The components of the desert hunt

The desert hunt scene is characterized by a combination of standardized components and individualized compositions.

4.1.1 Desert topography

The desert in the iconography of the Old Kingdom and later is represented using topographical details such as an undulating ground line with hills and small mounds and by including the wild species that characterize life in this habitat. In addition, sandy hills, small bushes and branches are used to suggest desert. These topographical details identify the landscape and provide a background for the combination of hunter and prey.

4.1.2 The hunters

The hunter is either a man or men or animal, dog or lion. Human hunters can be equipped with either bows and arrows or lassos. These are not innovations of the Old Kingdom, being represented in the Predynastic material in the scene from the so-called Hunters Palette (cf. above 3.5.1). The detail of the

32 A parallel, in a complementary landscape, is the marsh hunt, often found juxtaposed with the desert hunt. There is however no clear relationship between the marsh hunt and offering gifts.

presence of a human hunter differs from period to period and site to site.

Even when absent, the hunter can be indicated by hunting dogs (cf. Davis 1992: 81-83, 91) that often wear collars, emphasising the connection to the present or absent hunter (e.g. desert scene of Mereruka, bottom register, Duell 1938: Pls 24-25). In some cases, the hunter is seen at the edge of the scene observing rather than participating (e.g. top register in desert scene of Raemka, Hayes 1953: 99, Fig. 56).

The dog is the most common animal depicted in the role of hunter and the composition in which a

Fig. 189; Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, Moussa and Altenmüller 1977: Pl. 40). The dog is commonly shown chasing various game animals, such as the gazelle, ibex and oryx. When attacking, it can bite the hind leg of the fleeing animal. Another variation shows the dog holding the neck of the animal in its mouth, choking it.

In contrast to the hunting dog, the lion is depicted as a wild animal, hunting on its own behalf and not for a human owner.³³ The lion is more selective in its prey than the dog and is found attacking either a gazelle (e.g.

Thefu, Hassan 1975b: Pl. LXXXVI, C; Meryteti, Smith 1949: 239, Fig. 92b) or an aurochs (e.g. Mereruka, Duell 1938: Pl. 25; Seshemnefer, Junker 1953, Fig. 63). When seizing a gazelle, the lion, like the dog, is shown biting the neck, which is typical behaviour for a lion killing its prey. It is however the dog that is depicted most frequently attacking the gazelle.

4.1.3 The prey

The gazelle, ibex and oryx are the most common prey in the desert hunt

33 On the Golden Shrine from the tomb of Tutankhamun (JE 61481, Eaton-Krauss and Graefe 1985: Pl. XV), a lion cub accompanies him in a marsh scene. The seated pharaoh shoots fowl, assisted by his wife, while the lion cub is stands next to him. The animal has a collar around its neck, indicating that it belonged to the king rather than being wild, yet it does not seem to be an “active hunter” in the fowling scene.

Dog grasping a gazelle’s hind leg Figure 18.

scenes, followed by the hartebeest. Occasionally the addax, and the fallow deer make their way into the desert scene as well (e.g. Djehutihotep, Newberry 1895: Pl. VII; Intefiker, TT 60, Davies and Gardiner 1920: Pl. VI). Smaller animals, such as the hedgehog and the hare can also be included among the game animals (e.g. Rekhmire, TT 100, Davies 1943: Pl. XLIII; Ankhtifi, Vandier 1950: 95, Fig. 46. Cf. above 2.1.1-2.1.4).

The greatest variety of desert animals can be observed in the sources from the Old Kingdom. The Middle and New Kingdom scenes show a stricter and more conservative selection and combination. The gazelle, ibex, oryx and hartebeest are retained as prominent game animals, with fewer examples of various felines (see Khnumhotep III at Beni Hassan that includes caracal and serval, cf. Osborn 1998: 14; also Pehenuka where a “jungle cat” is found, cited in Osborn 1998: 53), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes, family Canidae) or jerboas (desert rats, Jaculus jaculus of the Dipodidae family) occurring in the later examples of the desert hunt.

Individualized motifs that characterize each species are used. These can be combined in different ways with almost no duplication of the same combination of elements.³⁴ The standardised motifs indicate the specific wounds caused by the hunters. The hunting dog kills its prey by grasping the neck, thereby choking the animal to death (e.g. Mereruka, Duell 1938: Pls 24-25). The human hunter uses the bow and arrow to kill its target; the arrow either piercing the neck, the eye or the body (e.g. Intef, TT 386, Jaroš-Deckert 1984: Pl. 21). A combination of these two killing ‘methods’ could also be used, i.e. a hunting dog choking an animal that already is pierced by an arrow (e.g.

