Table of contents
Introduction 3
1 Book of the Day: textual tradition, sources, structure of the composition 7
1.1 Introduction 7
1.2 Textual tradition of the Book of the Day 9
1.2.1 The New Kingdom Books of the Afterlife 9
1.2.2 Cult Theological Treatise 12
1.2.3 The Hour Ritual 16
1.3 Sources of the Book of the Day 21
1.3.1 Presentation of the sources 21
1.3.2 The tomb of Ramses VI at Biban el Moluk: KV 9 22
1.3.3 The tomb of Ramses IX at Biban el Moluk: KV 6 23
1.3.4 The tomb of Osorkon II at Tanis: NRT I 25
1.3.5 The tomb of Ramose at Sheik ‛Abd el Qurna: TT 132 26
1.4 Structure of the Book of the Day 34
1.4.1 Definition of the problem 34
1.4.2 The iconography of Nut 35
1.4.3 The general iconography of the Book of the Day 38
1.4.4 Disposition of the hour ritual within the composition of the Book of the Day 39 1.4.5 The texts of the Eastern and Northern bas in the Book of the Day 42
2 Complete list of the divinities represented in the Book of the Day 44
2.1 Introduction 44
2.2 Table 47
2.2.1 First register of the Book of the Day in the burial chamber of KV 9 47
2.2.1.1 First group of divinities of the first register 47
2.2.1.2 Second group of divinities of the first register 49
2.2.1.3 Third group of divinities of the first register 59
2.2.1.4 Fourth group of divinities of the first register 61
2.2.1.5 Fifth group of divinities of the first register 62
2.2.2 Second register 71
2.2.2.1 First group of divinities of the second register 71
2.2.2.2 Second group of divinities of the second register 73
2.2.3 Third register 75
2.2.3.1 First group of divinities of the third register 75
2.2.3.2 Second group of divinities in the third register 77
2.2.4 Fourth register 78
2.2.4.1 First group of divinities of the fourth register 78
2.2.4.2 Second group of divinities of the fourth register 79
2.2.4.3 Third group of divinities of the fourth register 80
2.2.4.4 Fourth group of divinities of the fourth register 82
2.2.4.5 Fifth group of divinities of the fourth register 84
2.2.4.6 Sixth group of divinities of the fourth register 85
2.2.5 Fifth register 92
3 Typology of the “divine figures” represented in the Book of the Day 98
3.1 Introduction 98
3.2 Morphological features 100
3.2.2 Second cluster: divinities represented with animal features in the burial
chamber of KV 9 106
3.2.3 Third cluster: mummiform divinities in the burial chamber of KV 9 108 3.2.4 Fourth cluster: divinities represented as an object in the burial chamber
of KV 9 109
3.2.5 Fifth cluster: divinities carrying any kind of attribute in the burial chamber
of KV 9 109
3.2.6 Sixth cluster: divinities depicted in a particular gesture and posture in the
burial chamber of KV 9 113
3.3 Linguistic aspects 116
3.3.1 First cluster: divinities accompanied by a hieroglyphic text 117 3.3.2 Second cluster: divinities whose appellative consists of a masculine substantive 120 3.3.3 Third cluster: divinities whose appellative is formed by a feminine substantive 124 3.3.4 Fourth cluster: divinities whose appellative consists of a nominal part
(substantive) and an attributive one (i.e. adjectives, participles, relative clauses,
adverbial clauses) 125
3.3.5 Fifth cluster: divinities whose appellative consists of an attributive part
(adjectives, participles) not related to any substantive 132
3.3.6 Sixth cluster: list of anonymous divinities 134
3.4 Comparison of the procession of gods from different areas, sites, periods 135 3.4.1 First cluster: divinities in the tomb of Ramose (TT 132) 137 3.4.2 Second cluster: divinities of the tomb of Osorkon II (NRT I) 138 3.4.3 Third cluster: divinities in the tomb of Ramses IX (KV 6) 142 3.4.4 Fourth cluster: divinities in the corridors D, E and G of Ramses VI (KV 9) 144 3.4.5 Comparative table: divinities attested in the Book of the Day and other New
