The Shabaka Stone (also known as the Memphis Theology Monument) is a black plaque made of green breccia with an ancient Egyptian inscription, currently housed in the British Museum under inventory number EA 498. According to its inscription, the Kushite Pharaoh Shabaka found a worm-eaten papyrus in the Ptah Temple of Memphis, the contents of which he had chiseled onto the plaque to ensure its eternity. The inscription is the most significant source of Shabaka Stone, the creation myth of Egyptian mythology developed in Memphis. At the center of this creation story is the god Ptah, who created the world through his heart and tongue (meaning knowledge and language). It is the earliest known theology based on the principle of Logos, creation through the word and speech, reminiscent of the beginning of the Gospel of John. Additionally, the inscription addresses the myth of Horus and Seth, considered a mythical representation of the unification of Egypt.
The text still presents significant challenges to research. Due to its reuse as a column base or millstone, the middle part of the inscription has worn away and is no longer legible. The dating of the original text, from which Shabaka copied the inscription, fluctuates by over 2000 years. Early scholars believed it originated in the Old Kingdom or even earlier, while more recent studies lean towards the Ramesside period or the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period. Another interpretation suggests it was created by Shabaka himself, and the account of finding the worm-eaten papyrus is thus a legendary tale intended to lend greater weight to its content as a “work of the ancestors.”
Origin and Description
The inscription is carved on a rectangular block of hard black stone measuring 92 × 137.5 cm. The stone is often referred to as granite, sometimes as basalt. Inquiries to the British Museum received a response stating that it is a conglomerate-like stone typically referred to mineralogically as “Green Breccia” and was quarried in Wadi Hammamat. Indeed, there is evidence of a quarry expedition led by Shabaka in his 12th year of reign.
The exact origin is unknown, but the block may originate from the Temple of Ptah in Memphis. In 1805, it was donated to the British Museum by George John 2nd Earl of Spencer, where it is cataloged under inventory number EA 498. The Earl of Spencer brought the Shabaka Stone along with other flat and weighty objects from Alexandria, which were loaded onto ships as ballast for stability during the voyage, not as antiquities. El Hawary suggests that these monuments were already transported from Memphis or Heliopolis to Alexandria in antiquity.
The inscription consists of two horizontal lines and 62 vertical columns below them. During later reuse, a rectangular depression was made in the middle part, and the surrounding area was heavily worn away, rendering it unreadable from columns 24 to 47, except for isolated traces of characters. These signs of use were long attributed to its use as a millstone; however, El Hawari believes that the stone was later used as the foundation of a column or pillar.
The contextual connection between the left and right parts remains unclear despite partial points of contact. Further damage includes the erasure of Shabaka’s birth name and the name of the god Seth, carried out by Psamtik II in ancient Egypt.
Dating
The colophon presents the inscription as a newly made copy of a worm-eaten papyrus found by Shabaka in the Ptah Temple in Memphis:
“His Majesty (Shabaka) wrote this text anew from the temple of his father Ptah-south-of-his-wall. His Majesty found it as a work of the ancestors and eaten by worms, and because it was no longer understood from beginning to end, [His Majesty (etc.)] wrote it anew and even better than before, so that his name would be immortalized and his monuments in the temple of his father Ptah-south-of-his-wall would endure as long as eternity. Made by the son of Re [Shabaka] for his father Ptah-Tatenen – may he act by giving him eternal life.”
Shabaka Stone
The dating of the copy to the time of Shabaka is undisputed; however, the dating of the text referred to by Shabaka as a “work of the ancestors” is still fiercely debated. James H. Breasted speculated that it was created during the New Kingdom or shortly before. Adolf Erman suggested the text originated at a time when Memphis became the capital during the Old Kingdom. Kurt Sethe dated it even earlier, to the 1st Dynasty, with certain parts possibly originating in prehistoric times. This early dating persisted for a long time, and the Shabaka Stone was thus used as a source for religion, literature, and the intellectual life of the Old Kingdom. The early dating was mainly based on linguistic and content-related arguments, attributing unmistakable features of later language to the Kushite scribe.
