III. H. Jebel Barkal and Luxor Temple
PDF Print E-mail

As we have previously noted, the gods of Luxor and Jebel Barkal seem to overlap again in the statue of a rearing uraeus, dedicated by Taharqo and found at Luxor in the statue cache (fig. 84) (El-Saghir 1991, 52-54).  The text on its right side identifies the deity as “Amun(-Re) Kamutef;” while the text on its left side identifies him as “Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands.”  Here the odd split plural of the word “thrones” suggests the simultaneous reading “Throne/Thrones of the Two Lands” (fig. 85). Since in Taharqo’s time, Jebel Barkal was commonly called “Throne of the Two Lands” to distinguish it from Karnak/East Thebes (“Thrones …”), we can only conclude that the statue simultaneously represented Amun of Luxor/Karnak and Amun of Jebel Barkal.  The uraeus form of the god would at once have reminded viewers of the Uraeus/Phallus/Pinnacle at Jebel Barkal, the winding serpent of identical form in the vignette of BD 87, which symbolized the sun’s nightly regeneration in the Underworld (fig. 86), and the serpents illustrated in BD 163-64, which made specific reference to Jebel Barkal as the place where this regeneration occurred (figs. 87, 88; see Part III, G).  The statue suggests again that Luxor Temple, as place of solar and royal birth and rebirth  – certainly in Dynasty 25 – was thought to manifest Jebel Barkal (which itself manifested Karnak).


Fig. 84: Granite statue of Amun Kamutef as a rearing uraeus, dedicated by Taharqo and found at Luxor.  Courtesy of the Luxor Museum.
Fig. 85:  Detail of the Luxor statue of Amun-Kamutef, showing that it was also dedicated to “Amun, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands.”  Since the plural of the word “thrones” is split, the spelling would seem to be a subtle evocation of both the Amun of Karnak and the Amun of Jebel Barkal (which was then often called “Throne of the Two Lands”). Courtesy of the Luxor Museum.


Fig. 86: Rearing serpent replicating the form of Taharqo’s Kamutef statue from Luxor (fig. 84-85), used as an illustration to BD Spell 87:  “….I am a snake which is at the limits of the earth; I pass the night and am reborn, renewed and rejuvenated every day.”  The snake evidently symbolized the culminating event of the Luxor Opet-festival.  From the papyrus of Ani, British Museum.  (Faulkner 2005, 98)

 


Fig. 87: The rearing serpent identified as Atum, as a detail from the vignette of BD Spell 164.  Brooklyn Museum papyrus.  (Mysliewiec 1978, fig. 62)
Fig. 88:  The rearing serpent wearing the crown of Re as solar ba, a detail from the vignette of BD Spell 163.   The crown indicates that the snake is actually the same sun god, with human body and ram head, who traverses the Underworld nightly in his bark in order to unite with Osiris and to be reborn as Khepri (or child king) at dawn. The shape of these serpents is the same and suggests a similar meaning of Luxor and Jebel Barkal.  Papyrus BM 10257 (Faulkner 1972, 163)

There has long been some question whether the word “Ipet,” appearing in the name of Karnak (Ipet-Sut), was the same word as “Ipet/Opet” occurring in the name of Luxor Temple (Ipet-resyt), since when used in the latter, it is always followed by a particular determinative (Gardiner sign list O45), which does not occur in the spelling of the former (see fig. 80d) (Pamminger 1992, 93-94). When Jebel Barkal is called Ipet-Sut, its spelling, likewise, is usually rendered the same way, without the O45 determinative.  In BD 163, however, we find Jebel Barkal described as “the Ipet/Opet, mountain <of Napata> in Nubia” -  but the spelling lacks the O45 determinative (Verhoeven 1993, 137, l. 148, 11).  In the lunette of the Victory Stela of Piankhy, Amun of Jebel Barkal is called “foremost in Ipet-[Sut],” in which the word Ipet is now spelled only with the O45 determinative (see fig. 96b) (Grimal 1981a, 3).  In the Aspelta Coronation Stela, the god is again called in this way, but the word Ipet (+O45) is fully spelled out (FHN 1994 [I], 232; Grimal 1981b, 21, l. 5).  We again find the O45 determinative in spellings of the name “Amun of Napata” as it appears on both statues of Tanwetamani from the Barkal statue cache (Dunham 1970, 20-21, pls. IX-XI).  These texts make “Amun of Napata” (Imn-Npt) and “Amun of Luxor” (Imn-Ipt) identical through the application of the determinative, which makes a clever phonetic and hieroglyphic pun (fig. 89)!  These epithets would seem to suggest that Amun of Jebel Barkal held a parallel status with both Amun of Karnak and Amun of Luxor, and that the mountain, at least since Dynasty 25, was considered both a “Karnak” (Ipet-Sut) and a “Luxor” (Ipet/Opet=Southern Ipet?), with the same spelling and meaning.


Fig. 89: Text inscribed on the base of both statues of Tanwetamani from Jebel Barkal.  In the left column the king is called “beloved of Amun of Napata, who is in Jebel Barkal,” in which the name “Napata” (Np[t]) is determined by the O45 hieroglyph “Ipet/Opet," indicating that they are to be understood as the same thing (cf. fig. 80d).  (Dunham 1970, 20, fig. 7; pls. 10-11)


 

 

Page 3 of 6 All Pages

«StartPrev123456NextEnd»