The article is devoted to the analysis of the text of the so - called Neapolitan Stele-the autobiography of an Egyptian nobleman, a native of Heracleopolis Sematauitefnakhta, who found himself on the territory of the Achaemenid empire on the eve of the Macedonian conquest. It is suggested that he was deported after the second Persian conquest of Egypt in 343 BC as part of a corporation of priests of the goddess Sokhmet, who were also professional doctors.

Keywords: Sematauitefnakht, Neapolitan stele, autobiography, priest, doctor, Sokhmet, deportation, Achaemenids, Alexander the Great, Egypt, Heracleopolis, Iran.

The source to which this article is devoted - the so-called Neapolitan Stele, named after its place of storage in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples (No. 1035) - is well known to Egyptologists working with texts from the beginning of the Hellenistic period [Tresson, 1930; Kanel, 1984, p. 120-125; Perdu, 1985; RoBler-Kohler, 1991, S. 282-284 (nr. 86a); Burkard, 1994, S. 39-40; Menu, 1995, p. 84-86; Gorre, 2009, p. 210-215]. However, it is much less frequently used by researchers who study this era mainly based on ancient evidence: symptomatically, nothing is said about it in the most detailed essay on the history of Hellenistic Egypt written by the ancient scholar V. Khuss: [NiV, 2001, pp. 52-54].

This monument was discovered in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii during their classical excavations in 1765: it is a rectangular slab with a height of 105 cm and a width of 44 cm [La collezione..., 1989, p. 142 ff. (Nr. 15); Pirelli, 1998; Verhoeven, 2005]. It is possible that initially this slab was part of a monumental stelophor statue (its early descriptions indicate the presence of hieroglyphs on its side faces as well [Tresson, 1930, p.369-371]). It is surmounted by a frieze of 14 figures, which is actually an enigmatic inscription that "ciphers" the name and epithets of the god Herishef [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 1 (Z. 13); Perdu, 1985, p. 96-97]. Under this frieze there are 20 horizontal and right-to-left lines of the main text of the inscription (hieroglyphic transcription: [Sethe, 1904-1916, p. 1-6]; translations and commentaries: [Tresson, 1930, p. 382-384; Roeder, 1959, p. 214-219; Lichtheim, 1980, p. 41-44; Perdu, 1985; Turaev, 1936, p. 164; Perepelkin, 2000, p. 462-463]). Its contents - the autobiography of the nobleman Sematauitefnakhta of Heracleopolis-allow us, as we will see later, to reliably date the monument to the end of the IV or, less likely, the beginning of the III centuries BC. Apparently, this monument comes from the Heracleopolis temple of Herishef, from where it could have been brought to Italy already in Roman times; in Pompeii, it was used in the design of the pilaster of the temple of Isis [Porter and Moss, 1951, p. 418; Tresson, 1930, p. 369; Malaise, 1972, p. 274].

The" hero " of the autobiographical text of the Neapolitan Stele was a representative of the local nobility of the Heracleopolis nome. Its name is "Sematauitefnacht"

page 18
"His power is the ' Unifier of Both Lands'"; - an epithet of a number of ancient Egyptian gods, including the Herakleopolitan god Herishef [Leitz, 2002, p. 313 (13)]). In the first millennium BC, it was repeatedly attested for natives of Heracleopolis [Mokhtar, 1983, p. 209]: thus, in the middle of the seventh century BC, a certain Sematauitefnakht, the son of Peteise, was the local ruler of Heracleopolis, who inherited this post and a number of administrative and priestly titles from his father (including the characteristic title of "chief of ships") and supported the founder of the XXVI dynasty Psammetichus I at his elevation [Kitchen, 1986, p. 402-404].P. Kaploni admitted that the Sematauitefnacht of the Neapolitan stele could be a descendant of this particular kind of "chiefs of ships" of the VII century BC [Kaplony, 1971, p. 258]. Without denying this possibility, I will note that it is unprovable; in any case, during the reign of the XXVI dynasty (656-525 BC) and the first Persian rule (525-404 BC), this family must have gradually lost its influence and become an ordinary noble family, retaining certain hereditary titles.

As for the "hero" of the autobiography of the Neapolitan Stele, his origin and status are clearly indicated at the beginning of this text: "Prince and ruler, treasurer of the king of Lower Egypt, 'only friend' (of the king), (priest -) "servant of God" of Horus, Lord of Hebenu, (priest -) "servant of God" of the gods of the Antelope nome, (priest-)"servant of God" of Semataui in (lit. - construction of an indirect genitive) Iat-Hehu, "mouth of God", "standing over the shore", chief of (priests) - uab Sokhmet in the land to its borders, Sematauitefnakht, son of the" lord of grain"(priest -)" servant of God " Amon-Ra, lord of Per-Shat, Jedsematauiefanha, born the lady of the house of Ankhet... "(stkk. 1-3 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 2 (Z. 3-10)]:

As far as can be judged from this fragment, the most important role in the life of Sematauitefnakht, as, apparently, his ancestors, was played by priestly powers associated with the Middle Egyptian cults (cults of Heracleopolis, near which the place of Iat-Hehu was located [Perdu, 1985, p. 97, comm. 'f']; but also with the cults of the XVI Upper Egyptian nome-the titles "servant of the god Hora, Lord of Hebenu", "priest of the gods of the Antelope nome" [Meulenaere, 1969, p. 21ff.; Perdu, 1985, p. 97, comm. 'd']). Non-priestly titles in this fragment are traditionally hereditary ("prince and ruler "[Berlev and Khojash, 2004, p. 193]) or are related to the position of their holder at the royal court ("only friend"; cf. the text's indications about the proximity of Sematauitefnakht to the royal court-see below) and hardly reflect his real position. authority. In other words, there is hardly any reason to consider Sematauitefnacht as an independent local ruler, similar to the" chiefs of ships " of the VII century BC.

