Philology and Science at Dendera

Micah T. Ross Philology and Science at Dendera The circular zodiacal ceiling of the pronaos of the Osiris chapel at the temple of Hathor in Dendera has become emblematic of Egyptian astronomy. In spite of its iconic status, this familiar image was once controversial. The nineteenth-century debates over how this particular depiction of the zodiac ought to be interpreted have been revisited in The Zodiac of Paris by Jed Z. Buchwald and Diane Greco Josefowicz.1 The subtitle of their volume, How an Improbable Controversy over an Ancient Egyptian Artifact Provoked a Modern Debate between Religion and Science, refers to the competition between religious and scientific ideologies. As this subtitle also indicates, Buchwald and Josefowicz have adopted a standard perspective on the history of science. From their perspective, the philological chronology of Joseph Scaliger and its revisions by Dionysius Petavius lie outside the scope of The Zodiac of Paris. Rather, Buchwald and Josefowicz expanded on an earlier article by Buchwald which considered the debate over the circular zodiac at Dendera as “a growing mismatch between historical and scientific sensibilities, at least in 19th-century France, and likely elsewhere as well”.2 Besides being described as a debate between religious and materialist partisans, this mismatch may also be formulated in terms of methodology. The clergy relied on philological interpretations which could be marshaled in support of a short chronology; scientists placed their confidence in astronomical evidence based on the precession of equinoxes which reckoned the age of the temple in millennia. In his summation of the competing methodologies, Buchwald presciently added the phrase “and likely elsewhere as well.” Despite the fact that the philologists, championed by Champollion-Figeac and clarified by Letronne, carried the day when they identified an inscription from the thirtieth year of the reign of Augustus, the methodological discussion continues – should archaeological artifacts be interpreted primarily in light of philological studies or as the subject of scientific analysis? In their study of Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Otto Neugebauer and Richard Parker explicitly declined the opportunity to recapitulate the lengthy debates which occupy Buchwald and Josefowicz. Instead, Neugebauer and Parker focused on the presentation and clarification of ancient sources, avoiding a discussion of their reception and interpretation. Whereas Buchwald and Josefowicz provide a historiographical guide to nineteenth-century Egyptian astronomy, Neugebauer and Parker mentioned “a flood of astronomical speculations about their great antiquity,” citing only || 1 Buchwald/Josefowicz (2010). 2 Buchwald (2003), 21. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110629705-048 Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM 1012 | Micah T. Ross A.-J. Letronne who in two monographs, published in 1824 and 1846, demonstrated that neither the round zodiac from Dendera nor any other known Egyptian zodiac could be taken as an astronomically accurate representation of the sky at any particular time.3 They concluded that “[t]oday it is no longer necessary to repeat Letronne’s arguments.”4 Although Neugebauer and Parker curtail ancillary discussion in order to assign a Roman date to the zodiac, their prescience was not equal to that of Buchwald, a liability which becomes apparent in interpretations of the planetary deities depicted among the zodiacal images. For Neugebauer and Parker, the circular zodiac of Dendera chiefly preserved zodiacal and planetary iconography from Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek traditions. When Neugebauer and Parker did consider the arrangement of the planetary deities, they sought to establish cultural communication: How far the underlying astrological doctrines are Babylonian or only of Hellenistic origin is … difficult to say. It seems, however, that the association of the planets with certain zodiacal signs in which they are supposed to enjoy particular influence, the so-called exaltations (ὑψώµατα: cf. Fig. 32), are of Babylonian origin.5 In order to establish the exaltations as Babylonian, Neugebauer and Parker cited three works by Weidner and one by Unger. Just as Neugebauer and Parker did not repeat Letronne’s arguments, they scarcely identified the positions of the planetary deities as representative of the exaltations or the philological tradition of astrology which relates to them. Instead, Neugebauer and Parker abandoned the circular zodiac at Dendera to consider a range of differences