. cit., p…) There also seems to be a further connection between depictions of handprints (Ibidem), giraffes, ostriches and the two features mentioned above.

 

Some authors have tried to interpret the swimmers as shamans “… moving in a trance-like meditation into another world” (Kuper) or as “…bodies in levitation or in adoration, painted by artists who were themselves in trance” (de Fleurs)… At first sight, such interpretation… seems to be supported by the fact that the swimmers are on a wall where there are also…” (J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one read rock art? op. cit, p….) handprints, the latter resulting from “… an attempt by the shamans to enter into contact with another world located behind the ´veil´ of the rock wall (Lewis-Williams).” (Ibidem) In a painted panel at WG 21 that further confirms this interpretation we see, adjacent to a headless beast, a swimmer or a deceased person who is painted head-downward, a few handprints and a conspicuous dark circle surrounding a fairly bright area inside which, it seems, three human figures are drawn. (figure 65) If not all of these figures are depicted in an upright position, then at least one consisting of a torso only, is possibly painted upside-down. Is this circle an entrance to the “world behind the veil”? (figure 66) Ethnological evidence may support this suggestion. Figure 67 shows a Nuba mud hut which is used as a kitchen. The circular entrance offers a view into a cave-like enclosure which “…is small and high to keep out cattle and rats.” (K. Nomachi; G. Moorhouse: The Nile. Hong Kong 1978, p. 73) If my interpretation is correct, the design of these mud huts may, in a distant time, have served as a model for magical portals into the netherworld. Did such mud buildings (or tiny caverns, natural stone constructions or intermediate dwellings (tabernacles) for those who just had passed away) exist in the Wadi Sura area around 5,000 BC? This question cannot be answered definitely until further corresponding archaeological finds emerge.

 

Sidenote 11: Le Quellec interprets the circular recess as a disc which may constitute a solar symbol. In his book he lists six of these “light spots”, all of them found at WG 21. If Le Quellec´s explanation were correct we would be faced here with first rudimentary two-dimensional images of a solar religion. Yet, no solar calendar(?) similar to the one discovered at Nabta Playa and dated to around 5,000 BC, or other archaeological evidence has come to light in the Wadi Sura area to support Le Quellec´s proposal. See J.-J. Le Quellec, P. + P. de Fleurs: op. cit. pp. 257 – 259; M. Barta, M. Frouz: op. cit., pp. 79, 83, 85. Nevertheless, it seems beyond doubt that a structured meaning lies behind the representations concerned. But what the combination of a “light spot” and human figures exactly means is hard to discern. Apart from such circular spots also giraffes and ostriches could have been used as divine symbols for expressing beliefs within the context of a solar religion. See remark below in Ref. figures 70-75)

 

figure 65: From WG 21. A headless beast associated with a.) a number of live human figures, b.) a swimmer or a deceased human who is painted upside down, c.) a few handprints and d.) a “hole” leading into an imaginary cave-like enclosure that may represent an entrance into the netherworld. In all likelihood, the ensemble is indicative for a cult of the dead. (Image shown in a color enhanced version)

 

  

figure 66: Detail from figure 65. The “entrance” into another world located behind the rock wall?

figure 67: Nuba mud hut. The round entrance offers a view into a cave-like enclosure which is used as a kitchen. Image shown in a color enhanced version. (by courtesy of Kazuyoshi Nomachi)

 

However, what can hardly be disputed is the idea that swimmers are related to a cult of the dead. (H. Rothert: Libysche Felsbilder. Ergebnisse der XI und XII deutschen innerafrikanischen Forschungsexpedition (DIAFE) 1933/1934/1935. Darmstadt 1952, p. 105). Some thousand years later in ancient Egypt, around the base of the 2^nd dynasty Kha-sekhem statues, “…a row of contorted human figures representing slain …” foes (figure 68) and described in the adjacent inscriptions as “…Northern enemies…” (W.B. Emery: Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth 1961, p. 99), bear witness to the fact that the difficult task of graphically depicting the dead, had been resolved in roughly the same way over the millennia. An additional visual trick consisted of “…representing dead beings by showing them upside down.” (J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one “read” rock art? op. cit., p….) Such upside down figures are depicted quite frequently in the Wadi Sura caves. (see for instance figures 65, 69 and 82)

 

figure 68: Inscriptions on the base of Kha-sekhem statues (2^nd dyn.) showing contorted human figures representing slain enemies (From W.B. Emery: Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth, 1961, p. 99)

 

Associating certain images in the Cave of the Swimmers and the Foggini-Mestekawi Cave with “…swimming in another world… is all the more probable because.. (the swimmers) are accompanied by … enigmatic Beasts whose (otherwise mysterious) presence makes sense in this context.” (J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one read rock art? op. cit., p…) Hence, headless beasts, swimmers and handprints would have to be considered as elements of “…a mythology of the next world” (Ibidem, p….; to avoid repetition the argument in favor of such an interpretation will not be put forward again.) But what about giraffes and ostriches? Is it conceivable that real animals could also have been part of the mythological imagery that represented the cycle of birth, death and afterlife?

 

In six of the WG 21 rock art scenes giraffes or ostriches are depicted at close quarters to a headless beast. (figures 69, 70, 76, 77, 78, 84, 85 and 87)

 

Ref. figure 69: Regardless of whether or not this giraffe carving is contemporaneous with the whitish, headless beast painting, the question is, are both these depictions and the other figures associated with them, a single mythical theme? It may well be that, as in the case of figures 76 + 77, where the tail of the headless beast seems to be superimposed onto the giraffe, that the white headless beast of figure 69, was also added to an existing scene. This is indicated by a depiction of a human in figure 69 that is, perhaps, also over painted by white hues belonging to the headless beasts body and by a human torso(?) that is sticking out of the beast’s hindquarter. Also, the position where this beast is depicted may have been deliberately chosen because of its closeness to the giraffe (or vice versa) the purpose being to produce a complex mythical metaphor, the proximity of the beast and the giraffe, itself forming a statement of its own.

