The horse: A perfect gift to a Persian (or Parthian)

"For a nomadic people like the Persians, the horse had a significant practical and symbolic purpose and the importance of horses among the Iranian nobility is evidenced by the fact that many of them bore names compounded with the Old Persian word aspa – ‘horse’, observes Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Edinburgh.  "Several of Darius I’s inscriptions note that Persia was a land containing both good men and good horses (DZe §1; DPd §2) and Herodotus famously states that Persian fathers were intent on teaching their sons ‘to ride, to draw the bow, and to speak the truth’ (1. 136; see also Strabo 15. 3.18). The premium Persian horses were bred in the alfalfa-rich plains of Media, and it was here that the main royal stud farms were located (Polybius 10.70). Most prized of all were those steeds bred on the plains of Nisaea near Ecbatana and Bisitun, and Nisaean horses became celebrated for their magnificence, fine proportions, and swiftness (Herodotus 3. 106, 7. 40; Aristotle, History of Animals 9. 50.30). Nisaea is said to have sustained 160,000 horses (Diodorus 17.110), although stiff competition came from Media and Armenia which were also used for breeding good steeds (Strabo, Geography 11. 13.7; 11. 13.8, 14.9), as were the provinces of Babylonia (where one satrap possessed 800 stallions and 16,000 mares; Herodotus 1. 192), Cilicia (which provided an annual tribute of 360 white horses, Herodotus 3. 90), Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, and lands of the Saka which provided the Empire with its cavalry."

The Persepolis texts tell us that individuals who safeguarded the royal horses and officials serving as Masters of the Horse were paid well and enjoyed a diet of regular meat. Horses symbolized wealth and status and appeared in courtly ideology to model the ideal warrior image. They were also the center of aristocratic pastimes including hunting and racing.

According to Xenophon, the finest present to give a Persian was a horse and horses served as exceptional religious sacrifices.  

"As founder of the Empire, Cyrus II was honored with a horse sacrificed to his soul every month (Arrian, Anabasis 6. 29.7.)," states Llewellyn-Jones. "Moreover, the infamous tale recounted by Herodotus (3.85) of how Darius I acquired his kingdom through a trick involving the neighing of his horse is, in all probability, a Greek misunderstanding of the Iranian practice of hippomancy, or divination through the behavior of horses (see also Ctesias F13 §17), demonstrating the deep-set importance of the horse as a hallowed species in the Iranian consciousness."

Image: Procession of nobles, possibly from Palmyra, Syria, 100-150 CE, limestone, now in the collections of the Cleveland Museum of Art, image courtesy of the museum.

Palmyra was a key center for trade between the Roman and Parthian Empires. This unique relief at the Cleveland Museum of Art has been associated with Palmyra only through stylistic comparisons because its find spot is unknown. 

"It depicts men in Parthian dress riding Arabian horses with bejeweled harness trappings ahead of riders on camels—a possible reference to the caravans that made Palmyra so wealthy. Although all of the riders are dressed and equipped as Parthians, the proportions and perspective of the scene seem to be informed by Greco-Roman conventions. It may depict a ceremonial procession." - Cleveland Museum of Art

The museum defines the horses as Arabians but their body structure is quite stocky, not at all like the Arabian horses of our time. Yet, a 2017 study by evolutionary biologist Barbara Wallner at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna concluded that nearly all modern horse breeds can be traced to two distinct, ancient Middle Eastern lines, the Arabian and the now extinct Turkoman horses from the Eurasian Steppe. Wallner and her colleagues studied variations in a segment of DNA along the Y chromosomes of 52 modern male horses that represented 21 modern breeds then expanded their analysis to include 363 males representing 57 modern breeds.  

 

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

The transformative shrew in Greco-Roman-Egyptian mythology

When I saw this carefully detailed bronze sculpture of a common shrew from Egypt's Greco-Roman Period, I wondered why the ancients thought this creature worthy of such expense. Although this sculpture is part of the collections of the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art also has a similar, though less detailed example from the same period as does the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest.  

According to The Met, the ancient Egyptians named the shrew, "the voracious", because of its feeding habits. In ancient Egyptian mythology, the shrew represented the blind aspect of the solar deity, “the one with no eyes in his face” (Mechenti-n-irti in old Egyptian) that was complemented by the ichneumon, “the one whose eyes (the Sun and the Moon) are in his face” (Mechenti-irti in old Egyptian), a creature with very keen eyesight. This god with the dual nature was revered in Letopolis as one of the aspects of Horus, who, as myth has it, was blind at birth. 