Kingdom Books of the Netherworld (Book of the Night, Amduat, Book of Gates Book of Caverns, Book of the Earth, Litany of Re, Book of the Heavenly Cow) 182
3.5 Conclusions 205
4 The burial chamber of the tomb of Ramose TT132 216
4.1 Iconographical programme of the ceiling 216
4.1.2 Cryptography 219
4.1.3 The version of the Book of the Night in TT 132 221
4.1.4 The sixth hour of the Book of the Night 221
4.1.5 The seventh hour of the Book of the Night 223
4.1.6 The eighth hour of the Book of the Night 224
4.1.7 The ninth hour of the Book of the Night 226
4.1.8 The tenth hour of the Book of the Night 227
4.1.9 The eleventh hour of the Book of the Night 228
4.1.10 The twelfth hour of the Book of the Night 229
4.1.11 Solar Hymn 137 on the Northern Wall 230
4.1.12 Conclusions 231
Bibliography 234
Plates Chapter one 239
Plates Chapter two 249
Plates Chapter three 274
Plates Chapter four 317
Introduction
I would like to start from the very definition of aesthetics, derived from the Greek verb αισθανοµαι, meaning at the meantime taking notice, understanding and feeling.1 All these three aspects must somehow, in my opinion, be present in any iconographical study. We have to ask ourselves the right questions in other to be able to observe all the various details and collect all the possible information. We might arrive to an understanding of the artefact, object of our study. We can try, as scholars, to categorize everything in scientific classes. There is, though, an emotional part, the feeling, so well expressed and contained in the Ancient Greek verb. One has to be aware of that. And this feeling can be of various natures. The primary aspect, that should be considered, is, though, why in the twenty first century we feel such an attraction to a form of culture apparently so distant from our daily way of living. We can try to answer this question in various ways, but there is still an irrational part that I am convinced plays a role in our choices and in the way we conduct our research.
It is important to consider the nature of questions one might ask himself in conducting an iconographical study. One realises very soon that any question, that seems merely descriptive can imply an interpretative part.
I have observed that in my own thesis. As I stated in the introduction of chapter three, I avoided giving a definition of demon or divinity. Since the text of the Book of the Day is not really explicit on this matter, I thought that, in order to give an objective presentation of the iconographical material, I had to avoid this question. Trying, though, to give a definite number of the divinities represented in the Book of the Day I encountered the problem that, even such a question, implied a certain interpretation. Did I have to take into account only the divinities with an appellative? Did I have to count every divinity that was depicted? And what did I have to do when some divinities were accompanied by more than one appellative? All these questions had to be answered before starting writing the catalogue. And one sees that, already in trying to give a quantitative definition, the researcher has to take interpretative decisions. In starting my research, I wanted to be as objective as possible. I realised, though, that even compiling a catalogue is an interpretative action. The problem is even more complex. Even when we have the idea of recording meticulously and objectively the iconographical material we are studying, we have to be aware that there is also a certain amount of information unconsciously conveyed by the maker.