The religious aspect, namely the connection with the Herakleopolitan deity Herishef and the incessant feeling of reciprocal patronage on his part, turns out to be decisive not only for Sematauitefnacht's official activities, but also for his personal fate in a much broader sense. The text of the stele opens with a prayer to Herishef [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 2 (Z. 15) - 3 (Z. 9)], whose name, as in the enigmatic inscription on the top of the monument, is accompanied by royal epithets (nsw idbw "king of Both Lands, lord of the coasts" [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 2 (Z. 15)]) and written out with a sign suggesting the solar aspect of this deity (a figure of a sitting ram-headed deity with a solar disk on his head; possibly referring to his identification with Pa [Perdu, 1985, p. 99-100, comm. 'b']). According to the text of the stele, the help of Herishef ensured that his priest was close to someone from the XXX dynasty, most likely to its last king Nektaneb II (stkk. 7-8 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 3 (Z. 12-13)]: "You (i.e. He-

page 19
rishef) opened (literally, "expanded") (me) frequent access to the royal palace, (and) the heart of the good god (was) satisfied (with what) I said").

However, the event, which, according to the unanimous opinion of researchers, could only be the establishment of the second Persian rule in Egypt in 343 BC. e., led not only to the end of Sematauitefnakht's career at the Egyptian court, but also to the fact that he himself was outside of Egypt; at the same time, Herishef's care for his servant did not stop and This allowed him both to gain the favor of the Persian king and to survive the defeat of the Persians by the Macedonians [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 3 (Z. 14) -4 (Z. 7)] (see more details below). After that, Herishef appeared to Sematauitefnakht in a dream to offer to return to Herakleopolis under his protection, and the priest actually made the long journey to his homeland without suffering any disasters [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 4 (Z. 11-16)]. A curious feature of the Neapolitan Stele, and one that has not yet been specifically commented on, is that it shows that the" power " of the local god of Heracleopolis extends far beyond the boundaries of his nome, and that he is able to protect his worshipper even in a foreign land; this is also in good agreement with giving him such a characteristic feature of the Egyptian religion the universal deity as the solar aspect (see above).

I will focus on the part of the life of Sematauitefnakht that occurred during the second Persian rule in Egypt (343-332 BC). The corresponding fragment of the stele text reads::

"You distinguished me from the multitude when You converted me. "made") You turn your back to Egypt. You have invested (lit. "given") love for me (lit. "love me") in the heart of the ruler of Asia, (and) his semers prayed to God for me. He made (i.e.," ruler of Asia") for me the position of chief (priest-)of the Sohmet wabs in place of my mother's brother, chief (priest-)of the Sohmet wabs of the South and North of Nachtcheneb. You defended me in the battle of hau-nebu, after you had repelled Asia; they killed (i.e., hau-nebu) a multitude near me, (but) no one's hand (lit., "his hand") rose up against me" (stkk. 8-11 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 3 (Z. 11) -4 (Z. 6)]:

As can be seen, the above fragment does not, strictly speaking, contain direct indications that the events described in it took place outside of Egypt, in Asia; however, this is obvious from the fact that the text further describes the return of Sematauitefnakht to Egypt through a number of foreign countries ("highlands"; see fig. about this term in the context of traditional ancient Egyptian ideology [Demidchik, 2005, p. 132-178]) and "Great Green" (see about this term as a designation of the World Ocean and its components [Helck, 1980]), i.e. in this context, the Mediterranean Sea is clearly: "I passed through the highlands, being alone, I crossed the Great Green; I was not afraid, knowing that I did not transgress what you (i.e., the God Herishef) said." 12-13 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 4 (Z. 11-15) - 4 (Z. 6)]:

There is no doubt that the term Stt / Stt, which appears in the Neapolitan Stele in its second version and can generally serve as an extremely broad designation of Asian lands [Erman and Grapow, 1940-1959, Bd. 3, S. 348(3): "alte Bezeichnung der Lander n. o. von Agypten; 'Asien'"In this fragment, as in a number of other sources of the first millennium BC, it serves as a politonym denoting an interregional Asian power, despite the fact that at the end of the VI—IV centuries BC it could only have been an Achaemenid power [Ladynin, 2002(1), pp. 9-10; Ladynin, 2011, pp. 325-332]. Accordingly, the designation "ruler of Asia" should refer to one of the last Achaemenid rulers of Egypt ([Perdu, 1985, pp. 105-106, comm. 'i'] — Artaxerxes III, Arses or Darius III-or, impersonally, to all of them at once), and the words about the " battle of hau-

page 20
sky " 1, which took place after the god Herishef "repelled Asia" - to one of the episodes of the defeat of the Achaemenid power by Alexander the Great. Thus, the words of the Neapolitan stele about the favors of the" ruler of Asia " and his courtiers to Sematauitefnacht should be understood as evidence of his actual stay at the court of the great king in the metropolis of his country.