According to Egyptians, this Horus of Letopolis assists the Sun god during his nocturnal journey on the solar bark which lasted until the sixth hour of the night.

"The shrew assumed the form of the god Horus to enter the afterlife and descended into the darkness of the afterlife to revive the deceased/Osiris. In this phase of the journey, he helped to navigate the solar bark through the dark, while his reforming power accelerated the regeneration of the deceased. The more combative functions in the ascending phase of the Sun god’s journey, after the sixth hour of the night, were given to the companion animal: the ichneumon (mongoose)." - The Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, Hungary.

The process of transformation from the blind shrew into a seeing being  and from a being of the afterlife/inactive being into a perfectly reborn being able to act dynamically in the light of daytime was therefore viewed as having the ability to grant life in the afterlife. In fact, the hieroglyphic inscription on the front and right side of the plinth on which the shrew sculpture in Budapest stands, asks this temporarily blind aspect of Horus of Letopolis to grant such life to an individual named Imhotep.

As for the shrew's complementary creature, although I am familiar with a mongoose I had never heard it called an ichneumon so did a little research and discovered it was a name used not only for a mongoose but a creature called the pharaoh's rat. Sometimes the name was also used for an otter. It's name in Greek means "tracker" and it was said to be the enemy of the dragon.

According to Pliny the Elder (Natural History, Book 8, 88), "The ichneumon is known for its willingness to fight to the death with the snake. To do this, it first covers itself with several coats of mud, drying each coat in the sun to form a kind of armor. When ready it attacks, turning away from the blows it receives until it sees an opportunity, then with its head held sideways it goes for its enemy's throat. The ichneumon also attacks the crocodile in a similar manner."  

I was aware of the snake-killing reputation of the mongoose but wondered how such a relatively small creature could kill a Nile crocodile.  However, the 1st century CE geographer, Strabo backs up the claim by Pliny saying "The ichneumon [is] most destructive both to crocodiles and asps. The ichneumons destroy not only the eggs of the latter, but the animals themselves. The ichneumons are protected by a covering of mud, in which they roll, and then dry themselves in the sun. They then seize the asps by the head or tail, and dragging them into the river, so kill them. They lie in wait for the crocodiles, when the latter are basking in the sun with their mouths open. They then drop into their jaws, and eating through their intestines and belly, issue out of the dead body."

As late as the 3rd century CE, Marcus Aurelius Olympius Nemesianus, a poet at the court of the Roman emperor Carus, refers to hunting the Ichneumon on river banks among the rushes in his poem Cynegetica. Sadly, the poem is fragmentary and any longer passage describing such a hunt has been lost. If the creature could take on a crocodile, it would seem to me that hunting the beast would be a very dangerous endeavor!

Read more about the cult of the shrew: https://www.mfab.hu/shrew-a-sacred-glutton/

Image: Solid cast bronze sculpture of a shrew, Egypt, Greco-Roman Period, 305-30 BCE, now in the collections of the Cleveland Museum of Art, image courtesy of the museum. 

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Meroitic Period and retainer sacrifice in ancient Nubia

Meroë in ancient Nubia, superseded Napata as the capital of the Kingdom of Kush under King Aspelta in about 591 BCE. Meroe's wealth was centered around a strong iron industry, as well as international trade in jewelry, pottery and textiles involving India and China. Meroitic metal workers engaged in both iron and Nubia's longstanding gold production were considered among the best in the world. The kingdom thrived until the 4th century CE and numerous kings and queens were buried in Meroë's royal cemeteries. 

The remains of Meroë were rediscovered by a French mineralogist Frédéric Cailliaud who published an illustrated folio in 1821. The first formal expedition led by Giuseppe Ferlini was launched in 1834. Ferlini primarily recovered mostly jewelry items which are now in the collections of museums in Berlin and Munich.  Then in 1844, C.R. Lepsius examined the ruins and produced plans and sketches of the site. These inspired E. A. Wallis Budge to lead an expedition to Meroë in 1902 and 1905. His finds were transferred to the British Museum. This was followed by excavations led by John Garstang of the University of Liverpool in 1910.

