Naref and Osiris Naref

Lucía Díaz-Iglesias Llanos

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9783110498240
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Egyptian Ancient History
• Index: History

The ancient Egyptian toponym Naref and the god Osiris Naref have hitherto been the subject of brief discussions. This study gathers for the first time all data available on these issues, revises traditionally accepted ideas, and offers integral interpretations — contextualizing them in the local milieu.

The book aims to approach the funerary, legal, and royal mythological associations developed around Naref (an important landmark of the Herakleopolitan territory), attested for the first time in the so-called Coffin Texts and enduring until the Roman Period. It also seeks to analyse the characteristics of Osiris Naref, a prominent deity in the Herakleopolitan pantheon from the New Kingdom onwards who achieved suprarregional importance. His key features — centred on the mythical episodes of rebirth and defeat of enemies, justification, and assumption of royal power — gave rise to an Osirian form "who cannot/will not be evicted" from the legitimate and secluded place he has reached. Both aspects are analysed within the wider context of regional (religious, historical, landscape) characteristics.

This monograph offers valuable insights into the study of both local mythical and cultic toponyms and of regional manifestations of Osiris.

1Introduction

Naref was a conspicuous landmark of the Herakleopolitan territory (20th Upper Egyptian “nome”, with capital in Herakleopolis Magna, modern Ihnasya el-Medina), frequently mentioned in funerary, cultic, and encyclopedical sources from the First Intermediate Period/Middle Kingdom until the Graeco-Roman Period. It rated amongst the most prestigious Osirian centres of the land, although it did not reach the overall importance of Abydos, Busiris, or Rosetau. A local form of Osiris, called Osiris Naref or Osiris in/of Naref, developed in connection with the traditions of this Upper Egyptian area and is attested from the New Kingdom onwards. Some articles and sparse references in monographs have been devoted to the analysis of different aspects of Naref. However, no comprehensive study has hitherto been undertaken to explain its meaning(s), function(s), and local attachment or to explore the different features encompassed in the figure of Osiris Naref.

This work has a two-fold objective. On the one hand, it aims to approach the funerary, legal, and royal mythological associations developed around the toponym Naref, which are attested for the first time in the so-called Coffin Texts (abbreviated CT from here onwards) and endure until the latest religious productions. On the other hand, it also seeks to analyse the characteristics of the local figure of Osiris Naref, a prominent deity in the Herakleopolitan pantheon from the New Kingdom onwards, who was informed by these mythical contexts and also achieved suprarregional importance. As will be argued in the different sections of chapter 4, his key features centred on the mythical arguments of rebirth and defeat of enemies, justification, and assumption of royal power gave rise to an Osirian form “who cannot/will not be evicted” from the legitimate and secluded place he has reached. The diachronic analysis of the sources bearing references to Naref and to Osiris Naref also allows the detection of shifts of emphasis in religious concepts, thus contributing to the study of the different trends of theological speculation at both a central (or global) and regional levels.

For the analysis and interpretations to be undertaken in this book, the work of scholars such as Laurent Coulon and Marco Zecchi — to quote only two of the most actively engaged in the study of Osiris in recent years — are fundamental. Both have recognised the importance of the background of local religious ideas and practices in the progressive inflections that Osiris underwent in the course of time in different localities.1 The former underscores that: “l’ « osirianisation » est un phénomène d’échelle nationale, mais qui se décline dans les provinces d’Égypte en autant de variantes régionales s’enracinant dans le substrat des traditions locales. […] Osiris [...] voit de fait sa personnalité se démultiplier en une myriade de formes particulières, possédant leur individualité et leur clergé propres”.2 Drawing upon the ideas of these authors and those mentioned in 1, I propose the following hypothesis on which to base the analysis of the figure of Osiris in local contexts: the core attributes of this god (i.e. his main aspects and functions, as well as the mythical episodes defining his life) were manifested to a higher or lesser degree wherever he was venerated. However, the cultual background of a province, particularly its religious traditions and tutelary deity, as well as its historical development and cultural role, provided a different and subtle angle from which to perceive one or several of Osiris’ aspects and episodes of his life.3 The example of the god’s resurrection serves to illustrate this hypothesis. Osiris’ resurrection was a key element of his mythological cycle and of the concepts conveyed by this divine figure. It was therefore maintained in the different religious regional traditions and became a trait highlighted by means of iconography, epithets, or mythological constructions in many Osirian local forms. Nonetheless, how the rebirth process was portrayed or which forms it adopted depended to a large extent on the aspects emphasised by the local traditions and tutelar deities of a given area. Thus, the strong solar character of the local deity in Athribis (Ḥr-ḫnty-ẖty) led to the reshaping of Osiris’ resurrection according to a “solar pattern” in this region. In the case of Osiris Hemag, his rebirth was prompted by the container called Hemag, made of gold and precious stones. One can probably see in the figure of Osiris Hemag the influence of the network of religious ideas developed in the Memphite area around Ptah and Sokar as patrons of metallurgy and crafts.

