DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4031#0033
20
MBNDES.
ion1
Jupiter the face of a ram," says Herodotus,3
and his statement is confirmed by several
other authors and even by some of the Fathers.
Lepsius4 has very clearly pointed out the
distinction to be established between the ram-
headed Amon and the other divinities, also
called ram-headed, Khnum and Arsaphes. He
has shown that Amon has horns going round
the ear, and turning downwards, the regular
ammonites or horns of Amon, while Khnum
has always two horizontal horns diverging in a
spiral line from a knot which projects out of
the top of the head. Frequently also Khnum,
like the sacred animal of Mendes, has four
horns, those of Amon round the ear, and the
upper horizontal ones. It is quite possible that
this slight difference is meant to show in a
conventional way that the animals were
different ; the horizontal, spiral horns pointing
to the he-goat, while the horns of Amon indi-
cate a ram. Let us remember that we are not
to look for zoological accuracy in religious
representations. There are certain laws,
certain religious prescriptions which regulate
the conventional forms of the sacred animals,
and which absolutely prohibit others. Neither
picture nor sculpture of a he-goat has ever been
found in an Egyptian temple; we find only the
so-called ram. Yet in spite of their never
being represented, the testimony of classic
writers is so clear and so positive, that it is
quite impossible not to believe that there were
sacred he-goats in Egypt as well as sacred
rams, bulls, crocodiles, and cats. In the same
way we never see swine, but always a hippo-
potamus, though we know that swine were
sacrificed at certain festivals. It is quite
possible that, by a similar conventionalism, the
horned ram may be the religious form of two
different animals, the two-horned one being the
ram, and the four-horned the he-goat. An-
other proof, which seems to be very convincing,
3 Lib. ii. 42.
* Zeitschr., 1877, p. 8.
is afforded by the study of the coins.5 The
coins of Thebes, or of Diospolis Parva in the
Delta, all bear a ram. drawn in the most distinct
way, and not to be mistaken for any other
animal; while the coins of Mendes bear a he-
goat just as clearly and distinctly drawn as the
ram of Thebes.
I cannot enter here into a full and exhaustive
discussion of this subject, which requires atten-
tive consideration. For the present I shall
keep to the old name, given, as I believe, merely
on account of the animal's appearance in the
sculptures, and based on a wrong interpretation
of a conventional form. I shall therefore con-
tinue to speak of the sacred ram of Mendes.
I only wish to point out that the usual opinion
as to the real nature of the animal does not seem
to me to be based on conclusive arguments, and
that the evidence points rather to the he-goat
than to the ram as the chosen embodiment of
the local deity.
The question would be settled immediately had
we found the original contents of the coffins, of
which several are still to be seen, and are known
to have been there since the Middle Ages. But
neither Brugsch's excavations nor mine have
given us an unrifled specimen. The coffins are of
black granite, and with one exception, they are
uninscribed. That exception is represented by
a lid, which was discovered by Brugsch, and is
now exhibited in the Museum at Ghizeh.6 The
lid was originally five feet two and a half inches
long, and two feet seven inches wide; there
are only fragments of it left. It did not belong
to one of the largest sarcophagi, for some of
them were as much as six feet long. The
animal which the lid had covered is called in
the inscription JsS, ■¥■ Ba ankh, the living soul
or the living spirit. The bird with a human head
ba, is here a variant of the ram 5f5? to be
5 Tochon, Medailles d'Egypte, pp. 63, 167 ; J. de Rouge,
Monnaies des Nomes de VEgypte, pp. 11, 46.
6 Mariette, Mon., pi. 42-46.
Ik I
MBNDES.
ion1
Jupiter the face of a ram," says Herodotus,3
and his statement is confirmed by several
other authors and even by some of the Fathers.
Lepsius4 has very clearly pointed out the
distinction to be established between the ram-
headed Amon and the other divinities, also
called ram-headed, Khnum and Arsaphes. He
has shown that Amon has horns going round
the ear, and turning downwards, the regular
ammonites or horns of Amon, while Khnum
has always two horizontal horns diverging in a
spiral line from a knot which projects out of
the top of the head. Frequently also Khnum,
like the sacred animal of Mendes, has four
horns, those of Amon round the ear, and the
upper horizontal ones. It is quite possible that
this slight difference is meant to show in a
conventional way that the animals were
different ; the horizontal, spiral horns pointing
to the he-goat, while the horns of Amon indi-
cate a ram. Let us remember that we are not
to look for zoological accuracy in religious
representations. There are certain laws,
certain religious prescriptions which regulate
the conventional forms of the sacred animals,
and which absolutely prohibit others. Neither
picture nor sculpture of a he-goat has ever been
found in an Egyptian temple; we find only the
so-called ram. Yet in spite of their never
being represented, the testimony of classic
writers is so clear and so positive, that it is
quite impossible not to believe that there were
sacred he-goats in Egypt as well as sacred
rams, bulls, crocodiles, and cats. In the same
way we never see swine, but always a hippo-
potamus, though we know that swine were
sacrificed at certain festivals. It is quite
possible that, by a similar conventionalism, the
horned ram may be the religious form of two
different animals, the two-horned one being the
ram, and the four-horned the he-goat. An-
other proof, which seems to be very convincing,
3 Lib. ii. 42.
* Zeitschr., 1877, p. 8.
is afforded by the study of the coins.5 The
coins of Thebes, or of Diospolis Parva in the
Delta, all bear a ram. drawn in the most distinct
way, and not to be mistaken for any other
animal; while the coins of Mendes bear a he-
goat just as clearly and distinctly drawn as the
ram of Thebes.
I cannot enter here into a full and exhaustive
discussion of this subject, which requires atten-
tive consideration. For the present I shall
keep to the old name, given, as I believe, merely
on account of the animal's appearance in the
sculptures, and based on a wrong interpretation
of a conventional form. I shall therefore con-
tinue to speak of the sacred ram of Mendes.
I only wish to point out that the usual opinion
as to the real nature of the animal does not seem
to me to be based on conclusive arguments, and
that the evidence points rather to the he-goat
than to the ram as the chosen embodiment of
the local deity.
The question would be settled immediately had
we found the original contents of the coffins, of
which several are still to be seen, and are known
to have been there since the Middle Ages. But
neither Brugsch's excavations nor mine have
given us an unrifled specimen. The coffins are of
black granite, and with one exception, they are
uninscribed. That exception is represented by
a lid, which was discovered by Brugsch, and is
now exhibited in the Museum at Ghizeh.6 The
lid was originally five feet two and a half inches
long, and two feet seven inches wide; there
are only fragments of it left. It did not belong
to one of the largest sarcophagi, for some of
them were as much as six feet long. The
animal which the lid had covered is called in
the inscription JsS, ■¥■ Ba ankh, the living soul
or the living spirit. The bird with a human head
ba, is here a variant of the ram 5f5? to be
5 Tochon, Medailles d'Egypte, pp. 63, 167 ; J. de Rouge,
Monnaies des Nomes de VEgypte, pp. 11, 46.
6 Mariette, Mon., pi. 42-46.
Ik I