In the works devoted to the Neapolitan Stele, an opinion has long been expressed about what exactly could have won Sematauitefnakht the favor of the Persian king and his courtiers: as is known, the priests of Sokhmet were specialists in medicine [Kanel, 1984], and at the same time there are a number of examples of Egyptian doctors staying at the Persian court [Burkard, 1994]. Therefore, the fairly well-established opinion that it was precisely medical skill that allowed Sematauitefnacht to advance in the Achaemenid metropolis [Tresson, 1930, p. 389-390; Burkard, 1994, p.39-40; Menu, 1995, p. 85, p. 10] seems quite correct.

Almost as definite is the judgment as to what brought Semataiutefnacht to Asia in the first place: more items Tresson in 1930 drew attention to the mention of the "battle of Haunebu", in which the hero of the text managed to survive thanks to the patronage of Herishef. The researcher literally took the words about the extermination of "many" (literally, "a million" - ) Asian soldiers near Sematauitefnakht and, referring to the real statistics of Persian losses in various episodes of the war with Alexander, concluded that the Egyptian nobleman took part (of course, based on the content of the text, on the side of the Persians) as a doctor in the war against the Persians. The Battle of Gavgamela [Tresson, 1930, p. 390-391]. Some researchers have suggested that it could also be the Battle of Issus, in which the participation of Egyptian contingents under the command of Satrap Sabak is attested in the ancient tradition (Arr. Anab. II. 11. 8; Diod. XVII.34.5; Curt. III. 11. 10; IV. 1.28; [Schafer, 1890, p. 97; Turaev, 1935, p. 164]; see the opinion that we are talking about one of these two battles [Perdu, 1985, p. 108, comm. 't'; Burkard, 1994, p. 40]), but the essence of the matter did not change from this: Sematauitefnakht's participation on the side of the Persians in the war with the Macedonians seemed quite voluntary, and thus he acquired a dubious reputation as a person who went to cooperate with the conquerors of his homeland [Spalinger, 1978, p.153; HuB, 1997, p. 139; Perepelkin, 2000, p. 462-464]. An obvious model of such cooperation is the well-known autobiography of Ujahorresnet, a contemporary of Cambyses and Darius I, who helped legitimize their power over Egypt and visited Iran during his lifetime (Posener, 1936, p. 1-26; Lloyd, 1982; HuB, 1997, p. 135-136).

At the same time, the opinion that Sematauitefnakht (or, in any case, the compiler of his autobiography) was not so loyal to the Persian rulers of Egypt was expressed by A. B. Lloyd [Lloyd, 1982, p.178-179]. According to this researcher, the Neapolitan stele denied them a legitimate royal status according to Egyptian ideas (accordingly, the great king is referred to in its text only as "the ruler of Asia"). Moreover, the creator of the stele allegedly" openly rejoiced " about the defeat of the Persians at Issus or at Gavgamela. It is doubtful that exactly such a sentiment can be found in this source; however, Sematauitefnacht's supposed collaborationism does not really fit well with the ideological trend of the Neapolitan Stele. Sematauitefnacht, unlike the famous Ujjahorresnet,

1 The term Vcrcouttcr, 1949, p. 178ff.; Daumas, 1952, p.187-188; Perdu, 1985, p. 107, comm. 'o']. Compare with the opinion of C. Vandcrslcycn, who considered in all cases the designation of the territories of the Eastern Mediterranean, which in this fragment allegedly indicates the localization of the described hostilities in Syria [Vandcrslcycn, 1971, p. 148]. As applied to this fragment, this assumption is refuted by the presence in it of the phrase "they killed many near me" in which the pronoun .zn ("they") obviously consistent with [Perdu, 1985, p. 108, comm. 's']; at the same time, it should mean those who exterminated the Persian army and/or Darius III's entourage - i.e., obviously Macedonians and Greeks - regardless of where this extermination took place [Ladynin, 2002(1), p. 10, note 25].

page 21
It does not recognize the Persian ruler as the legitimate sacred king of Upper and Lower Egypt; however, this can theoretically be explained by the very compilation of this text already under the rule of the Macedonians, when positive reminiscences of the second Persian rule might not have been welcomed.

More significantly, in my opinion, the Neapolitan Stele does not recognize any of its real owners as a full-fledged king of Egypt at all since the fall of the XXX dynasty: it is in connection with this time that the "house of the king" is mentioned (pr-nsw, with the use of the designation of a legitimate sacred ruler in this expression; see, for example, [Blobaum, 2006, pp. 62-67]) and the "good god" (ntr nfr; see Berlev, 2003 for the meaning of this term), while further, as we have already seen from a number of fragments of the Neapolitan stele, the royal status is clearly and in very vivid terms transferred to the god Herishef (RoBler-Kohler, 1991, pp. 282-283; cf.: Otto, 1954, S. 117]. This manipulation itself means that the compiler of the Neapolitan Stele did not make a fundamental difference between the Persian and Macedonian conquerors of Egypt and considered them equally deprived of legitimate royal power, coupled with the ability to perform a ritual [Demidchik, 2005, p.14-27]. Such a position, recorded by this monument, rather poorly fits in with the possibility of collaboration of its owner in relation to these foreign rulers (at least at the level of genuine loyalty to them).