between Greek and cuneiform sources, rejecting the Babylonian origin of planetary houses and comparing Babylonian and Greek planetary orders. Neugebauer and Parker relied on the philological tradition to interpret the circular zodiac at Dendera, but they did not explicitly connect this tradition to the imagery in the zodiac itself. Instead, Neugebauer and Parker focused on presenting the zodiac as a primary source, albeit clarified by their interpretations. If the philological tradition had been explicitly recapitulated, a new interpretation would have been less likely to emerge. Twenty-six years after Neugebauer and Parker, Éric Aubourg reconsidered the association of planetary deities with zodiacal images and offered a new conclusion. Aubourg was aware that previous analyses had accorded the positions of the planetary deities “un rôle purement symbolique.”6 To this end, he cited Edwin Krupp, who limits his discussion of the positions to declaring them to be “particularly influen- || 3 Neugebauer/Parker (1969), 203. 4 Neugebauer/Parker (1969), 203. 5 Neugebauer/Parker (1969), 203. 6 Aubourg (1995), 2. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM Philology and Science at Dendera | 1013 tial,”7 and Hans Georg Gundel, who declares the positions to be “Erhöhungen (exaltations)” with no explanation.8 In defiance of these truncated identifications, Aubourg proposed a novel astronomical interpretation. Acknowledging the astronomical impossibility of the planetary deities as indicative of planetary positions at a given time,9 Aubourg considered the planetary deities representative of the most recent planetary oppositions and conjunctions10 – that is, the points in the sky where the planets had most recently stopped their direct motion at the “first station,” moved in retrograde arcs until the “second station,” and resumed direct motion. Aubourg further suggested that these positions were observed, rather than calculated because, while Ptolemy had the ability to predict stations, such predictions were outside the competence of the Greek contemporaries Eudoxus and Apollonius.11 Aubourg noted problems with the position of Mercury but offered possible justifications. For Aubourg, though, confirmation derived from the fact that the date suggested by the stations in these positions fell near a solar eclipse visible at Dendera. Because of this correspondence, Aubourg interpreted an image of a goddess holding a baboon by the tail as an eclipse deity, marking the position of the eclipse. Aubourg further identified a wedjat-eye in a circle as another eclipse deity, marking a lunar eclipse. In this way, Aubourg derived a date and meaning for the zodiac from internal, astronomical evidence. The reception of the interpretation of the circular zodiac at Dendera as the record of an eclipse has prompted significantly less debate than the nineteenth-century interpretations by French scientists. Whereas the French scientists proposed to alter the date of the zodiac by millennia, Aubourg modifies the date by only about two decades. At least one author has developed the hypothesis in theological detail,12 but most authors who accept the eclipse interpretation have repeated it with little more than a footnote.13 Others authors have omitted the interpretation from their discussion of the zodiac – perhaps indicative of tacit disagreement – but have not challenged the proposal.14 Still other authors have added the paper to bibliographies without incorporating its conclusions into their discussion.15 Of the investigators, José Lull and Juan Antonio Belmonte have addressed the hypothesis most explicitly.16 In their discussion of the circular zodiac at Dendera, Lull || 7 Krupp (1978), 218. 8 Gundel (1992), 83. 9 Aubourg (1995), 2. 10 Aubourg (1995), 7–8. 11 Aubourg (1995), 8. 12 Priskin (2015). 13 Bard (2015), 405; Couprie (2003), 234 with note on p. 253; Whitehouse (1998), 264; Décobert (1998), 50. 14 Evans (1999), 290; Campion (2008), 183. 15 Leclant/Clerc (1997), 283; Buchwald/Josefowicz (2010), 395. 16 Lull/Belmonte (2009), 185–187. See also Priskin (2015), 136. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM 1014 | Micah T. Ross and Belmonte describe two opinions: the exaltations or ὑψώµατα, (as noted by Neugebauer and Parker, and also by Joanne Conman who rejects the Mesopotamian origin17) and stationary points (as presented by Aubourg). By way of conclusion, Lull and Belmonte noted that both proposals are compatible with each other within certain limits and may be considered as reasonable explanations of the planets’ positions within the diagram.18 Lull and Belmonte noted that the identification of the solar eclipse “has not been seriously contested so far” and then rejected the second identification of the Eye of Horus with a lunar eclipse.19 Despite the mixed reception and generally tepid response, Aubourg’s interpretation of the circular zodiac of Dendera echoes the debates which shook the salons of nineteenth-century Paris. Like Burkhardt and Coraboef and the other French savants who read the circular zodiac of Dendera as charting the precession of the equinoxes, Aubourg has constructed an astronomical interpretation rather than assembled a philological interpretation. Aubourg has constructed his astronomical interpretation clearly and accurately, and Lull and Belmonte are correct to consider the hypothesis to be a reasonable explanation. Yet, Aubourg does not entirely dismiss a philological interpretation. He compares his hypothesis with the achievements of Hipparchus, Eudoxus, Apollonius, Ptolemy, and even briefly notes the achievements of Mesopotamian astronomers at Nineveh. Although the sources cited by Aubourg do not discuss the exaltations in detail, the Greek tradition reports that they occupy specific degrees which are not indicated at Dendera.20 Without entering into the details of variant traditions,21 tracing the origins of the exaltations or ὑψώµατα presents difficulties, and few secondary sources clearly explicate the philological tradition of astrology. An astronomical explanation, however, reveals solutions not available through a philological approach. Even though the two approaches do not necessarily stand in opposition, an astronomical approach is difficult to reconcile with the literary record of astronomy, for the premise of the astronomical approach departs from that of the philological tradition. The practice of indicating a point in time through references to the retrogradations does not appear in any written tradition of astronomy or astrology. Thus Aubourg does not err in his astronomy, but his argument does not permit confirmation by literary sources. In other words, the conclusions of the astronomical approach remain independent of the philological tradition. The objection by Lull and Belmonte || 17 Conman (2006–2009). 18 Lull/Belmonte (2009), 185. 19 Lull/Belmonte (2009), 185. 20 Firmicus Maternus Matheseos 2, 3; Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 1.19. 21 Pingree (1978), 220–221. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM Philology and Science at Dendera | 1015 that the encircled Eye of Horus need not be identified with a lunar eclipse has been noted and supported by artistic tradition. For example, the zodiac at Esna marks roughly the same place in the zodiac with a sun-disk.22 Although Aubourg finds the image of a goddess holding a baboon by the tail to be confirmation of a solar eclipse because of the associations of baboons with the lunar aspects of Thoth, most Egyptologists have identified the animal held by the goddess as a pig.23 In fact, the pig may be more easily connected to eclipse symbolism,24 but the malleability of eclipse symbolism demonstrates the ambiguity of the confirmation. Moreover, Aubourg undermines his own case by concluding that the retrogradations must have been observed since their prediction cannot be cited in contemporary Greek tradition. Unfortunately, numerous cuneiform texts predict the positions and dates of retrograde arcs.25 Thus, while Aubourg’s hypothesis is potentially true, the proposed date is philologically unverifiable. Just as the astronomical approach presents surprisingly unprecedented astronomical techniques, the philological approach permits unexpected changes of cultural context. The interpretation of the circular zodiac at Dendera according to Babylonian doctrines constitutes as significant a leap as its interpretation as an astronomical document. Some support for associating this preeminently Egyptian source with Mesopotamia may be derived from zodiacal iconography. Most Egyptian zodiacs strongly resemble Greek depictions, but the circular zodiac at Dendera recalls several distinctly Mesopotamian elements. First, Leo is not a simple lion, but a cluster of figures. The lion of Leo stands on a snake and a woman holds the tail of the lion. A bird stands on the tail of the snake. While the rectangular zodiac at Dendera portrays Leo in a similar way as the circular zodiac, no other Egyptian zodiacs repeat this complicated arrangement of figures which has been identified in Mesopotamian motifs.26 Likewise, Pisces resembles Mesopotamian descriptions more strongly than it corresponds to other Egyptian designs. In their description of the Egyptian iconography of Pisces, Neugebauer and Parker noted [T]he sign is always represented by two fish, parallel to each other, usually looking in the same direction. If the two fish are connected by a cord it leads ordinarily from mouth to mouth, but in Dendera B [that is, the circular zodiac] it connects the tails, as assumed by Aratus.27 The long V-shaped cord connecting the tails appears among Mesopotamian motifs;28 Neugebauer and Parker even cited Hartner for the identification of this pool with the || 22 Clagett (1995), 483. 