In 1931, British Egyptologist Walter Bryan Emery excavated the Ballana cemetery in Lower Nubia and uncovered 122 tombs dating from 350 to 600 CE.  In addition to objects of Nubian origin, there were many objects imported from Byzantine Egypt and other trading centers around the Mediterranean. His team found  royal crowns, horses, and servants buried with their masters.  

One of the most lavish burials was found in tomb 118 which consisted of a main burial chamber and two storage rooms.  Fortunately, the tomb's roof had collapsed so was apparently overlooked by looters. The body of the person buried there was found on a bier. It was most likely that of a king. Upon his head was found a crown. Under the bier, were the remains of a large wooden gaming board, weapons and an iron folding chair. There were also skeletons of a young male servant and a cow. In the two storerooms, more skeletons of servants, as well as pottery and several bronze lamps were discovered.

Human sacrifice was a longstanding tradition of Nubian civilization.  During the Classic Kerma Period (1700–1550 BCE), funerary monuments of Kerman kings could be up to one hundred meters long and included hundreds of sacrificed individuals.  One of the largest Kerma burials contained the remains of 322 individuals, most them female.  Archaeologist George Reisner speculated that the women could have been members of the royal harem.

The practice of retainer sacrifice appears to have abated while Nubia was under the rule of Egypt during the New Kingdom period and the reign of the 25th dynasty during the Third Intermediate Period.  But the sacrifice of retainers was revived when the royal cemetery was moved south to Meroë during the reign of Arkamaniqo (270-260 BCE).  At least 16 royal tombs including those of five kings, a queen, a prince, and eight of unknown status dating to as late as the 1st century BCE contained human sacrificial victims. I hope none of them were members of Gaius Petronius' retaliatory force!

Image: Nubian royal crown from the royal cemetery at Ballana Tomb 118 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor John Campana (digitally enhanced)

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

The Napatan Period and Rome's clash with Kush

Napata was founded by Thutmose III in the 15th century BCE after his conquest of Kush. Napata’s location as the southernmost point in the empire led it to become an important religious center and settlement. In 750 BCE, during the political instability of the Third Intermediate Period, the Kushite ruler, Kashta, attacked Upper Egypt. His policy was pursued by his successors Piye, and Shabaka (721–707 BCE), who eventually brought the whole Nile Valley under Kushite control and ruled Egypt as the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. Religion, the arts, and architecture were restored to their Old, Middle, and New Kingdom forms under such pharaohs as Taharqa who built or restored temples and monuments throughout the Nile, including at Memphis, Karnak, Kawa, Jebel Barkal, and elsewhere.

However the dynasty was relatively brief. Taharqa and his successor cousin, Tantamani were constantly in conflict with the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Neo-Assyrian emperor Esarhaddon conquered Lower Egypt about 670 BCE then enlisted the conquered to assist him against the Kushite rulers of Upper Egypt. Necho, who became the ruler of Sais in 672 BCE and subsequently Esarhaddon's vassal, was given new territories possibly including the city of Memphis, 

Taharqa convinced some rulers of Lower Egypt, including Necho, to break with the Assyrians. However, Assurbanipal, who had succeeded Esarhaddon in the meantime, overpowered the coalition and deported the Egyptian conspirators to his capital at Nineveh, killing part of the population of the cities they governed. But, Necho was pardoned and reinstated at Sais with even more new territories.  Some scholars think Ashurbanipal hoped to rely on the loyalty of an Egyptian ally in the event of another offensive led by the 25th Dynasty pharaohs, and perhaps to inspire and strengthen a rivalry between the Kushites and the Saites. 

However, Necho I as slain in 664 BCE near Memphis while defending his realms from a new Kushite offensive led by Taharqa's successor Tantamani while Necho's son, Psamtik, fled to Nineveh under Ashurbanipal's aegis. This Nubian invasion into the Egyptian Delta was subsequently (664-663 BCE) repelled by the Assyrians who proceeded to advance south into Upper Egypt and performed the infamous sack of Thebes. Tantamani eventually abandoned his attempt to conquer Lower Egypt and retreated to Napata. However, his authority over Upper Egypt was acknowledged until the 8th regnal year of his reign at Thebes (or 656 BCE), when Psamtik I dispatched a naval fleet to Upper Egypt and succeeded in placing all of Egypt under his control.

The Napatan dynasty continued to rule the Kushite state, though, which flourished in Napata and Meroë until at least the second century CE. Napatan architecture, paintings, writing script, and other artistic and cultural forms were Kushite in style, but Egyptian burial customs continued, the building of pyramids resumed, and Kushites worshipped several Egyptian deities including Amun and Mut.

Napata began to lose its economic influence after an Achaemenid Persian raid in 591 BCE. The importance of iron propelled Meroe into prominence and it replaced Napata as the capital of Kush. 

In 23 BCE, the Governor of Roman Egypt, Gaius Petronius, invaded Kush with 10,000 men after an initial attack by the queen of Meroë, Kandake, razing Napata to the ground, according to the  Res Gestae Divi Augusti.  In retaliation, the Nubians crossed the lower border of Egypt and looted many statues (among other things) from the Egyptian towns near the first cataract of the Nile at Aswan. 

The destruction of Napata was not a crippling blow to the Kushites, though, and did not frighten Kandake enough to prevent her from again engaging in combat with the Roman military. Indeed, it seems that Petronius's attack might have had a revitalizing influence on the kingdom. In 22 BCE, a large Kushite force moved northward with intention of attacking Qasr Ibrim. Alerted to the advance, Petronius again marched south and managed to reach Qasr Ibrim and bolster its defenses before the invading Kushites arrived. Although the ancient sources give no description of the ensuing battle, we know that at some point the Kushites sent ambassadors to negotiate a peace settlement with Petronius and possibly accept a status like "Client State" of Rome. 

Napata was restored by King Natakamani, who renovated the temple of Amun and constructed a palace. But eventually the site was abandoned and its buildings plundered and destroyed. This may have been the result of a change in religious practices.  The first archaeologist to excavate the site, George Reisner, discovered two caches of statues, thought to have once adorned the Temple of Amun, comingled with ash indicating they had been purposefully destroyed.

Amethyst lion's head pendant, Napatan, Egypt, Dynasty 25, now in the collections of the Cleveland Art Museum, image courtesy of the museum. This pendant consists of two parts: a superbly carved lion’s head in amethyst that has been set into a D-shaped gold base consisting of a platform surrounded by eight seated baboons. The lion’s head is an heirloom from the New Kingdom, most likely a gaming piece that had been adapted in the Napatan period to serve as an pendant amulet.

Sandstone Omphalos depicting Nubian shrine, Meroitic Period, 100-200 CE, from Gebel Barkal Temple B 500, now in the collections of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, image courtesy of the museum. Once thought to be a shrine imitating the form of a traditional African shelter, this hollow dome-like object of sandstone can now be identified as a model of Gebel Barkal, the "Pure Mountain" of Napata, which was the chief sanctuary and coronation center of Kush and the site of the oracle of Amun, said to select each new king following the death of his predecessor. The form of the object imitates the unique Napatan hieroglyphic symbol for Gebel Barkal, which appears several times in the stele of Nastasen (cat. 265). As a hieroglyph, the mountain is shown as a dome with a uraeus or cobra diadem rising from one side.
From the Egyptian New Kingdom onwards, Gebel Barkal was believed to be the residence of the southern (and primeval) form of the Theban god Amun, who was known as "Amun of Napata, dweller in the Pure Mountain." Because of the 75-meter high pinnacle on the southern corner of Gebel Barkal, which in silhouette looks like a rearing uraeus, the mountain was not only identified as the dwelling place of Amun, but was also identified by the Kushites as the true source of kingship in the Nile Valley, from which derived the legitimacy of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.

Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Closeup of Shrine of the 25th dynasty pharaoh and Kushite King Taharqa Egypt 7th century BCE that I photographed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Statuette of a Kushite ruler, probably Taharqa, Dynasty 25, 690-664 BCE, Bronze, now in the collections of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, image courtesy of the museum

Amulet of Pataikos, Napatan Period, reign of Shebitka or Taharqa, 712-664 BCE, Meroe now in the collections of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, image courtesy of the museum. This faience figure of Pataikos has a faded glaze. He has a scarab on head, hawks on his shoulders and crocodiles under his feet. Winged Sekhmet is at the back, and there is an incised eye on the base.

