A Romano-Egyptian sword grip

[ROMan]

As promised on the RAT Facebook page, I will be posting any blogs I write on Roman equipment for Weapon Wednesday in the ROM collection here. The latest is on a sword grip in the image of the Egyptian god Horus. The old cataloguing for this object merely pointed to the Tetrarchy image, which I did not find satisfactory, as these clearly do not have Egyptian crowns on them! But I found some useful Roman depictions of Horus to essentially caome to the same dating conclusion! I'd appreciate any comments!

[Sean Manning]

I would note that it is not clear whether the Achaemenids were monotheistic. The kings certainly took Ahura Madza as their special god, but they seem to have respected a number of Iranian and foreign divinities. Whether this was more like Victoria sponsoring the renovation of temples and mosques in India, or Augustus building temples to Janus and Apollo as well as to Venus, is unclear.

I hadn't noticed the two-handed grips and eagle pommels on the swords of the tetrarchs!

[ROMan]

I'm glad you liked the blog. I actually had to write it at home with a sinus infection, which I have still not recovered from! Zoroastrianism is certainly considered to be a monotheistic religion, but I would not claim the hypothesis that Achaemenid influence essentially dictated Egyptian religious development under their rule. The Ahuramazda-Anahita-Mithra trinity seems recognised to be influential on the development of Osiris-Isis-Horus trinity as being increasingly the most central part of Egyptian religion; just as they were highly influential in the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem - according to the Book of Ezra, Ezra's God is in fact the same God as Cyrus'.

[Sean Manning]

Hi Robert,

That is the thing: it is not certain that the Achaemenids were orthodox Zoroastrians, although opinion seems to lean that way. Jona's article is a reasonable introduction to the problem; read it against M. Boyce's more confident view from 1983.

Sean

[Feinman]

To be a Horus-pommeled sword, it would have to be a falcon; in Egyptian art, and on swords and daggers, the falcon is recognized by the markings under the eye -- creating the "Eye of Horus". Egyptian pharaohs were considered to be the god Horus when they were alive, and they were Osirified when they died --not from eating too many Twinkies, but from embalming chemicals :grin:

[Urselius]

The eagle also symbolised Jupiter, so a syncretic connection between Horus as a hawk and the eagle of Jupiter would have been easy for the Romans.

What interests me is how would this hilt be attached to a functional blade? The double crown seems to occupy the space where the blade tang would be peened. Is there any indiction in the object of how it could be attached to a blade? If a tang peen was not used, then is there evidence in the Roman world of attaching hilts using resins?

A negative answer to these questions would increase the case for this being part of a statue, or being non-functional at least.

[ROMan]

The eagle also symbolised Jupiter, so a syncretic connection between Horus as a hawk and the eagle of Jupiter would have been easy for the Romans.

What interests me is how would this hilt be attached to a functional blade? The double crown seems to occupy the space where the blade tang would be peened. Is there any indiction in the object of how it could be attached to a blade? If a tang peen was not used, then is there evidence in the Roman world of attaching hilts using resins?

A negative answer to these questions would increase the case for this being part of a statue, or being non-functional at least.

Thanks for this, it's a very pertinent point! I have had a look at the sword again, and there is indeed a hole in the top for the tang to be peened over. I added a photo of it to the blog. Of course, that doesn't mean it wasn't attached to a statue!

[Urselius]

It sounds quite functional, I would imagine that a sword on a cult statue would just be cast in bronze in one piece, unless it was to be used in sacrifice, when a functional blade would be needed.

There was a 4th century Alemannic king called Serapion mentioned by Ammianus, his father, when in Roman military employ, had become a devotee of Egyptian Serapis. As the military worth of native Egyptians was considered negligible at the time, could a Roman soldier who had been initiated into an Egyptian cult have been the owner?

[ROMan]

It sounds quite functional, I would imagine that a sword on a cult statue would just be cast in bronze in one piece, unless it was to be used in sacrifice, when a functional blade would be needed.

There was a 4th century Alemannic king called Serapion mentioned by Ammianus, his father, when in Roman military employ, had become a devotee of Egyptian Serapis. As the military worth of native Egyptians was considered negligible at the time, could a Roman soldier who had been initiated into an Egyptian cult have been the owner?

I don't think there would be a problem finding a Roman worshiping the Egyptian gods, especially in Egypt where this was acquired. It is conceivable that just anyone could have a sword with Horus on it, just as you would have deities depicted on other weapons or armour. But judging by other depictions of Horus in the Roman period it seems to be especially associated with the Pharaoh/Emperor, indeed seemed to personify the Emperor as it had previously personified the Pharaoh. As such it might be a rather pretentious sword to have made unless you were the Emperor - of course, it may have been a gift or other award from the Emperor or his representative.