It seems that when deciding on the collaboration of Sematauitefnacht, one should not rely only on the fragment of the stele related to the war with Alexander. Even if it gives grounds to speak about the direct participation of the hero of the stele in this war, which is not so obvious (see below), it remains unclear whether this participation was voluntary or forced. In my opinion, much more interesting material for reflection is provided by the report that the Persian king endowed Sematauitefnakht with the Egyptian priesthood, which is very non-trivial for two reasons.

First, the attitude of the last Achaemenids to the religious and ideological tradition of life in Egypt can by no means be called loyal. The invasion of Artaxerxes III in 343 BC was accompanied by the seizure of temple valuables and, apparently, the removal of religious objects from the country [Ladynin, 2002(2), pp. 213-214], which eventually gave rise to a whole tradition about the sacrilege of this king in Egypt [Schwartz, 1949]. In the future, the Persians kept the economy of Egyptian temples under strict control [Ladynin, 2005, p. 105-108], without showing much interest in other aspects of their life (it is very significant that no temple buildings were erected on behalf of Artaxerxes III and his successors [Arnold, 1999, p.137]). The last Achaemenids clearly did not seek to assume the duties of the head of Egyptian cults befitting a legitimate Egyptian king. Thus, giving one of these kings Sematauitefnakht the Egyptian title of "chief (priest)of the Wab Sokhmet" (stk. 9 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 4 (Z. 1)]: ) is sharply discordant with the main trend of their policy in Egypt.

Secondly, it is very unusual that this appointment should have taken place, according to the text of the Neapolitan Stele, when Sematauitefnacht was outside Egypt, at the Persian court. The only alternative would be to assume that he was invested with this title by Artaxerxes III in Egypt immediately after the conquest of that country, when the Persian king was within its borders. However, as can be seen from the text, even before his appointment, Sematauitefnakht managed to spend quite a long time at the court of the Persian king, among his entourage, called "semers". Judging by the very use of this Egyptian designation for courtiers, we are talking about a permanent court in one of the central royal residences in Iran or Babylonia, and not about the military environment that could accompany Artaxerxes in Egypt (it is logical to assume that in this case it would rather be not about" semers", but about "semers").army" - - of the Persian king and his superiors).

page 22
In addition, directly to the mention of the appointment of Sematauitefnacht, there is a story about the events of the war with Alexander, which were already undoubtedly unfolding in Asia. Finally, the very title of the appointment that Sematauitefnakht received from the Persian king is indicative: if his predecessor in office and his maternal uncle Nakhtheneb was called "chief (priests -) of the Sokhmet wabs of the South and North" (stcc. 9-10 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 4 (Z. 2)]: ), then from the title of Sematauitefnakht the mention of" South and North " (i.e. both parts of Egypt) for some reason falls out. This can be explained precisely if this priestly rank was received by him outside of Egypt and their mention in the corresponding title lost its meaning. However, in the enumeration of the titles of Sematauitefnacht at the beginning of the Neapolitan stele, this title looks like "chief (of priests)-uab Sokhmet in the land to its borders" (stk. 2 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 2 (Z. 8)]:

Fr von Quesnel, a researcher of the hierarchy of priests of Sokhmet and Serket, saw in this title a unique extension of the authority of Sematauitefnacht not only to Egypt, but to the whole world as a whole ([Kanel, 1984, p. 249]: 'directeur des pretres-ouab de Sekhmet dans toute la terre', a savoir = la totalite du monde civilise..."). Such an interpretation cannot be excluded, especially if Sematauitefnakht received his title while at the Persian court and became the head of this priestly corporation throughout the entire territory of the Achaemenid state, that is, in fact, in most of the world known to the Egyptians. At the same time, and with a more "reduced" understanding of the expression "in the land to its limits" in the sense of "in all Egypt", this form of the title of Sematauitefnakhta can be considered a modification of its original "Persian", which did not contain this phrase, variant, which was associated with the return of the holder of this title to Egypt 2.