Statuette of King Taharqa, Napatan Period, Gebel Barkal, 690-664 BCE, Bronze, now in the collections of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, image courtesy of the museum

Cowroid of blue-green glazed steatite; back carries an incised border of line decoration. Base inscribed with throne name of Third Intermediate Period ruler Taharqa (Khuinefertemre), now in the collections of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, image courtesy of the museum.

 

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Ovid's Ibis

In 1 BCE, the Roman poet Pūblius Ovidius Nāsō , known to us as Ovid, penned three books, the Ars amatoria (The Art of Love) instructing Romans in the techniques of seduction and love. The first book addresses men and teaches them how to seduce women, the second, also to men, teaches how to keep a lover. The third book addresses women and teaches seduction techniques. Ovid describes the places one can go to find a lover, like the theater, a triumph, which he thoroughly describes, or arena – and ways to get the girl to take notice, including seducing her covertly at a banquet. Ovid emphasizes care of the body for the lover and advises men to avoid giving too many gifts, keep up their appearance, hide affairs, compliment their lovers, and ingratiate themselves with slaves to stay on their lover's good side.  Ovid gives women detailed instructions on appearance telling them to avoid too many adornments. He advises women to read elegiac poetry, learn to play games, sleep with people of different ages, flirt, and dissemble. Book three ends with his wish that women will follow his advice and spread his fame saying Naso magister erat, "Ovid was our teacher". (Ovid was known as "Naso" to his contemporaries.) 

Unfortunately for Ovid, the Emperor Augustus, who had enacted his Julian marriage laws which promoted monogamous marriage to increase the population's birth rate in 18 BCE, did not take kindly to Ovid's disregard for what Augustus viewed publicly as the serious crime of adultery. (According to Suetonius, Augustus himself was "given to adultery not even his friends deny, although it is true that they excuse it as committed not from passion but from policy, the more readily to get track of his adversaries' designs through the women of their households."  Even the boisterous Marc Antony charged him with taking the wife of an ex-consul from her husband's dining room before his very eyes into a bed-chamber, and bringing her back to the table with her hair in disorder and her ears glowing.) 

Although Augustus did not act immediately, after his daughter Julia's very public lascivious rebellion against her father's moral restrictions and possible implication in her husband's conspiracy against Augustus which Ovid may have known about, the poet was exiled to the island of Tomis by the Black Sea where he died in 17 or 18 CE. The order was issued by Augustus alone, without any participation of the Senate or of any Roman judge. Ovid himself wrote many references to his offense, but gave only obscure or contradictory clues.

Ovid wrote two poetry collections while in exile, Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto, which illustrated his sadness and desolation. Being far from Rome, he had no access to libraries, and thus might have been forced to abandon his Fasti, a poem about the Roman calendar, of which only the first six books exist.  The Tristia expresses the poet's despair in exile and advocates his return.   The Epistulae ex Ponto was a series of letters to friends pleading with them to effect his return. But at one point his anger at what he viewed as his unjust punishment boiled over and he penned the Ibis, a curse poem attacking a powerful but unnamed adversary in Rome, modeling the work on a lost poem of the same title by the Greek Alexandrian poet Callimachus. Candidates for "Ibis" have been suggested including Hyginus, Cassius Severus, Titus Labienus, Thrasyllus of Mendes, Caninius Rebilus, Ovid's erstwhile friend Sabinus, and the emperor Augustus, but scholars cannot agree if "Ibis" refers to a single person, to more than one person, or to nobody at all. Ovid threatens his enemy in the second section of the poem (lines 251–638) with a veritable catalogue of "gruesome and mutually incompatible fates" that befell various figures from myth and history, ranging from laming and blinding to cannibalism to death by pine cone. (I tried to find out what "death by pine cone was, particularly since I live in the Pacific Northwest where coniferous trees are abundant, but had no luck!) Ovid also declares that even if he dies in exile, his ghost will rise and rend Ibis' flesh.

Image: Hollow cast bronze Ibis eating a lizard, Roman, 100 BCE - 100 CE, now in the collections of the Cleveland Museum of Art, image courtesy of the museum. When I saw this beautiful sculpture I wondered if it could have been a symbol of resistance against Roman imperial rule in a well-read Roman household.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!