Taking these studies and hypotheses into account, this monograph explores the contribution of the Herakleopolitan region to Osiris and the specific attributes and connotations with which he was endowed in this area (especially in Naref), as well as their local anchoring.4 Given that the complex figure of Osiris was continuously enriched through the absorption of local religious traditions, the study of one of his local forms enriches the overall understanding of this polyhedral deity.

Regarding the Herakleopolitan religious and mythical backgrounds, which I consider to have strongly influenced the conception of the god Osiris Naref, this work is a continuation of my previous study on the mythological conceptions and developments built around the 20th Upper Egyptian nome/zone.5 This monograph, derived from my doctoral dissertation, explores the initial formation and further development (both dwelling on their continuities and changes) of four groups of interrelated mythemes framed in this region: the burial of Osiris’ corpse or relics and the defeat of Osirian and Solar enemies; the regenerative purification by means of water or the confession of faults; the justification achieved in a court session; and the assumption of royal power by Osiris and Re. It also offers an analysis of the main features of the Herakleopolitan tutelary deity, the ram-god Heryshef, which influenced these speculations or were influenced by them. Some of the ideas presented in this previous study will be resumed here in a summarised manner to substantiate the points at issue. Readers interested in further details will find the specific discussions and all the sources upon which the main arguments are based in the aforementioned publication.

The chapters of this book will address the following topics: firstly, the more traditional interpretation of Naref, the one that seeks to place it on a concrete point of the territory, will be tackled, underscoring the (weak points of the) supporting evidence. Secondly, sources mentioning Naref or Osiris Naref coming from, or attributed to, the Herakleopolitan area will be reviewed. In the third section, a philological analysis offers insights into the wide variety of orthographies attested for Naref/Nareref and discusses the main translations and etymological suggestions for this word hitherto presented by several scholars. The bulk of the mythological associations of Naref are examined in the fourth section (4.1) in order to suggest a possible interpretation of its meaning(s) and function(s) (4.2). The divinity that integrates all of these mythical connections, together with other religious traditions of the area, and which can be understood as the most characteristic form of Osiris in the Herakleopolitan milieu, is the subject of section 5. The information on this deity conveyed by his iconography, epithets, and the titles of the priestly personnel devoted to his cult is analysed in three subsections. These also include discussions of his main spheres of action, his connections with other deities, and the spread of his cult to neighbouring areas and places as far as Thebes. The catalogue of sources, which forms section 7 of this book, offers detailed data on the documents discussed in these chapters. In the following pages, each source discussed is identified through a siglum or study reference number, written in bold (e.g. NK-St1; see “remarks” in section 7.1 for an explanation of the system of identification chosen), which corresponds to an entry in the catalogue. Tables of spellings, indices, and figures are appended as complementary material.

2Traditional interpretation

Any research on Naref must begin with a critical assessment of all ideas, both those generally accepted and those most controversial, which have been highlighted in relation to this word in different publications.6 Naref became a topic of discussion since the earliest studies on historical geography and mythical toponyms that flourished at the end of the 19th century and continue to do so today.7 The most common opinion held in this area of research is that Naref was a sanctuary, a tomb, or a mound where Osiris was buried. The majority of the authors have also highlighted that there was a close link between Naref and the city of Herakleopolis Magna, the capital of the 20th Upper Egyptian nome (Nʿrt ḫntt). However, shared views end here. As will become apparent in the following discussion, consensus has not yet been reached on the precise location of Naref or on how to transliterate and translate this word, nor on the mythological role it played. Another aspect worthy of mention is that practically all research to date has focused on underscoring the relationship between Naref and Osiris, except that of J. Assmann who is the only scholar to have analysed the link between Naref and the Sun god in several hymns devoted to this deity.8 I will argue that the Osirian and Solar aspects of this place are complementary and show the conceptualisation of Naref in parallel to other important landmarks such as Rosetau, regarded as both a tomb of Osiris and as an entrance to the Beyond (see section 4.1.a). I will begin by first tackling one of the most contended aspects, that of its precise location.

2.1Location of Naref

2.1.1Reassessment of the different attempts at locating Naref

Since the earliest discussions on toponyms, several authors have suggested allocating the ancient place-name Naref to a specific geographical locus. Given the strong bonds which link Naref to Os...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Foreword
• Contents
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Traditional interpretation
• 3 Philological analysis of the word Naref
• 4 Interpretation of Naref
• 5 Osiris Naref, Osiris in/of Naref
• 6 Conclusions
• 7 Catalogue of sources
• 8 Tables of spellings of Naref/Osiris Naref
• References
• List of figures and tables
• Figures
• Indices