23 Clagett (1995), 483; von Lieven (2000), 157. 24 Priskin (2015), 137. 25 Neugebauer (1955). 26 Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, tablet VAT 7847; cf. Reiner (1995), 10, fig. 4. 27 Neugebauer/Parker (1969), 212. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM 1016 | Micah T. Ross Babylonian constellation iku (“field”).29 Thus, while the circular zodiac of Dendera has become emblematic of Egyptian astronomy, it draws more heavily on Mesopotamian astronomical iconography than other Egyptian zodiacs. Moreover, unlike the Hellenistic tradition of astrology which locates the exaltations at specific degrees in the zodiac, the cuneiform sources preserve a tradition of exaltations which may be more easily reconciled with the planetary positions in the circular zodiac at Dendera.30 Unfortunately, this reconciliation may risk explaining ignotum per ignotius. The Mesopotamian tradition of exaltations (bīt ni irti, literally “house of the secret”) seems occasionally confused and generally poorly understood. The earliest references to this tradition predate the standardization of the zodiacal signs but permit rough associations between the planets and constellations. The earliest Mesopotamian references to the exaltations appear in the mid-second millennium Enūma Anu Enlil, but the clearest references hail from the Seleucid era.31 The latest cuneiform texts describing exaltations agree with the zodiacal signs of the Greek tradition but do not mention specific degrees. While the intrusion of Greek doctrines cannot be entirely excluded from cuneiform texts of the Seleucid era, Firmicus Maternus identified the exaltations as a Babylonian element, a description which Rochberg cites to bolster the equation of the bīt ni irti to the Greek ὑψώµατα.32 Because the Mesopotamian sources discuss other planetary phenomena such as heliacal risings and settings in relation to the bīt ni irti, Lull and Belmonte are correct that the two interpretations are compatible only within certain limits. Hence Aubourg may have identified a specific instance of astronomical phenomena which match a long-standing astrological tradition, but the same positions could well be marked at other times with no astronomical reference. Here, the astronomical approach permits only a narrow interpretation; the philological reading conforms to a wider variety of circumstances. Despite the nineteenth-century philological success at establishing the circular zodiac at Dendera in the Roman (or, according to Aubourg, Ptolemaic) era, the question of whether archaeological evidence must be subordinate to philology or may be interpreted in light of astronomical arguments remains open. In recent years, a strong position against the subordination of archaeology to the philological tradition has characterized the field of archaeoastronomy. In part, archaeoastronomers justify this position because their researches extend into prehistoric times and places. In other words, archaeoastronomers often assign astronomical interpretations to monuments with no connection to any philological tradition. When early archaeoastronomy fell || 28 Wallenfels (1993), 287. 29 Hartner (1965), 12. 30 Rochberg-Halton (1988), 53–57. 31 Rochberg-Halton (1988), 56. 32 Rochberg-Halton (1988), 57. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM Philology and Science at Dendera | 1017 into disrepute, its detractors often cited claims of astounding antiquity, incredible precision, or astronomical techniques at odds with what was known about the ancient astronomy of a particular culture. Although the discipline of archaeoastronomy has endeavored to temper its conclusions in conformity with other studies, the key difference between archaeoastronomy and the history of astronomy lies in methodology. That is, archaeoastronomy permits conclusions unsupported by philology; the history of astronomy remains bound to the history of texts. In particular, the circular zodiac at Dendera has been examined and explained in early modernity and more recently by both philological and astronomical methodologies. The astronomical method has permitted a range of interpretations for the circular zodiac at Dendera, but the philological conclusions have remained consistent. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM 1018 | Micah T. Ross Bibliography Aubourg (1995): Éric Aubourg, “La date de conception du zodiaque du temple d’Hathor à Dendera”. In: Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 95, 1–10. Bard (2015): Kathryn A. Bard, An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 2nd edition, Oxford. Buchwald (2003): Jed Z. Buchwald, “Egyptian Stars under Paris Skies”. In: Engineering and Science 66 (4), 20–31. Buchwald/Josefowicz (2010): Jed Z. Buchwald/Diane Greco Josefowicz, The Zodiac of Paris. How an Improbable Controversy Over an Ancient Egyptian Artefact Provoked a Modern Debate Between Religion and Science, Princeton. Campion (2008): Nicholas Campion, The Dawn of Astrology. A Cultural History of Western Astrology. Vol. I: The Ancient and Classical Worlds, London. Clagett (1995): Marshall Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science. A Source Book. Vol. II: Calendars, Clocks, and Astronomy, Philadelphia. Conman (2006–2009): Joanne Conman, “The Egyptian Origins of Planetary Hypsomata”. In: Discussions in Egyptology 64, 7–20. Couprie (2003): Dirk L. Couprie, “The Discovery of Space. Anaximanderʼs Astronomy”. In: Dirk L. Couprie/Robert Hahn/Gerard Naddaf (eds.), Anaximander in Context. New Studies in the Origins of Greek Philosophy (SUNY Series in Ancient Greek Philosophy), Albany NY, 165–284. Décobert (1998): Christian Décobert, “La conversion comme aversion”. In: Archives de sciences sociales des religions 104, 33–60. Evans (1999): James Evans, “The Material Culture of Greek Astronomy”. In: Journal for the History of Astronomy 30, 237–307. Gundel (1992): Hans Georg Gundel, Zodiakos. Tierkreisbilder im Altertum. Kosmische Bezüge und Jenseitsvorstellungen im antiken Alltagsleben, Mainz am Rhein. Hartner (1965): Willy Hartner, “The Earliest History of the Constellations in the Near East and the Motif of the Lion-Bull Combat”. In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24, 1–16. Krupp (1978): Edwin C. Krupp, In Search of Ancient Astronomies, Garden City, NY. Leclant/Clerc (1997): Jean Leclant/Gisele Clerc, “Fouilles et travaux en Egypte et au Soudan, 1995– 1996”. In: Orientalia 66 (3), 222–363. von Lieven (2000): Alexandra von Lieven, Der Himmel über Esna. Eine Fallstudie zur Religiösen Astronomie in Ägypten am Beispiel der kosmologischen Decken- und Architravinschriften im Tempel von Esna (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 64), Wiesbaden. Lull/Belmonte (2009): José Lull/Juan Antonio Belmonte, “The Constellations of Ancient Egypt”. In: Juan Antonio Belmonte/Mosalam Shaltout (eds.), In Search of Cosmic Order. Selected Essays on Egyptian Archaeoastronomy, Cairo, 155–194. Neugebauer (1955): Otto Neugebauer, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts. Vol. 2: The Planets, London. Neugebauer/Parker (1969): Otto Neugebauer/Richard A. Parker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts. Vol. 3: Decans, Planets, Constellations and Zodiacs (Brown Egyptological Studies VI/3), London. Pingree (1978): David Pingree, The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, 2 Vols. (Harvard Oriental Series 48), Cambridge, Mass./London. Priskin (2015): Gyula Priskin, “The Dendera Zodiacs as Narratives of the Myth of Osiris, Isis, and the Child Horus”. In: Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 8, 133–185. Reiner (1995): Erica Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge 85/4), Philadelphia. Rochberg-Halton (1988): Francesca Rochberg-Halton, “Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology”. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society 108 (1), 51–62. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM Philology and Science at Dendera | 1019 Wallenfels (1993): Ronald Wallenfels, “Zodiacal Signs Among the Seal Impressions from Hellenistic Uruk”. In: Mark E. Cohen/Daniel C. Snell/David B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda, Md., 281–289. Whitehouse (1998): Helen Whitehouse, “Roman in Life, Egyptian in Death. The Painted Tomb of Petosiris in the Dakhleh Oasis”. In: Olaf E. Kaper (ed.), Life on the Fringe. Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts During the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Netherlands Institute for Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo 9–12 December 1996 (Research School of the Center of Non-Western Studies [CNWS] Publications 71; Contributions by the Nederlands-Vlaams Instituut in Cairo 2), Leiden, 253–270. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 10/16/19 2:20 PM