A completely different approach to dating was taken by Friedrich Junge in 1973. He considers the text to be an original creation of the 25th Dynasty, identifying archaic tendencies in the language that do not significantly differ from neo-Middle Egyptian texts of the 25th and 26th Dynasties. The linguistic elements used as criteria for antiquity, in his opinion, are characteristic of archaic tendencies or influences of New Egyptian, typical of the archaism of the Late Period. Accordingly, the account of finding the worm-eaten papyrus is a legendary tale intended to give greater weight to its content as a “work of the ancestors.” Junge’s thesis has largely become the prevailing view, although H. A. Schlögel and Jan Assmann suggested a possible origin in the Ramesside period.
Benedikt Rothöhler concluded that dating based on content and linguistic arguments is ultimately not possible. Especially for religious texts, it was not the rule in ancient Egypt that they were authored at a specific time by an author, but rather that they “developed” over a longer period until a distinctly independent text emerged. Additionally, texts were often compiled from elements of older texts, which frequently referred to their origins in language rather than the final editing. Thus, the archaic or archaizing expressions can be seen as an attempt by a late-period author to write a text in an older form of Egyptian, or as an attempt by a late-period scribe to reproduce a difficult-to-understand ancient Egyptian text. Therefore, an exact dating of the “original text” is not possible. He considers the most likely time of origin to be towards the end of the Third Intermediate Period (23rd or 24th Dynasty), perhaps a little over 50 years before Shabaka’s copy.
Reading Direction
The hieroglyphs of the inscription face to the right, which usually implies a reading direction from right to left, as is generally customary. Accordingly, the inscription should begin with the column farthest to the right. However, the reading direction is disputed. James H. Breasted and subsequent scholars mostly assumed a retrograde (right-to-left) reading direction, according to which the text begins on the left side of the horizontal columns. The hieroglyphs, in this reading, face towards the end of the text, as is known, among other examples, from the Book of the Dead papyri. However, retrograde texts from ancient Egypt are rare. Breasted’s assumption of a retrograde reading is based on the fact that in some places, a word group clearly continues from the end of a column to the beginning of the column immediately to its right.
For Benedikt Rothöhler, several indications argue against a retrograde reading. He assumes that the “shifted column ends” are due to an ancient copying error. According to him, the scribe broke the text from the original with longer columns into the copy with shorter columns flowing from left to right: “The fact that the scribes often worked ‘automatically’ and without grasping the content more closely, and therefore the ‘shifted column ends’ do not necessarily have to correspond to the reading direction of the original, can be proven by many clear examples […]”. In addition, Rothöhler argues that various content-related problems and the examination of late Egyptian creation concepts suggest several indications against a retrograde reading. Therefore, the non-retrograde reading is simpler, less conditional, and more logically plausible. Despite these indications, Jan Assmann adheres to the retrograde reading (from left to right).
Content
The colophon identifies King Shabaka. It states that Shabaka found a worm-eaten papyrus in the temple of his father Ptah-south-of-his-wall in Memphis, which he had rewritten to preserve for eternity.
Reading from left to right
The following summary follows the reading direction from left to right (retrograde), as interpreted by Breasted, Junker, and others, and is based on the latest translation by Carsten Peust and Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi.
Junker titles the left part as the “political doctrine of Memphis.” The introductory words mention Ptah as the one “who conceived the significant names of these (things or gods),” united Upper and Lower Egypt, appeared as nsw and bjt, and self-generated. However, it was Atum who gave birth to the unity of the gods. He settles the dispute between the gods Horus and Seth by making Seth the king of Upper Egypt and Horus the king of Lower Egypt. Both are satisfied with this arrangement. However, Geb is dissatisfied that Horus’ and Seth’s shares are equal, as he sees Horus as the rightful heir, and requests that the entirety of Egypt be given to him. Geb proclaims Horus king before the unity, who now rules over all of Egypt alone with Memphis as the capital: “Horus appeared in Memphis, where the two lands unite, as king who unites the two lands.” Subsequently, the burial of Osiris in Memphis is reported, where he was pulled from the water by Isis.