1
In order to proceed successfully in every research, it is necessary first of all to define the matter of the problem and to agree in the description we make of the artefacts, object of our study. I found very inspiring the following statement, we should always ask the iconologist to return to base from every one of his individual flights, and tell us whether programmes of the kind he has enjoyed reconstructing can be documented from primary sources or only from the work of his fellow iconologists. Otherwise we are in danger of building up a mythical mode of symbolism, much as the Renaissance built up a fictitious science of hieroglyphics that was based on a fundamental misconception of the nature of Egyptian script.2
The research of an art historian, and also of an Egyptologist should make use of the universal tools developed in art history when dealing with iconographical issues. One should start generally from a careful description and study of the image represented. In a second stage he has to analyse the literary sources on the themes and concepts represented. But one can move further and aim to iconological interpretation, an iconographic synthesis in which one tries to interpret the intrinsic meaning. One has to be aware that also the scholar’s psychology and Weltanschauung plays a role in this iconological analysis.3
I started in chapter two, with a careful description of the iconographic features of every single deity. I then moved to the consideration of the written text involved, that could help in giving the setting for a further level of interpretation. I gave a definition of the text I was dealing with, in chapter one, and I referred to the hieroglyphic description of the deities in order to achieve any further result. I felt pretty much the danger of building up a mythical mode of symbolism, and I did not really dare to move to a deeper hermeneutical analysis. The “iconological questions” were, though, present in my mind and expressed in chapter one. What is the deeper meaning of the Book of the Day? Is it a cultic text, first meant to represent the role of the king as solar priest and did it develop in the templar sphere? Or is it a cosmographic text where the king is deified, as it is shown at the beginning of the composition in the burial chamber of KV 9, where the names of the king are placed next to the winged solar disk? In any interpretative attempt, one must be aware also that the investigator’s psychology plays a role. I realised that, already at the descriptive stadium. In compiling a concordance in chapter two, I saw that different scholars could achieve complete disaccording conclusions. One makes categories that not necessarily were considered as such by the Ancients. Later on, I realised that during my own research I had be conditioned by my way of thinking and kept considering of fundamental importance the subdivision of the divinities in
2
E. H. Gombrich, Aims and limits of Iconology, in R. Woodfield, The Essential Gombrich (London 1996), pp. 457-484.
3
registers. In comparing different sources I then realised that registers were not treated by the Ancient Egyptians as closed unities.
Interpretation depends heavily on classification.4I find very useful to envision the interpretative process as the result of observation, description, classification (analysis) and interpretation (synthesis). I would only like to emphasize that this process can work on both directions. I mean that also at the very moment one is making an interpretative attempt, can go back to his previous classification, question his own categories or classes and restart the process. I experienced that in my own research. When I reached the point of writing a synthesis I realised that my classification based on registers to which the divinities belonged, was not so useful for my purpose and also it was less objective than I thought. One should constantly look very critical at his own research and be willing to restart the classification process if needed. As I stated in chapter three of my thesis I am convinced that an accurate description and presentation of the material is necessary before starting interpretative attempt. In the meantime the careful study of the material can lead to a reconsideration of the typology or even to the making of a new classification.5 While conducting his research one should always keep in mind the possibility that he has to restart from the beginning.
To avoid individual flights one should refer to the primary sources and to the texts belonging to the culture itself.6 That is the reason why in my thesis, I did not go any further in my hermeneutical attempt, but I limited myself to the conclusions based on the hieroglyphic texts themselves, and did not try to give a complete subdivision in hours of all the divinities represented in the Book of the Day.
For the modern researcher is difficult to understand why certain divinities are accompanied by a text and others aren’t. If there were any rules they are difficult to detect for the time being. And one should not forget the freedom of the ancient artist.
The complexity of the ancient artifact, object of our study, the presence of different layers of interpretation that cannot be immediately intelligible to the modern researcher must be taken into account, when we attempt an iconographical study. We have to be aware of our point of view and realize that the monument we are studying is a complex unity. Trying to give an unilateral interpretation can lead to erroneous conclusions. One has to ask himself whether our interpretation agrees with the Egyptian view of the matter. The researcher should be aware of the fact that the complexity of the monument he is studying may not necessarily lead to uniform conclusions. When classifying, one should not forget that there was also a certain freedom and personal choice of the
4
See R. van Walsem, Iconography of Old Kingdom Elite Tombs. Analysis and Interpretation, Theoretical and Methodological Aspects (Leiden 2005), p. 25
5
Adams and Adams 1991, p. 160.
6
ancient artist. Not all the aspects of the monuments can always be explained in an uniform scientific result.
It might sometimes seem disappointing to realize that there are limits to our understanding. A clear methodological approach is necessary, though, to reach any certain scientific result and to avoid, and I quote Gombrich again, building up a mythical mode of symbolism based on misconception of the nature of the Ancient Egyptian Art.7