Puimre, TT 39, Davies 1922: Pl. VII).

The desert hunt scene, although including naturalistic details, is not a photographic representation. Species from different habitats that would never be together in real life are combined in the same landscape (cf. Osborn 1998: 11). True desert animals, such as oryx and gazelle (Estes 1992: 128, 64) are found together with those from semi-arid and savannah environments, such as hartebeest and aurochs (Kingdon 1997:

429, Estes 1992: 193). The presence of a species with an association with the desert functions however to identify the landscape.

34 There is at least one exception to this, the desert hunt scene of Ibi in TT 36, dated to the 26th dynasty (4.3.4/a) that is strikingly similar to, and perhaps a copy of, that of another Ibi found in his tomb in Deir el-Gebrawi and dated to the 6th dynasty (4.3.1/d.1).

4.1.4 Hiding from the predator: the insert

A special compositional element was created to depict animals in the background of the main action of the hunt, hiding in the vegetation. This miniature scene is called an insert³⁵ and is typical for the desert hunt scenes of the Old Kingdom. It is

characterized by a short ground line, placed within a register, creating a separate scene above the main depiction of the hunt. Its use dates back to the late Predynastic Period when it can be found in the scene

from Hierakonpolis tomb no. 100 (Decker and Herb 1994: Pl. CXXXI and above 3.6). In that scene, a minimum of four recumbent ibexes are found above one of the central boat images. This small scene appears to be an extension of the hunt episode depicted to the right of it.

Most inserts include environmental details such as bushes, branches, small trees and hills that locate them in the desert landscape. Gazelles, hares and hedgehogs are all found in these abbreviated, registers.³⁶ The pictorial elements and the range of animals depicted in these inserts are limited and the selection gives the impression that the inserts are only used for ‘small’ burrow-living animals such as the hare, the hedgehog and the jerboa (Osborn 1998:

52). Although the gazelle, in comparison, is not as ‘small’ in size (nor does it live in a burrow), those found in the inserts are most likely fawns and not adults, despite the almost ever-present horns that may have served to identify the animal as a gazelle.

The animals in the inserts are generally portrayed as if hiding in the bushes, next to or behind a hill. Young gazelles hide in the vegetation away from the mother as a protective strategy (cf. above 2.3.4) and it is that the insert most likely depicts (cf. Estes 1992: 17). The gazelle is always recum-bent, often with the head turned back. The animals found in the inserts are not actively pursued rather they seem to function as a counterpoint to the chaotic atmosphere in the hunting registers.

The decline in the occurrence of inserts in the hunting scenes during

35 The term “insert” has been taken from Osborn (1998: 61, 70, 103 and passim, cf.

above 2.3.4), and is used here in a descriptive sense.

36 E.g. the OK tombs of Fetekta (PM III/1: 351 (6), Seshemnefer (PM III/1: 224 (6)), Raemka (PM III/2: 487 (3)), Pehenuka (PM III/2: 491 (4)), Mereruka (PM III/2: 528 (18)), Ptahhotep (PM III/2: 601 (17)), Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep (PM III/2: 642 (10)).

Figure 19. Recumbent gazelle in an insert

both Middle and New Kingdoms³⁷ suggests that this was a narrative and not an aesthetic component.

4.1.5 The hunt and its implications

The desert hunt scene depicts a hunter (or hunters) pursuing and eventually killing prey. The funerary context for this scene indicates a relationship with the tomb as a place where life after death is maintained.

This implies that the death of the animals is in some way connected with the continued life of the hunter. On one level this relationship is found when seeing the realm of the desert as a correlate to the “chaos” brought about by death and the hunt as an expression of the control and defeat of this chaos. That the hunt belongs to the chaos-order paradigm is seen in the way desert game and foreign enemies are treated as parallel in New Kingdom material (see below 4.2.3/a.3). On another level, the game animals are also clearly represented as potential food, to be slaughtered for meat on the spot or captured and later presented as live offerings (cf.

below Chapter 5). This in turn indicates that their death is not only an assertion of “control” over the chaos of the desert, but also contributes to the life of the hunter and to the cult that sustains his immortality.