It seems that the appointment of Sematauitefnakht as "chief (priest-)of the Sokhmet wabs", although it took place outside Egypt, was hardly of purely ceremonial or prestigious significance. If one of the last Achaemenids had simply wished to elevate his Egyptian confidant, he would have conferred upon him, not the Egyptian priesthood, which is hardly valuable from the point of view of the Persians, but the Persian court title (which would have been" converted " in Egyptian perception into the designation "semera", applied in the Neapolitan stele to Persian courtiers, or something similar). It is also very significant that receiving this dignity made Sematauitefnakht the successor of another Egyptian priest, besides his relative. It may be assumed that this predecessor of his had already been ordained in independent Egypt, and that in the second Persian period, like Sematauitefnakht, he also found himself in Persia, while retaining his office; and that the reason why his office became vacant was most likely due to his death or extreme old age.3
2 It may be noted that the titulature of Alexander, son of Alexander the Great and Roxane, as the formal king of Egypt (from 317 to 305/304). The "golden name" looks like ("ruler in the land (or lands) up to the limits of CE" [Blobaum, 2006, p. 426]). It seems to be marked by some uncertainty as to whether this ruler's possessions include lands outside Egypt (this may be assumed when interpreting the term "land" as referring to the earthly world as a whole; however, it is also conceivable to read it as referring to Egypt alone: [Erman, Grapow, 1940-1959, Bd. 5, S. 212 (6), 215]). Perhaps this ambiguity is also assumed in this formulation of the title of Sematauitefnacht, which most likely was a contemporary of the formal reign of Roxane's son.

3 What the notorious college of priests of Sokhmet might have been outside Egypt, I will say more later; but it is clear that it was not an organization that could even in the slightest degree disturb the Persian authorities by its actions or influence. Accordingly, it makes no sense to assume that the Persian king would interfere in relations within this college and replace one of its heads with another during his lifetime. It is equally unlikely that the predecessor of Sematauitefnakht could have fallen victim to repression by the Persian authorities - if he had some serious guilt before the Persians, his close relative would hardly have been put in his place. On the contrary, his death or reaching a very advanced age is very likely, given that he belongs to the generation of Sematauitefnakht's parents (especially since he himself, at the time of his stay in Asia, given his previous career at the Egyptian court, was, no doubt, far from a young man).

page 23
Both the possession of this priestly rank and its transfer from one priest to another could make sense for all the persons involved, including the Persian sovereign who authorized this transfer, only if this rank implied some very real religious powers. In this case, it remains to be assumed that both of these priests, in exact accordance with their titles, exercised the leadership of the Egyptian priestly college of the Sokhmet Wabs, in which they apparently found themselves in a foreign land.

It is difficult to imagine that the priests belonging to this college left Egypt of their own free will. In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the suggestion made by F. Dershenom at the time that Egyptian priests who visited the Persian metropolis, as is known from related sources, could have ended up there as a result of deportations carried out by the Achaemenids [Derchain, 1965, p. 150; cf.: HuB, 1997, p. 125, Anm. 27]. The movement of the population of the conquered territories became part of the practice of the great powers of Near Asia of the first millennium BC as early as the New Assyrian period and was practiced by the Achaemenids quite widely [Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1980, pp. 179-180; Bryant, 1996, pp. 521-523, 980-981; Fry, 2002, p. 154], and the Byzantine dictionary "Svida" contains direct references instructions on the ruthless deportation of some of the inhabitants of Egypt after its capture by Artaxerxes III (Suida, s. v. aoato; [Schwartz, 1949, p. 71]).

In connection with this assumption, one cannot help but wonder what could have prompted the Persian conquerors of Egypt to this action. To answer this question, it is worth paying attention to the phrase that opens the story of the rise of Sematauitefnakht at the Persian court: "You (God Herishef) distinguished me from the multitude when You converted me (literally, 'made') You have your back to Egypt "(stk. 8 = [Sethe, 1904-1916, S. 3 (Z. 14-15)]: As the researcher of the monument of the son of Nectaneb II, J.-J. Clare, the expression used here (lit., " make a back to...") is extremely close to the idiom ("give a back to..."), which can have the meaning of "leave" (cf.: [Erman, Grapow, 1940-1959, Bd. 4, S. 9(14); Daumas, 1952, p. 243]). Accordingly, the quoted phrase means that the hero of the Neapolitan stele was not abandoned by the favors of Herishef after he left Egypt in the literal sense of the word. According to Clare, this phrase refers to the conquest of Egypt by Artaxerxes III and contains an allusion to the removal of cult objects from Egyptian temples, including, probably, the main revered statue of Herishef from Herakleopolis [Clare, 1951, p.152, p. 5].

The author of the standard study of the Neapolitan Stele, O. Perdue, does not dispute the purely linguistic side of this interpretation, but believes that the meaning of this phrase is not so literal. In his opinion, the compiler of the stele text proceeded from the fact that Herishef, having turned away from Egypt, did the same in relation to the Middle Eastern statehood in general and, having gone over to the side of the Greeks and Macedonians, ensured their victory over the Achaemenids (in accordance with the meaning of the words "...you repelled Asia"; [Perdu, 1985, p. 105, comm. 'g']).

The controversy of this interpretation is quite obvious: the text does not give grounds to believe that the words about the "turn" of Herishef from Egypt should also be attributed to the confrontation of the Achaemenid power with Alexander, and not only to the second Persian conquest of Egypt. It might be assumed that this phrase characterizes the period after the fall of the XXXth dynasty as a "bad luck period" in the history of Egypt, during which the gods, including Herishef, turned away from the country, depriving it of its patronage (compare with the description of a similar situation in the Amarna time in the" Restoration Stele " of Tutankhamun [Sethe and Helck, 1906-1958, S. 2027; Demidchik, 2005, pp. 44-45]). However, such a meaning of this phrase would probably be poorly combined with the idea of Herishef as a sacred king of Egypt, which is present in the Neapolitan stele, assuming his care for this country and, of course, his presence in it. In that case

page 24
it is worth returning to the assumption of J.-J. Clare on the more specific meaning of this phrase as an allusion to the confiscation and removal of temple objects from Egypt by the Persians during the second Persian rule.