 

figure 69: The white headless beast and his immediate surroundings including a giraffe above his head. To this giraffe a number of human figures are striding. Note the single swimmer touching the headless beast´s forelimb. (Image shown in a color enhanced version)

 

It seems that two rows of human figures are approaching(?) this giraffe from the right, whilst another figure is shown next to its faded head. Is this individual about to touch the beast’s cranium? “Intensive research by Paul Huard and Jean Leclant has demonstrated that Saharan rock art often illustrates a very intimate relationship between humans and dangerous animals… but also (with) harmless yet most alert (ones like)… giraffes… Particularly humans touching the head…, tail or trunk of … such animals…depict this relationship which… primarily symbolizes hunting magic.” (M. v. Hoek: The Saharan ´giraffe a lien´ in rock art. Domesticated giraffe or rain animal? Sahara 14(2003), p. 50)  ”However, associations between humans and animals in rock art do not necessarily imply … (such) practices; they also could reflect a religious or mythical association. (Coulson and Campbell).” (Ibidem, p. 51) The latter assumption is supported by the notion that, in reality, “…prehistoric people will have realized that it is actually impossible for a human to touch the head of a standing giraffe.” (P. Huard; J. Leclant: La culture des chasseurs du Nil et du Sahara (part 2) Alger. Mem. Du CRAPE, XXIX, p. 371)

 

Ref. figures 70 – 75: Contemplating the swimmers and the enigmatic headless beast whose bodies are sometimes marked with a mesh pattern, Le Quellec concludes that a significant proportion of the Wadi Sura imagery may represent “… the earliest graphic evidence for a myth.” (J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one “read” rock art? op. cit., p….) But what about the depictions of giraffes? Are they not also part of this myth? As mentioned above, the giraffe paintings could simply indicate hunting magic but the fact that the giraffe in figures 70 + 72 seems to be closely associated with a swimmer, may speak in favor of the giraffe depictions being part of the said myth. The scene in figure 71, where a swimmer is approaching the foreleg of a headless beast (note however that in figures 70 + 72 the swimmer is shown moving away from the giraffe.), also supports this idea. So, following the ideas of v. Hoek, it is suggested that in addition to headless beasts and swimmers, images of giraffes were also employed by the Neolithic artists “… to convey a metaphorical message.” (M. v. Hoek: op. cit., p. 62) This message refers to the transition from the world of the living to the world of the dead. In fact, as shown by the superimpositions in figure 77, the metaphorical message attached to giraffes may even be older than the (same or a similar) metaphorical message inherent in the depictions of headless beasts. If this were the case headless beasts would have emerged as “new” deities from a “religion” where a giraffe god or goddess had been venerated. Hence, it seems fairly certain that the origins of the “Wadi Sura pantheon” reach far back into the hunter-gatherer period.

 

Admittedly, the swimmer moving away from the giraffe in figure 72 could have been added to the animal at a later date. If so, such an addition would possibly nullify my assumption concerning the date of the formative period of the Wadi Sura pantheon, but the intrinsic meaning of the composition would change very little. Where is the swimmer heading? Why is he “watched” by the giraffe as we see in figure 72? Apparently, the giraffe is in an alert state as its tail is slightly raised. (figure 73) Also, its head is lowered and the animal seems to be focusing on the swimmer, thus establishing a connection between beast and corpse. This indeed may express a special spiritually(?) inspired bound i.e., a relationship between the dead swimmer and the giraffe predefined by religious(?) ideas or, in other words, by the spirit of the time (German: Zeitgeist. See also M. v. Hoek: op. cit., p. 52). The swimmer is heading towards a silhouette of a tall human figure, whose lower legs and feet are framed by a pair of handprints. Inside the palm of the handprint depicted to the right of the figure’s legs, a corpse of a deceased(?) person is superimposed. (figure 74) Note also that the giraffe is painted over another tall human figure but perhaps, also over the front legs of a vanished creature (which may well be another headless beast). Thus, the pictographic link between the giraffe and the headless beast shown in figure 71 is created solely by handprints. But doubtless, the pictorial elements of figures 70 + 71 comprise a single metaphorical message. Although the meaning of this message, for the most part, remains enigmatic, the carriers of the message, i.e., the giraffe, the headless beast etc., differ from each other only in their degree of realism. Whilst the headless creature is viewed by Le Quellec as a “… totally unreal beast… (proving) that the intention which motivated this art-work was not that of describing real surroundings” (J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one “read” rock art? op. cit., p….), the depiction of the giraffe is an almost true-to-life rendering. The enigma presented by the Neolithic artist’s association of a naturalistically painted giraffe, a mythological swimmer and a headless beast, can be resolved by interpreting the scene in question as a work of “magical realism” (see summary and outlook of the preceding chapter) Thus, both images, the giraffe and the swimmer, may, together with the headless beast, represent symbolically charged entities that are part of the same metaphor.

 

There is reason to believe that since time immemorial, the long neck of the giraffe may have been “… regarded as a sort of medium between earth and sky.” (M. v. Hoek: op. cit., p. 59) With this in mind it comes as no surprise that, giraffes occur as “hallucinatory rain-animals” in southern African rock art. (Ibidem, p. 58) “In many southern African areas… the potency of a giraffe was instrumental in creating rain and bringing health to the land.” (Ibidem, p. 59) Therefore when applying such beliefs to the Wadi Sura environment, is it reasonable to conjecture that the intention behind the Neolithic artist’s inclusion of the giraffe in figure 70, was to exert a beneficial influence on the swimmer? Furthermore, does the giraffe in figure 69 support (or even strengthen) a link between the Wadi Sura rock art and the sky/Milky Way which association, Barta has so far limited to the white headless beast? (M. Barta, M. Frouz.: op. cit., p. 51) Despite the great distances in space and time between southern African and Wadi Sura rock art, there is not much that speaks against such suggestions. (Note also that, according to W. Westendorf, giraffes, crocodiles, ostriches, storks and guinea fowl were commonly related to the sun during the dynastic period. Regarding giraffes, D. Huyge has recently confirmed such a link for the Predynastic period. Cited from S. Hendricks, F. Förster: Early dynastic art and iconography, in: A companion to ancient Egypt, vol. 2, A. B. Lloyd (ed.), p. 834)

 

 

figure 70: From WG 21, middle lower left center section. (courtesy of Andras Zboray) Swimmer in front of a giraffe surrounded by handprints. These handprints continue up to the headless beast whose forepart is seen at the top right corner of the picture. The whole beast is shown in figure 71. Note that in the palm of one of the hands, a swimmer or the corpse of a deceased human is depicted. For details see figure 74. (Images shown in color enhanced versions)

figure 71: Headless beast surrounded by hands and footprints. A swimmer approaching its front limb is possibly superimposed onto one of the handprints. Note that two digits of a hand are over painted by a human figure that has fallen down or that has died. (figure 75) There is no doubt that the pictorial elements of figures 70 + 71 comprise a single metaphorical message.

 

   

figure 72: Detail from figure 70 showing a swimmer underneath the head of a giraffe. The neck and the head of the animal are lowered towards the corpse as if the giraffe were focusing on the latter. Such “illogical” relationship between the animal and a corpse/swimmer, may express a special spiritual(?) relationship between the two. (see M. v. Hoek: op. cit., p. 52) (Courtesy Andras Zboray)

figure 73: Detail from figure 70. The slightly raised tail may indicate that the giraffe is in an alert state.

figure 74: Detail from figure 70. Corpse of a deceased(?) human superimposed onto the palm of a hand.

 

 

figure 75: Detail from figure 71. Human figure that has fallen down or that has died(?) superimposed onto two digits of a hand.

 

Ref. figures 76 + 77: Another rock panel which combines depictions of a headless beast and a giraffe is shown in figures 76 + 77. As already mentioned, the tail of the headless beast seems to be superimposed onto the giraffe, indicating a younger age of the former. Also, the giraffe’s head may overlap the fore quarters of a quadruped. (see also figure 593 in J.-J. Le Quellec, P.+P. de Flers: op. cit., p. 212) The complete meaning of this penal cannot be reconstructed and nor can the correct chronological order of the three figures and other faded details of the scene be resolved with the limited technical means available to me. Nevertheless, the close proximity between the headless beast and the giraffe may have been deliberate.

 

 

figures 76 + 77: From WG 21. Overview and detail of a scene in which a headless beast is shown together with a giraffe and another quadruped. The tail of the headless beast seems to be superimposed onto the giraffe whilst the quadruped may be over painted by the giraffe’s head. The place for the depiction of the headless beast may have been chosen because of its proximity to the giraffe. (Images shown in color enhanced versions. Figure 77 by courtesy of Andras Zboray.)

 

Ref. figures 78 – 80: There is yet another intriguing rock art ensemble which, besides other figures, contains another headless beast, this time enveloped by a decorative yellow striped object that resembles a net, together with three(?) swimmers and two giraffes. (figure 78) Figures 78 + 79 show one of the swimmers close to the “mouth” of this headless beast and figure 80 reveals an apparent swimmer(?) or a deceased(?) human depicted under the front legs of the larger of the two giraffes whilst another swimmer/contorted human figure representing a deceased(?) is shown above the same giraffe’s neck. What more is needed to demonstrate that giraffes indeed, may have been linked to death and the netherworld by the Neolithic artists?

 

 

figure 78: Two giraffes above a headless beast with one swimmer close to its” mouth” (for detail see figure 79) and two others (Are they just “ordinary” deceased humans?) above and below the larger giraffe. (Image shown in a color enhanced version)

 

  

figure 79: Detail from figure 78. A swimmer close to the mouth of a headless beast.

figure 80: Detail from figure 78. Apparently, a swimmer or a deceased human is depicted under the front legs of the larger of the two giraffes. Another such figure is shown above this giraffe’s neck.

 

To sum up the pictorial contents of figure 69 and in particular of figures 70, 72, 78 and 80, these seem to point clearly to a link between death and afterlife. This association is not only allegorized by adding headless beasts to scenes in which swimmers and live human figures are present, but also by incorporating giraffes into the paintings, thereby enhancing the mythical-religious meaning of the images. Although, in the scenes just mentioned, giraffes are closely associated with swimmers, one could argue that this closeness does not necessarily mean that the various images concerned were meant to be part of the same composition and the perceived meanings may only be projections of present-day observers. So how the Neolithic people viewed the scenes shown in figures 70, 72, 78 and 80, we do not know but from ancient documents we have an idea of how Egyptians viewed giraffes.

 

“While the giraffe seems to have had no sacred qualities attributed to it, some Egyptologists have sought to identify the animal associated with (the sun (see remark above in Ref. figures 70-75) or) the god Seth – a creature difficult to identify zoologically – as a giraffe and to see its head as a model for the royal was-scepter. Indisputably, the giraffe has made contributions to Old Egyptian in the word sr, meaning “to announce”, “to foretell”, “to proclaim”, or “to prophesy”. Those verbal associations were based on its 2 to 3 meter … neck.” (E. Brunner-Traut: Giraffes, in: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, D. B. Redford (ed.), vol. 2, p. 25) Thus, if we follow Brunner-Traut´s reasoning, the ancient Egyptians did not attach any religious qualities to giraffes but “only” prophetic and heralding ones. Kuhlmann has gone so far to say that the ancient Egyptians characterized the animals as “prophetical heralds of positive omens”, suggesting that the giraffes of the Neolithic might have played a prominent role as rain-animals. (K. P. Kuhlmann: Der Wasserberg des Djedefre. op. cit., p. 257) So according to the ancients, when a giraffe (as a “hint of the gods”: German: “Fingerzeig der Götter”), appeared in the landscape, rain was about to come.

 

With regard to a mythology of death and “the next world” as is seemingly expressed in the Wadi Sura rock art, does this notion of a link between “giraffes – rain – water/health – swimmers - headless beasts - Waters of Nun – (sun) - afterlife” have any credibility? According to Kuhlmann ancient Egyptians assigned specific symbolic values to giraffes, especially on account of their long neck which enabled them to look far ahead. (Ibidem, p. 277) Applying this idea to the “after life” mythology already existing a couple thousand years before the emergence of Egypt in Wadi Sura, could this mean that giraffes, whose hieroglyphic characters (mmj) “…could be playfully associated with “mmt” (spring)…” (Ibidem, p. 277; my translation) were imagined by the Wadi Sura people as being capable to foreseeing a beneficial future for the deceased in the netherworld? Thus, can a giraffe as, for instance, the one depicted in figure 72, be interpreted as a divine beast who is a herald of positive omens for the dead at that point when they are about to turn away from the world of the living and to enter the realms of eternity? I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinion. To me it seems more than a coincidence that several prominent rock art ensembles at WG 21 depict giraffes, swimmers, handprints and headless beasts together.

 

Ref. figures 81- 83:  It should be noted that there are rock art ensembles in WG 21 which may challenge the chain of thought (“giraffes – rain – water/health – swimmers - headless beasts - Waters of Nun – (sun) - afterlife”) postulated above. In figure 81 the giraffe seems to be “replaced” by an ostrich that is associated with three swimmers, a pair of quadrupeds(?), handprints and a headless beast that is about to attack a human figure. One of the simmers is superimposed onto a handprint. So are the two quadrupeds. If the ostrich stands for positive omens such as maternity and female fertility (See chapter 5.31 and caption to figure 39) there may have been good reasons for the Neolithic painters to give preference to the bird instead of depicting a giraffe. Could this imply that the swimmer (i.e., the deceased) who is superimposed over the handprint, next to the ostrich, represents a female dead body? Does this scene signify that certain mythological motifs consisting of animals of the real world (that simultaneously, may also have been used to represent a solar symbolism) were, within certain limits, interchangeable?

 

figure 81: From WG 21. A headless beast attacking a human figure. Also an ostrich, handprints, swimmers and two quadrupeds(?). Image shown in a color enhanced version. (Courtesy of Andras Zboray)

 

Sidenote 12: Figure 81 is part of a composition shown in figure 82 that, to the left of the ostrich, includes a village scene(?) and, to the lower left of the headless beast, a place of gathering or mourning(?). The general view in figure 82 seems to indicate that the left edge area of figure 81 was not chosen arbitrarily and that, in all likelihood, the ostrich depiction is indeed more likely related to the handprint and the swimmer therein rather than to the village scene.

 

Regarding the (female) connotations of ostriches as outlined in chapter 5.31, we saw that lineage or a spiritual(?) bond between mother and child is symbolized by an umbilical cord on which two ostriches are placed. (figures 9 + 23) A similar symbolism, not quite as clear as the one just mentioned, is also evident in another WG 21 rock art panel. I refer to the tiny scene presented in figure 83 which, as far as is visible to the naked eye, is void of a depiction of an ostrich, but shows a human figure connected by a rope(?) to a pair of humans who are closely grouped together. Does this depiction portray the male aspect of lineage showing a bond between a deceased(?) person, possibly a father and his offspring?

 

 

figure 82: general view of a WG 21 rock art panel consisting of a.) handprints, a village scene(?) to the left of an ostrich and b.) a place of gathering or a mourning site(?) to the lower left of a headless beast. Image shown in a color enhanced version.

figure 83: a human figure connected by a rope(?) to a pair of humans. Image shown in a color enhanced version. Color enhanced. (Courtesy of Andras Zboray)

 

Ref. figures 84 – 86: Another WG 21 rock art penal which depicts an association between a headless beast, humans and animals is that illustrated in figures 84 -86. Here we see relationships between the beast and a number of human figures, including swimmers and also an ostrich. The way in which the motifs in this composition are arranged underscores the symbolic character of the scene and strongly indicates that, for mythical-religious reasons, the Neolithic artists aimed at deliberately creating links that are pregnant with meaning between various elements, which make up the scene in question. In particular one notes the scene just above the beast which depicts a swimmer between the beast’s back and an ostrich, on either side of which, recumbent human figures are facing the ostrich. Here again, it seems reasonable to assume that the swimmer (i.e. the deceased person), between the ostrich and the headless beast is a female. (see my arguments above) And thus, the positioning of an ostrich directly above a swimmer may serve as a feminine attribute (i.e. as a generic determinative as known from hieroglyphic writing. See A. Gardiner: Egyptian Grammar. 3^rd edition, Oxford 1979, pp.31-34) in the context of an allegory of death. If one accepts this interpretation, a small proportion of the Wadi Sura pictorial art may also be seen as anticipating, in a quite rudimentary form, ideographic signs and premature “grammatical patterns” to which, at the dawn of the invention of writing, the later Egyptian hieroglyphic system resorted.

On the other hand, if the ostrich in figures 84 – 86 is regarded in the same way as depictions of giraffes (see above Westendorf´s attempt to interpret pre-dynastic depictions of giraffes as sun-bearers; Westendorf and Huyge in S. Hendricks, F. Förster. op. cit., p. 834) i.e., as a symbol related to the sun, then it would seem that quite different ideas about the afterlife are conveyed to the observer. In this case the ostrich may well be a symbol of power and strength and thus, it’s image and the qualities presumably associated with it could be related to sun worship. Yet, in this context it is not clear what meaning has to be attached to the noticeable emphasis on symmetry as underlined by the opposing and recumbent human figures that face the ostrich in figures 84 + 86. Do we see here an artistic antecedent of the pharaonic convention according to which “.. many components of works of art … have a counterpart which is symmetrically designed and placed according to an imaginary central axis”? (J. Malek: Egypt. 4000 years of art. London 2003, p. 31. Among the first art works on which this formal principle left its mark are the Narmer palette and the verso of the battlefield palette.) Are these two human figures meant to represent the east (sunrise) and the west (sunset) within the context of death and rebirth? (Note that sun worship was prevalent in ancient Egypt and that Nut was one of the deities associated with the sun.) As in the case with the figures we see in figures 84 + 86 “… Egyptian symmetry is...never reduced to a true mirror image; absolute symmetry is, in fact avoided as is the repetition of identical features in general.” (Ibidem) Nonetheless, it seems that in the WG 21 rock art a “…perception of completeness as a synthesis of two complementary, and sometimes confrontational, elements…” (Ibidem) had already begun to evolve which, in the later pharaonic period “… permeated all thinking.” (Ibidem)

 

(Amendment in blue made on 8/23/2011)

 

 

  

figure 84: A headless beast, an ostrich, swimmers and a number of other human figures shown interacting with each other in what appears to be a mythical-religious scene. Image shown in a color enhanced version. (Courtesy of Domik Stehle)

figure 85: Detail of figure 84. A swimmer depicted on top of the back of a headless beast. The ostrich directly above the swimmer may serve as a feminine attribute similar to a generic determinative as known from hieroglyphic writing.

 

figure 86: Detail of figure 84. The ostrich is flanked by two recumbent human figures. Their presence further highlights the mythical-religious character of the scene which, in its central part, could also be seen as anticipating, in a quite rudimentary form, ideographic signs and a premature “grammatical structure” as known from the hieroglyphic script of the proto-dynastic era.

 

Ref. figures 87: A scene from WG 21 showing a “peaceful” headless beast, a handprint and a couple human figures . Underneath the animal the faint contours of an ostrich engraved into the rock face are to be seen. Does the presence of the ostrich in this case, underscore the female essence of the beast?

 

figure 87: A panel consisting of associated headless beast, ostrich, handprint and human figures. (Image shown in a color enhanced version.)

 

Ref. Mark Borda´s recent aardvark discovery: The chain of thought presented above (“giraffes – rain – water/health – swimmers - headless beasts - Waters of Nun – (sun) - afterlife”) is split open all the more by a recent find made by Mark Borda at Garet Shezzu, about 60 kilometres southwest of Gebel Uweinat. This discovery questions Le Quellec´s notion that depictions of swimmers commonly occur in association with headless beasts only. (see J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one “read” rock art? op. cit., p….. However, in his book “peintures et gravures d´avant les pharaons” Le Quellec himself presents an image of a human figure found at Gebel Uweinat which strongly resembles a swimmer and which is not depicted together with a headless beast. J.-J. Le Quellec, P.+P. de Flers: op. cit., pp. 73, 77, fig. 154) The find may also challenge the definition of headless beasts as “….totally unreal beasts…” (J.-J. Le Quellec: Can one “read” rock art? op. cit., p…..) that seem to merge the characteristics of felines, baboons and bovines as well as of humans, forming a surrealistic, composite creature.

 

During his winter 2010/11-desert survey, whilst traversing the southern flanks of Garet Shezzu, Mark Borda came across a small rock shelter in which he noticed an enigmatic painted panel consisting of three pictorial elements:

 

a.)  a tall vertical human figure that seems to be stepping with one foot on

b.)  a smaller sized horizontal human figure (swimmer), which is lying belly down with arms out stretched and legs below the knee lifted whilst

c.)  an aardvark approaches the lifted lower legs (of the slain(?) enemy(?)). 

 

The exceptional find will be published in the next issue of SAHARA. The panel in question is cleanly separated from the other rock art panels also present in the same shelter, thus it is very clear that the three pictorial elements concerned are related to one another. Indisputably, the scene is symbolic in nature and, to me, constitutes surprising proof of a swimmer, shown in unequivocal association with an animal that lives in underground burrows i.e., a real existing “animal of the underworld”, found at a distance about 260 kilometers away from the Foggini Mestekawi Cave. 

 

Until the release of the 2011 edition of SAHRA I shall refrain from further discussions of Borda´s find and from posting pictures thereof on my website. Thereafter, an interpretation of images of headless beasts based on real animals of the formerly existing Neolithic fauna will be offered in chapter 5.346.

 

Sehlis 5/26/2011

 

Carlo Bergmann

 

Amendment of 9/7/2011:

 

After Mark’s article has been published (M. Borda: Rock art finds at Garet Shezzu and an aardvark? Sahara 22(2011)pp. 130-133, Plates D1 + D2) I would like to acquaint the reader with the unusual piece of rock art referred to above. Figure 87a shows the entire panel consisting of a tall vertical human figure, a smaller sized horizontal human figure which, after the submission of the images by  Mark Borda, I identified as a swimmer, and an aardvark. A close-up of the swimmer is shown in figure 87b, a close-up of the aardvark is to be seen in figurem87c.

 

 

figure 87a: Rock panel consisting of a human figure, a swimmer and an aardvark found by Mark Borda at Garet Shezzu, Libya. Image shown is color enhanced. (Courtesy Mark Borda)

figure 87b: Detail of figure 87a. Swimmer. Image shown is color enhanced. (Courtesy Mark Borda)

 

figure 87c: Detail of figure 87a. Aardvark. Image shown is color enhanced. (Courtesy Mark Borda)

 

 

Sehlis 9/7/2011

 

Carlo Bergmann

 

 

5.345.3 The “White Nut’s” body posture in comparison to those of other headless beast

 

5.345.31 The “White Nut” figure and “ordinary” headless beasts as enigmatic composite figures

 

Referring to headless beasts which he differentiates from the “White Nut” figure Barta states that they “…possess an unidentifiable mammal’s body and legs, and instead of a neck portray a ´mouth´ between two humps. In some instances, it is this mouth that devours human corpses. In most cases, these creatures/beasts are surrounded by standing or moving/floating human figures (some of them are ´swimmers´) that seem to approach these beasts… Some of the humans are rendered upside down as if they were dead.” (M. Barta, M. Frouz, op. cit., pp. 63, 65) Following Le-Qellec, Barta considers depictions of these reddish-brown headless beasts as precursors of the Egyptian “…mythical creature Amemait, which was part of the final judgment of the deceased. When he failed to pass judgment, he was eaten up by her. If he was successful, the deceased passed and attained life in the afterlife and appeared in the sky.” (Ibidem, p. 65). Note however, that in Egyptian myth Amemait, the devourer of the dead, is portrayed as a composite creature with a lion’s/lionesses body, the forelegs of a crocodile and the hindquarters of a hippopotamus. (see several judgment scenes in the Book of the Dead) On account of these differences Barta points out that, the “… manifold process of resurrection as we know it from ancient Egypt may have been different at the period when the (Foggini-Mestekawi Cave) … was decorated, yet the parallels are striking enough.” (Ibidem, p. 63) In contrast to his interpretation of “ordinary” headless beasts, Barta reserves a special interpretation for the largest known of these headless beasts, which on account of its extraordinary size and its white coat of paint, he associates with the Egyptian sky goddess Nut. In this chapter we will ask again, whether or not Barta´s reasoning is supported by the facts as they are emerging at WG 21 and other Wadi Sura rock art sites.

 

(Note that according to Andras Zboray “… there is a strange symbolism and standardized iconography in the Wadi Sura paintings (not known from any other styles at Uweinat) that does seem to echo some of the traits of Egyptian art (this was noted by Jean-Loic le Quellec, but he too went a bit too far without enough evidence), however the overall style and subject matter is too distant to suggest any kind of relationship… At present … there is nothing in the rock art of either the Gilf or Uweinat to suggest that any of these cultures were ancestral to, or just even had contacts with the predynastic Nile valley cultures. In fact, if our chronology is right (and your dates so far support this), the early Nile valley civilizations (Fayum, Badarian, etc.) were contemporary with the early Gilf/Uweinat cultures, and had a very different material culture. Of course we all know now that in later dynastic times there were contacts, as attested by (the Road to Yam and Tekhebet) … and the (Mentuhotep) …inscription at Uweinat, but there was a thousand year gap between this and the last paintings.” (A. Zboray, email to the author of September 13, 2010)) 

 

5.345.311 The “White Nut’s” size as a distinguishing feature?

 

Regarding the size and thus, the importance which the Neolithic artists may have attached to the “White Nut”, it must be admitted that we did not measure this image when visiting the cave. Uwe George, taking my body size as a frame of reference (figure 88), estimates her to be 250 cm long (U. George, pers. comm.), whilst I assume a size of about 120 cm and Andras Zboray a size of about 75 cm. (A. Zboray, Rock art of the Libyan Desert. Rock art styles - Wadi Sora Style) But even Andras´ modest estimate would highlight the white beast’s prominence, as all other depictions of headless creatures are much smaller; “…the smallest are just a few centimeters.” (Ibidem) In Barta´s opinion both, her white color “… and the enormous curved shape of her figure…” (U. George: In the cave of the Sky Goddess. GEO India, January 2011, p. 90) can be interpreted as anthropomorphic forms of the Milky Way which is indicative of the white beast being the Stone Age predecessor of the Egyptian goddess Nut. Thus it seems that about 3,000 years before the pharaohs, a natural phenomenon had inspired Neolithic sages to further develop their worship in a way that is “…without parallels in the Gilf-Uweinat region”. (A. Zboray. op cit.)

 

figure 88: the author below the depiction of the “White Nut” (detail; courtesy Dominik Stehle)

 

5.345.312 Zoological equivalents to the headless beast’s mystical form and the meaning of this form

 

Andras Zboray´s assessment also applies to the composite character of the headless beasts. So far, these Wadi Sura” headless beasts” have not been found anywhere else in the Gilf Kebir/Uweinat region and since the discovery of WG 21, visitors to this cave have been puzzling over the question of what kind of animal the Neolithic artists had in mind when they depicted these mysterious headless creatures. Here are some recent propositions cited from the extant literature. According to Zboray the strange animals appear “… to have a feline body (lion?) with curved tail, with usually (but not universally) only a single forelimb, bent rearwards at a right angle at the knee. The head is always missing, replaced by two rounded humps resembling an elephant’s forehead. There appears to be a mouth between the humps, as two examples clearly show a human torso sticking out.” (Ibidem) “Rhotert saw in ..(the) ´beast´ (which is depicted in the Cave of the Swimmers) a half-human, half-animal being, its back is profoundly curved, and its long tail ends in a flossy ball…” (J.-L. Le Quellec: Can one “read” rock art? An Egyptian example. in: P. Taylor (ed.): Iconography without texts. London 2008, p. 15) Le Quellec remarks that, “…although one cannot identify them as any real, known animal, these Beasts all have a certain similarity which prevents one attributing them merely to the individual fantasy of inventive artists. They often seem to associate characteristics of animals (feline? baboon? bovine?) and humans (articulation of the limbs, sometimes with a kind of foot). (Ibidem, p….) Robert Twigger straightforwardly interprets these beasts as headless baboons. (R. Twigger: Lost oasis. In search of paradise. London 2007, p. 95) and Roland Keller speculates that the headless beasts either “… actually show the god Seth” (www.rolandkeller.org) or represent shamanistic giraffes. (www.rolandkeller.org/roland_Keller_aegypten_neueste_entdeckungen_links_35.html) On the other hand, Barta and George interpret the beasts as loin-like animals with muscular bodies whilst D´Huy considers them to be mutilated lions. (J. D´Huy: New evidence for a closeness between the Abu Ras shelter (Eastern Sahara) and Egyptian beliefs. Sahara 20 (2009) pp. 125 et seq.) However, at first sight, it appears from the evidence in Wadi Sura that the beasts in question bear only slight resemblance to any known creature. (see opposite view presented in chapter 5.346) For the time being, these fabulous animals as well as the “White Nut” may be seen as composites of lions (torso), elephants, cattle (hoofs) and baboons.

 

Regardless of the zoological interpretations of the enigmatic beasts at WG 21, the meaning of the historical and cultural developments which this imagery bears witness to, can only be guessed at. As in the past, so in the present: The world that surrounds us starts and ends in our head and just as we do today, the tribes of the Wadi Sura area lived in a realm of invented ideas and perceptions of their own. (For comparison, see cultural differentiation processes of semi-isolated mountain valley populaces in the Alps before the onset of modern communication and increased mobility.) In this realm (as well as in their social reality) members of these tribes did not seem to conceive themselves as an enigma. Furthermore, it seems they regarded the end of their days as an inevitable part of the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth and were by no means reluctant to hand themselves over to the frightful headless beasts who devoured them as we see in some of the images that have survived for us today, which images also underscore a decisive mythological element in these paintings, which it seems were informed by visions that transcended Neolithic daily life and which shed light on what seems to have been a highly developed animistic culture with a sophisticated cosmogony. Therefore the headless beasts can be seen as the remains of a vanished imaginary world that, altogether, was used as a statement to attest to the commitment of the Wadi Sura populace to their concept of afterlife whilst, vice-versa, we can imagine that the paintings in question probably had a profound mind altering effect on the prehistoric peoples that would have partaken in rituals inside these shelters. (Although for instance, the altar that I found at WG 61 is suggestive of being an element of emotionally charged cult activities the corresponding feedback effects, to which the ones gathering around the sacred item and participating in the rituals were presumably exposed, cannot be discussed in this paper. Note however that recently, Early Dynastic hybrid creatures have been considered as being endowed with a religious aura by their creators. (see Cialowicz, cited from S. Hendricks, F. Förster: op. cit., p. 846)) Nothing prevents us to assume that the same could apply to headless beasts which are tentatively seen here also as hybrid i.e., composite in nature.)

 

5.345.32 Movements and body postures: the fearful nature of the “White Nut” and the “ordinary” headless beasts

 

In one of his captions, Barta briefly mentions the possible maleficent nature of headless beasts (M. Barta, M. Frouz, op. cit., p. 64), following Julien d´Huy “… who sees the headless (i.e., mutilated) beasts as predating another typical ancient Egyptian concept.” (Ibidem, p. 67) In reference to the Old Kingdom and thereafter he quotes d´Huy as follows:“… animal and human hieroglyphs, especially dangerous animals´ hieroglyphs were suppressed or replaced by those of intimate objects, while in the later version, these hieroglyphs are either mutilated or only partly depicted…. The reason was that texts were magical and thus capable to materialize their content.” (J. D´Huy: op. cit.) Occasionally, this fear that hieroglyphs had the potential to magically materialize into the beasts they represented, led Egyptians to depict dangerous animals such as ”…lions and elephants… as incomplete and without an essential part (because)… people thought they might be dangerous… when they became alive… In this way, complete Beasts´ bodies (depicted in rock shelters of the Wadi Sura area)… may have been avoided because of the fear they could inflict harm. The absence of the head (for both “ordinary” beasts and the “White Nut”) can also be explained by the will to magically eliminate the danger that Beasts represent.”(Ibidem) In addition, as shown in figure 89, some of the headless beasts are portrayed with “… vertical scores splitting their body... The authors of the pyramid texts slash the body of their hieroglyphic lions in the same way, to neutralize them. Furthermore, to make hieroglyphs representing dangerous animals harmless, the custom was particularly to impose one or several notches on them.” (Ibidem; see also literature references in D´Huy article.) This practice is seen in figures 89 + 90 and on quite a few other Wadi Sura paintings.

 

  

figure 89: Headless beast with vertical groves scored across its body. Color enhanced.

figure 90: Headless beast damaged by three indentations. It may well be that the indentations were made to stop the beast’s attack(?) on the human figure to the left. Color enhanced. (courtesy of Dominik Stehle)

 

However, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the grooves and other types of deliberate damage we see on the torsos, could have been made long after the beasts were painted. Perhaps these effacements served as a further measure to tame the ferocity of the already headless beasts. If the effacements took place hundreds or even a thousand years later, there could be many reasons for this, such as the weakening or changing of beliefs, the loss of confidence in age-old myths, magic and rituals, a general awakening i.e., a disillusionment or a reinterpretation of old ideas regarding man’s role on earth and in the netherworld. Thus, a sudden onset of droughts or of other natural disasters could, due to their psychological impact, have caused disillusionment amongst the faithful and detachment from their established pantheon and from the physical world that was then probably undergoing climatic transition (5,400 – 4,300 BC; see Report o the results of radiocarbon datings from the Wadi Sura area, Gilf Kebir, southwestern Egypt, table 2). In such circumstances one can imagine how such changes could have led to a loss of confidence and the eruption of fears.

 

That the headless beasts as well as the “White Nut” might have been viewed as potentially ferocious animals who had to be controlled and reined in, is further suggested by the fact that quite a few of these creatures are depicted, in a standardized manner, with “…only a single forelimb, bent rearwards at a right angle at the knee.” (A. Zboray: op. cit.) This unusual front leg posture is reminiscent of the manner in which grazing animals such as camels (note however that before 520 BC camels were unknown in Egypt) and other animals have their mobility temporarily restrained. Figure 91 shows a camp-scene from Wadi Sura (probably from the cattle pastoralist period) in which, to the right of a hobbled cow, a canine(?) with a curved tail seems to be tied to an object by a rope that is attached to one of its front legs (detail shown in figure 92) which scene seems to echo some of those of the headless beasts. (figure 92) In the case of the headless beasts, the tying-up is imaginary i.e., there is no visible rope (figure 93) as opposed to the more evident shackling of the bovines and the canine. (figures 91 + 92) Regarding the region and the periods in which the two paintings were made, this is as close as we can get to identifying depictions which probably signify two forms of shackling, a symbolic and a real one. For comparison see figure 94 which shows a camel’s foreleg shackled with the help of an agal (leg restraint). When a camel is hobbled in this way, the resulting forelimb posture is similar to that of the headless beast (figure 93) especially when the limb in question is raised. Does this prove that the unusual position of headless beast’s forelimbs was copied by the Neolithic artists from real life scenes?

 

Sidenote 13: When a camel is crawling on its foreleg knees and when both forelegs are tied separately with agals, the camel’s body posture will be strikingly similar to that of a headless beast as depicted in figure 93. I saw this kind of crawling maneuver quite frequently around campsites during my expeditions but regrettably, I never photographed it. When such a hobbled camel is in the mood of attacking, and when it lunges forward, it raises its forequarters, usually holding both of these front limbs more or less side by side so that from a lateral vantage point, one limb hides behind the other. Could this be the reason why, at some headless beast’s sites, only one foreleg is visible? As the beast aligns its limbs in the instant of pouncing, is the second “symbolically tied-up” foreleg hidden behind the first? Another explanation could be that in order to emphasize the controlled state of some of the creatures, and thus to allay the fears of the ancient viewers, the Neolithic artists had, right from the start, painted these animals with only one foreleg.

 

  

figures 91 + 92: From WG 46. Camp and shackling scene showing, from the cattle herder’s point of view, the body postures of hobbled cattle and a tied canine(?). Color enhanced. (Courtesy Andras Zboray)

 

   

figure 93: From WG 21. Decorated headless beast “...with a single forelimb bent rearwards at a right angle at the knee.” (A. Zboray: op. cit.)

figure 94: Male camel from a salt caravan which I photographed at Laqiya Arbain/Sudan on my camel hike of 1986/87. The animal is urinating. His left front leg is tied with an agal (leg restraint). When both legs of a camel are hobbled in this way and the animal is also sitting, if it lunges forward, the upper section of its forelimbs will, for a moment during this motion, reveal a forelimb stance very similar to the headless beast in figure 89. In any case, figures 89 + 90 present ways quadrupeds can be tied up.

 

That, in some cases, headless beasts were considered and thus consequently, were portrayed as aggressive and dangerous animals, is also indicated in figure 95. Here we see a mythical creature with its tail erect, frozen in movement that represents a full gallop(?) and thus, depicted with a single front leg that is not symbolically tied up. Apparently, the beast is making a big leap forward and is depicted whilst its attack on the person to its left is well under way. The backward leaning posture of this human suggests a retreat in the face of the assault and a state of paralysis brought on by fear. Panic-struck and defenceless, he stretches out his arms, does not dare to move and submits(?) to his fate, whilst all but one of his companions(?) run away from the scene.

 

figure 95: From WG 21. Headless beast attacking a human figure (color enhanced). Courtesy Andras Zboray.

 

So, in order to protect the ancient viewers from the maleficent nature of headless beasts, the Neolithic artists and later visitors to the Wadi Sura caves sought to curtail the outright ferocity of some of these animals by the following remedies:

-          depicting the beasts headless

-          limiting them to a single(?) forelimb which is bent rearwards at a right angle to the knee as a further precaution

-          scoring grooves across their torsos

-          damaging them with further indentations.

As already discussed, three of these measures were also common in pharaonic Egypt. This, amongst other evidence, seems to support the idea that the Wadi Sura culture was a source of Egyptian mythology. “This population may have migrated towards the Nile valley, bringing with it its mental universe and contributing to the formation of Egyptian beliefs.” (J. D´Huy: op. cit., p. 126)

 

In addition to those images that present headless beasts in an aggressive stance, there are a number of depictions that suggest the animals were capable of various other different temperaments and conduct. The depictions which correspond to these alternative behaviours include postures such as running (without attacking), peacefully striding forward, following a lead animal, standing and nursing(?).These variations will be treated further below together with other characteristics such as ´lifted tails´ and the decoration of the bodies with yellow ribbons and ornaments.

 

Carlo Bergmann

Sehlis 5/27/2011

 

 

to be continued in part two