After the destroyed middle part, the right half, referred to by Junker as the “doctrine of the gods of Memphis,” describes the creation of the world by Ptah. For unknown reasons, the eight manifestations of Ptah are listed, “who became heart and tongue in the form of Atum.” Ptah creates the world through the principles of creation, “heart and tongue” (meaning knowledge and language):
“Through it (the heart) is Horus, and through them (the tongue) is Thoth emanated from Ptah. Thus arose the predominance of heart and tongue over [all other] members, and they show that he (Ptah) stands at the head of every body and every mouth of all gods, all humans, [all] animals and all worms that live, while he thinks and commands everything he wants. Thus, all the gods were born, and his unity of gods was complete. And from what the heart conceived and the tongue commanded, all the holy texts also originated.”
Shabaka Stone
At the end, the Osiris myth is picked up again. Horus orders Isis and Nephthys to fish Osiris out of the water. After recovery, Osiris “enters the glory of the Lord of eternity through the secret gates, in the footsteps of him who rises on the horizon, on the paths of Ra in the High Throne.” He joins the retinue of the realm of the dead and joins the gods of “Tatenen, Ptah, the Lord of years.” Subsequently, the burial of Osiris in Memphis is reported, and Horus is now the king of all of Egypt.
Reading from right to left
Benedikt Rothöler decided on a reading from right to left (non-prograde) for various reasons and interpreted the sequence of the inscription as follows:
After an introductory praise of Ptah, it is explained that Ptah’s city Memphis is also the burial place of Osiris, and the following story of “fishing from the water” is a detailed explanation of this. When the gods and “their kas” are assembled for the funeral rites in Memphis, Ptah creates the cult images for them. Based on this, Ptah establishes the world as a cult topography: temples for the cult images, cities for the temples, districts for the supply of the cult, etc. Ptah’s creative deeds are compared with those of Atum. As a reaction to his creative deeds, the litany of his manifestations follows in his honor.
At the beginning of the left part, there is a recapitulation, with slightly altered wording, of how Osiris was pulled from the water. Afterwards, he receives a tomb in Memphis. At this location, Horus and Seth are assembled and united, both are satisfied. Geb proclaims Horus as the heir. Responsibilities are distributed: Horus in Upper Egypt and Seth in Lower Egypt. Thus, the desired end situation is reached; the unity and the two divine kings are content. As a summary, Atum and Ptah, the creators, are referred to once again. The latter, as the Lord of Memphis, is also the actual king of both lands.
Creation Doctrine
Initially, from Ptah arises the Ogdoad of Hermopolis, which personifies the pre-existent primordial state. Thus, Ptah precedes even preexistence. The memphitic creation doctrine was based on the doctrine of the Ennead of Heliopolis. In this oldest ancient Egyptian creation doctrine, the god Atum appears as the creator god. From him, the divine two genders Shu and Tefnut arise through separation, with rulership passing from one generation of gods to the next until in the fifth generation Horus assumes rulership and embodies himself in each reigning pharaoh. The memphitic creation doctrine attempts to surpass the Heliopolitan one by complementing it and expanding the genealogy: it places “Ptah-Tatenen” before Atum as the first creator or ruling generation.
Ptah creates the world using the principles of heart and tongue (meaning knowledge and language). The Shabaka Stone is the most sophisticated ancient Egyptian depiction of creation through the words. It is reminiscent of the beginning of the Gospel of John (1:1–18):
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
It was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through it,
and without it was not anything made that was made.
Unlike the biblical depiction, in memphitic theology, the heart also plays a significant role as a planning element of creation, as does the script, the hieroglyphs, which represent the form of things that the heart conceives. The heart devises things, the tongue vocalizes them, and the hieroglyphic script brings them into visible form. Ptah, the god of artists and craftsmen, is responsible for the design of things. Thoth, the god of the tongue, and hence the god of hieroglyphic script, realizes the thoughts of the heart in spoken and written form.
M. Görg assumes that “the word-theology of the Ptah-worshippers” in Greco-Roman times originates from memphitic theology, which could have had points of contact with the Gospel of John. In particular, the city of Alexandria was a meeting point of Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish traditions. Thus, in Philo of Alexandria, a theologically laden concept of Logos emerges, although it is laden with theological questions whose reception in early Christianity is not documented.
The entirety of creation is referred to as “all things and all hieroglyphs.” Jan Assmann sees in this dichotomy of creation similarities to Plato’s philosophy, in which a distinction is made between a sphere of archetypes (ideas) and a world of infinitely reproduced images: “In Egyptian ‘hieroglyphic’ thinking, there is a similar relation between thing and script as between thing and concept in Greek thought. By conceiving the archetypes of things, Ptah simultaneously invented with them the script, which Thoth only needs to record, just as he, as the tongue, only needs to speak the thoughts of the heart.”
The collaboration of Ptah, who conceives things, and Thoth, who records them, bears some similarities to the interaction of God and Adam in paradise, as described in Genesis:
“
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
– Genesis 2:19-20
Adam’s naming of things corresponds to the connection of things and words as performed by Thoth, “and since it is a creation through the word, Adam and Thoth ‘read’ from the things what they pronounce or write down.”
Interpretations
Kurt Sethe saw similarities between the inscription and the “Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus,” which he edited. The “Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus” contains the ritual for a cult ceremony, which Sethe interpreted as a coronation ritual. The individual scenes of mythical actions are equated with the Osiris legend, so that the cult action appears as a mirror image of the mythical process. Accordingly, the Shabaka Stone is also a text that deals with the Osiris and Horus myths in a dramatic form, more or less comparable to medieval mystery plays. He considered the dialogues as instructions for the protagonists of the divine roles in the scenic performance. Most subsequent editors agreed with this view.
For Jan Assmann, the monument represents a return to the past. The text glorifies the city of Memphis: “Obviously, it belongs to the political program of the Ethiopian kings to rebuild Memphis not only architecturally but above all spiritually and religiously, and to make it the capital of an Egypt that sees itself as a rebirth of the Old Kingdom.” A reference to the time of Shabaka is obvious. Before Shabaka’s time, the kingdom was divided into various Libyan principalities. Although his predecessor, Pije, undertook a campaign to reunite Egypt, he had not yet aimed to do so. This step was taken by Shabaka. He attempted to renew the classical pharaonic monarchy. Especially the monuments in the vicinity of Memphis testified to the glory days of the earlier pharaohs, hence the desire to connect with Memphitic traditions.
In the myth of Horus and Seth, Jan Assmann sees something like the myth of “reunification.” The conflict between Horus and Seth is played out as a legal dispute, with the decision ultimately lying with Geb. Overall, the process unfolds in three phases: the dispute, the settlement by division, and the peace through unity. With the union comes reconciliation: “Seth is overcome, but not marginalized, but integrated.” At each coronation, the union is ritually performed anew. Thus, the text draws on a very ancient myth that tells of Egypt’s transition to political unity.
“The text can be very well understood as a mythical figuration of a historical situation in which a period of two rivaling sub-kingdoms is ended by the establishment of a comprehensive unity in which one party has proven victorious, but great value is placed on integrating the defeated party. Horus naturally stands for the Horus kingship of Hierakonpolis and Seth stands for the kingship of Naqada. Naqada/Ombos is indeed the home of this god; he has been there since ancient times.”
Jan Assmann
Featured Image: British Museum – cc by sa 2.0