It is well known that such actions were practiced by the Persians in various countries that resisted their rule, and, as M. A. Dandamaev showed, their meaning was to deprive the peoples of these countries of the means of contact with their protecting deities and, accordingly, the opportunity to turn their power to their advantage [Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1980, p. 343; Oppenheim Ladynin, 2002(2), pp. 205-206; cf. applied to ancient Egypt: Assman, 1999, pp. 68-77]. The fact that such actions were actually committed during the second Persian rule in Egypt is evidenced by Diodorus ' report about the seizure of Egyptian sacred texts by the Persians under Artaxerxes III (Diod. XVI.51.2), which was motivated, of course, not by their material value and made sense only as part of a larger-scale confiscation [Ladynin, 2002(2), pp. 213-214]. There is a symptomatic parallel between this report and the evidence of the Satrap's Stele about Ptolemy's return from Asia during the wars of the 310s BC of both temple utensils and sacred texts (- "soul Pa"; [Sethe, 1904-1916, p. 14 (Z. 9-10)]), that is, obviously, about the correction of the evil that was inflicted on the Egyptian temples just before the Hellenistic time. Thus, it can be suggested that the Neapolitan stele implicitly connects the appearance of Sematauitefnakht at the Persian court with the conduct of a similar action in Egypt by its Persian conquerors.

The nature of this connection becomes clear, in my opinion, if we look at the religious functions of the Sokhmet Uab priests and the reasons why they are specialists in the field of medicine. As you know, Sohmet is a fierce goddess who can bring death to people from diseases; however, because of this, she turns out to be the mistress of diseases and holds under her control not only death, but also healing from them. Accordingly, the priestly service of Sokhmet is a contact with the personal power of the deity behind human diseases, which makes it possible to pacify it [Kanel, 1984, p. 235-239]. The purely practical side of such "contact", which is inseparable from its ritual aspects, is professional possession of medical knowledge. Thus, the Sokhmet Uabs, who possessed certain knowledge, were themselves the most important intermediaries for the Egyptian population in contact with this deity; their deportation excluded its very possibility, threatening the country with the full force of epidemics personified in the image of Sokhmet, and from this point of view was as expedient for the Achaemenids as the removal of revered statues from Egyptian temples.. Judging by the proximity of the " chiefs (priests-)uabov Sokhmet " to the Persian court, the deported priests were to be placed in the metropolis of the Achaemenid state. It is difficult to say how much the Persians took into account the benefits of resettling a whole band of doctors who were famous throughout the entire Fore-East; however, in any case, once in a foreign country, the emigrants were forced to resort to their highly valuable occupation.

I will return in conclusion to the question of the possible participation of Sematauitefnacht in the war of the Persians with Alexander. First of all, it is necessary to abandon attempts to literally interpret the mention of the "million" victims of the hau-nebu invasion who fell near Sematauitefnacht: most likely, this word serves as an idiomatic designation for a multitude, as in one of the preceding phrases of the same fragment, beginning with the words: "You have distinguished me among the many (letters, again "a million")...". The notorious mention of the "battle of hau-nebu" not only obviously does not lend itself to accurate identification with any particular battle of Alexander with the Persians, but, very likely, does not require such accurate identification, since it can serve as a general reference. designation of their struggle. At the same time, the text of the stele specifies that the protection of Herishef was useful to Sematauitefnakht already at the stage of the "battle" when the god of Windows-

page 25
meaning "reflected Asia", the use of the verb of the completed action in this case in combination with the preposition dr, denoting a spatial or temporal limit, definitely shows that "reflection of Asia" preceded the protection of Sematauitefnacht by God [Erman and Grapow, 1940-1959, Bd. 5, S. 592-593; Engsheden, 2003, p. 124-126; Kurth, 2008, p. 959]), i.e. it clearly marked a turning point in favor of the Macedonians.

In my opinion, such a reference can only refer to the time after the decisive battle of Gavgamelah for Alexander's Eastern campaign, i.e., to the military operations of the end of 331-330 BC, when Alexander occupied Babylonia and Iran - the areas of the Achaemenid metropolis, where, in fact, Sokhmet uabs were supposed to be located. It is unlikely that the deported Sematauitefnacht would have joined the Persian struggle against Alexander, especially at this final stage, of his own free will: it is impossible to exclude that he could have been mobilized by the Persians as a kind of"military doctor". However, it is almost equally likely that he was simply in the Achaemenid metropolis during its occupation by Alexander, naturally risking his life, like any direct witness to such an event. In this regard, it is worth noting that, unlike previously occupied Babylonia and Susiana, the Macedonians faced particularly strong resistance in Persis and, in turn, behaved extremely cruelly [Shahermayr, 1984, pp. 170-177; Nawotka, 2010, p. 252-253; Ladynin, 2002(1), p. 10, note 24]. Based on this, we can assume that Sematauitefnacht met Alexander's arrival here.

In his monograph on the category of the Double in the Egyptian worldview of the Ancient Kingdom, A. O. Bolshakov noted that" from the Egyptian point of view, reproduction in a modern book should be considered as the creation of a new monument for a long-dead person, i.e. as an act of supreme piety " [Bolshakov, 2001, p. 143, note 1]. If the hypothesis I have proposed is correct, then the memory of the "chief (priest-)of the Uab Sokhmet" Sematauitefnakhta should be cleared of suspicion of collaboration. In practice, it is extremely important that the proposed interpretation can serve as another argument in favor of the historicity of information about the repression of Egyptian cults during the second Persian rule.

list of literature

Assman Ya. Egypt: Theology and Piety of Early Civilization / Translated from German by T. A. Baskakova, Moscow: Priscels, 1999.

Brlsv O. D. Dva tsarina - Dva Suns: k mirovozreniyu drevnykh egiptiyan [Two Kings-Two Suns: to the Worldview of ancient Egyptians]. Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D. Berlev.V.: Achct-Vcrlag, 2003.

Bsrlsv O. D., Khodzhash S. Ya. Sculpture of ancient Egypt in the collection of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow: Vostochny lit., 2004.
Bolshakov A. O. Man and his Double: Visuality and ideology in Egypt's Old Kingdom. St. Petersburg: Alstsya Publ., 2001.

Dandamasv M. A., Lukonin V. G. Kul'tura i ekonomika drevnego Irana [Culture and Economy of ancient Iran]. East lit., 1980.

Dsmidchik A. E. Bezymyannaya piramida: Gosudarstvennaya doktrina drevneegipetskoy Gerakleopolskoy monarkhii [The Nameless Pyramid: The State Doctrine of the Ancient Egyptian Herakleopol Monarchy].
Ladynin I. A. Designation of stt in the " Satrap Stele "(Urk. II. 13.4): towards the perception of the world power of the Argsads in the East. 2002(1). № 2.

Ladynin I. A. Information about the return of Egyptian cult items from Asia by the rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty / / Mvnua: Collection of scientific papers dedicated to the memory of Professor V. D. Zhigunin. Kazan: Publishing house "Rhetor", 2002 (2).

Oppsnkhsym A. L. Drevnyaya Mesopotamiya: Portret perishshey tsivilizatsii [Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Lost Civilization]. East lit., 1990.

Istoriya drevnego Egyp [History of ancient Egypt]. St. Petersburg: Neva Magazine, Summer Garden, 2000.

Turasv B. A. Istoriya drevnego Vostoka [History of the Ancient East]. Vol. 2. L.: OGIZ; Lsnsotsekgiz, 1935.

Fry R. Nasledie Irana [Heritage of Iran], Izd. 2-E. M.: Vostochnaya literatura, 2002.

F. Schachermayr. Alexander Makedonsky, Moscow: Nauka, Chief Editor. East lit., 1984.

page 26
Arnold D. Temples of the Last Pharaohs. N.Y.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Blöbaum A. I. ''Denn ich bin ein König, der Maat lieht": Herrscherlegitimation im spätzeitlichen Ägypten. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Phraseologie in den offiziellen Königsinschriften vom Beginn der 25. Dynastie bis zum Ende der makedonischen Herrschaft (Aegyptiaca Monasteriensia, 4). Aachen: Shaker, 2006.

Briant P. Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre. P.: Fayard, 1996.

Burkard G. Medizin und Politik: Altägyptischc Heilkunst am persischen Königshof // Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur. 1994. Bd. 21.

Clère J-J. Unc Statuette du fils ainé du roi Ncctanabô // Revue d'égyptologie. 1951. T. 6.

Daumas Fr. Les moyens d'expression du Grec et de l'Egyptien comparés dans les décrets de Canope et de Memphis (Supplément aux Anna/es du Service des antiquités de l'Égypte,- 16). Lc Cairc: lmprimcric de I'IMFAO, 1952.

Dcrchain Ph. Essai de classement chronologique des influences babylonienncs et hellcnistiqucs sur l'astrologic égyptienne des documents démotiques // La divination en Mésopotamie ancienne et dans les régions voisines: Actes de la XIVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Strasbourg, 2-6 juillet 1965). P.: Presses Universitares de France, 1966.

Bngshcdcn Å. La reconstitution du verbe en égyptien de tradition 400 30 avant J.-C. (Uppsala Studies in Egyptology, 3). Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2003.

Erman A., Grapow H. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. Bd. 1 V. Leipzig: Hinrichs; В.: Akademie-Verlag, 1926-1953.

Gorrc J. Les rélations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides d'après les sources privées (Studia Hellenistica, 45). Lcuvcn: Pcctcrs, 2009.

Hclck W. Meer // Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Bd. III. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980.

Huß W. Ägypten in der hellenistischer Zeit, 332-30 v. Chr. München: Beck, 2001.

Huß W. Ägyptische Kollaborateure in persischer Zeit // Tyche. 1997. Bd. 12.

Käncl Fr. von. Les prêtres-ouâb de Sekhmet et les conjurateurs de Serket (Bibliotheque de l'ecole des hautes etudes. Section des sciences religieuses, 87). P.: Presses Univcrsitaircs de France, 1984.

Kaplony P. Bemerkungen zum ägyptischen Königtum vor allem in der Spätzeit // Chronique d'Egypte. 1971. T. 46.

Kitchen K.A. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.). Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986. 2nd cd.

Kurth D. Einführung ins Ptolemäische: eine Grammatik mit Zeichenliste und Übungsstücken. Bd. 2. Hützcl: Backe, 2008.

La collezione egiziana del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. Napoli: Arte tipografica, 1989.

Ladynin I. A. The Near Eastern Empires of the First Millennium BC in Terms of Ancient Egyptian Texts: The Name Stt/Stt / / Scripta antiqua: Questions of Ancient History, Philology, Art and Material Culture. Moscow, 2011. Vol. 1.

Ladynin I.A. "Adversary Hsrysi": His Name and Deeds According to the Satrap Stela // Chronique d'Egypte. 2005. T. 80.

Lcitz Chr. Lexikon der ägyptischer Götter und Götterbezeichnungen (Orientalia lovanensia analecta, 115). Bd. VI. Lcuvcn-Paris-Dudlcy: Pcctcrs, 2002.

Lichtheim M. Ancient Egyptian Literature: Vol. 3: The Late Period. Berkeley Los Angeles London: University of California Press, 1980.

Lloyd A.B. The Inscription of Udjahorrcsnct: a Collaborator's Testament // Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 1982. Vol. 68.

Malaise M. Inventaire preliminaire des documents egyptiens retrouves en Italie (Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientates dans l'Empire romain, 21). Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Menu B. Lcs carricrcs des Egyptiens a l'ctrangcr sous les dominations pcrscs: les critcrcs dc justification, leur evolution ct leurs limitcs // Transeuphratene. 1995. T. 5.

Mculcnacrc H. dc. Horus dc Hcbcnou ct son prophctc // Religions et Egypte hellenistique et romaine. Colloque de Strasbourg, 16-18 mai 1967. P.: Presses Univcrsitaircs dc France, 1969.

Mokhtar M. Gamal el-Din. lhnäsya el-Medina (Herakleopolis Magna): Its Importance and Its Role in Pharaonic History (Bibliotheque d'etude, 40). Lc Cairc: lmprimcric dc 1'IFAO, 1983.

Nawotka Krz. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010.

Otto E. Die biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit (Probleme der Ägyptologie, 2). Leiden: Brill, 1954.

Perdu О. Lc monument dc Samtoutcfnakht à Naples // Revue d'egyptologie. 1985. T. 36.

Pirelli R. Il monumento di Samtawytcfmakhtc с il tempio di Isidc a Pompci // L'Egitlo in Italia: Atti del III Congresso lnternazionale Italo-Egiziano (Roma, CNR-Pompei, 13-19 novembre 1995). Roma, 1998.

Porter В., Moss R.L.B. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings. Vol. VII: Nubia, the Deserts, and Outside Egypt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952 (rcpr. 1995).

Poscncr G. La premiere domination perse en Egypte (Bibliotheque d'etude, 11). Lc Cairc: lmprimcric de 1'IFAO, 1936.

Rocdcr G. Die ägyptische Religion in Texten und Bildern. Bd. I: Die ägyptische Götterwelt. Zürich; Stuttgart: Artemis, 1959.

page 27
Rößlcr-Köhlcr U. Individuelle Haltungen zum ägyptischen Königtum der Spätzeit: Private Quellen und ihre Königswertung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Erwartung und Erfahrung (Göttinger Orientforschungen, IV. Reihe: Ägypten, 21). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991.

Schäfer H. Noch einmal die Inschrift von Neapel // Aegyptiaca: Festschrift für Georg Ebers zum I. März 1897. Leipzig: Wilhelm Hngclmann, 1897.

Schwartz J. Les conquerants perses et la littérature égyptienne // Bulletin de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale. 1949. T. 48.

Scthc K. Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-römischen Zeit (Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, 2). Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904-1916.

Scthc K., Hclck W. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, 4). Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906-1958.

Spalingcr A. The Reign of King Chabbash: An Interpretation // Zeitschrift für ägyptische Spräche und Altertumskunde. 1978. Bd. 105.

Trcsson P. La stele de Naples // Bulletin de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale. 1930. T. 30.

Vandcrslcycn Cl. Les guerres d'Amosis, fondateur de la XVIII dynastie (Monographies Reine Elisabeth, 1). Bruxelles, 1971.

Vcrcouttcr J. Les Haou-Ncbout // Bulletin de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale. 1949. T. 48.

Vcrhocvcn U. Der Priester und Gifrthcilcr Somtu-tcf-nacht aus Hcraklcopolis Magna// Ägypten - Griechenland Rom: Abwehr und Berührung, Städeliches Kunstinstitut und Städtliche Galerie 26. November 2005 - 26. Februar 2006. Frankfurt am Main: Städcl, 2005.

Winnicki J.K. Carrying Off and Bringing Home the Statues of the Gods: On the Aspect of the Religious Policy of the Ptolemies Towards the Egyptians // Journal of Juristic Papyrology. 1994. Vol. 24.

page 28

Permanent link to this publication: