09GsH_Janak Egyptian Pantheon

8/2/2019 09GsH_Janak Egyptian Pantheon

1/14

0U DUGANI S MUNIIBDU

ANCIENTNEAREASTERNSTUDIES

INMEMORY OF

BLAHOSLAVHRUKA

edited by

Ludk Vacn

5Dresden 2011


2/14

U4 DU11-GA-NI S MU-NI-IB-DU11Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hrukaedited by Ludk Vacn

ISLET-Verlag Dresden

Alle Rechte vorbehaltenAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or trans-

mitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,without the permission of the publisher.

Schriftsatz und Umschlaggestaltung: Cornelia WunschHerstellung: Quickprinter OverathPrinted in Germany

ISBN 13: 978-3-9808466-6-0


3/14

vii

0TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Bibliography of Blahoslav HrukaJITKASKOROV& LUDK VACN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Blahoslav Hruka: An AppreciationJITKASKOROV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

An Excerpt from a Sumerian Myth Mentioning EnlilBENDT ALSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

On Sheep, Sumerians and the Early StatePETR CHARVT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

YOS6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame DeliveryMUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIAWUNSCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Die Keilschrifttexte der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek MnchenGERTRUD & WALTER FARBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Divination or Medicine?MARKHAMJ. GELLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

The Book of Esther: Revealing or Re-Veiling the Identity?MARKTAHOLUBOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

The Structure of the Egyptian PantheonJIJANK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Piling Up Barley Sheaves: A Study ofSU7DU8 and ZAR(3)SAL(4)KAZUYAMAEKAWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

VAT 5057: Eine fara-zeitliche KaufurkundeJOACHIM MARZAHN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Aramisches equ Holz im keilschriftlichen Brief aus Tyros und eqin deraramisch-keilschriftlichen Uruk-BeschwrungCHRISTAMLLER-KESSLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Einige neusumerische Texte aus dem Verwaltungsbereich derTextilproduktion von UmmaHANS NEUMANN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159


4/14

viii

The Official Called U.I (gallbum) in the Latter Part of the OldBabylonian PeriodLUK PECHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

The abbuttu and the Alleged Elamite Slave HairstyleDANIEL T. POTTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Mari Theomorphism: Intimation of Sacrality in the RoyalCorrespondence

JACK M. SASSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Zur Holzwirtschaft im altsumerischen LagaGEBHARDJ. SELZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

An Old Babylonian List of Objects

MARTEN

STOL

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247Gudea and Ninizida: A Ruler and His God

LUDK VACN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Die Vermittlungsaufgabe des L dU nach hethitischen QuellenRKAVELHARTICK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Der Mythos Enlil und Ninlil: Vom Schrecken des Kanalbaus durch Stadtund UnterweltANNETTE ZGOLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301


5/14

1 Research project of the Czech Ministry of Education (MSM 0021620826) and Grant Projectof the Grant Agency of the Czech Academy of Sciences. I am also very indebted to Prof. JohnBaines for his suggestion that I focus on the topic of the present article. It was presented at aFaculty of Oriental Studies of the University of Oxford seminar in May 2008.

2

Hornung (1971) and Assmann (1984). In the following footnotes I quote from John BainesEnglish translation of Erik Hornungs book (Hornung 1983).

The STrucTure of The egypTian panTheon

Jir JankCharles University,Prague

The following paper represents an outcome of two broader projects concentratingon ancient Egyptian religion and its pantheon as a system and mainly on different

levels of divine authority within that system.1

It also represents a reaction to two basicpublications dealing with similar problems and to the views and concepts of theirauthors: Erik Hornung and Jan Assmann.2 I would like to dedicate the paper to thememory of my dear colleague and friend Blahoslav Hruka. His ideas and comments,together with his support and joyful spirit were of great help to me as well as to manyof his fellow colleagues and students. I believe that their gratitude and constantfriendship is beyond any memorial volume.

In dealing with Egyptian religion, it is important to raise the question of whetherthe term pantheon can be used at all. The pantheon can be envisaged in two different

ways. It can either constitute a mere sum of all the gods put together unsystematically,or it can be viewed as an exactly structured community of gods. In general, ancientstatements about all the gods (Eg.: netjeru nebu) and modern lexicons of Egyptian godsmainly employ the word pantheon in the former sense. But this understanding, takingthe pantheon as a sum of all the gods, is probably too simplistic and unsatisfactory.

Thus, let us ask a different question: Was the concept of an exactly structuredpantheon a pantheon in which every god had a special position, function and role

present in ancient Egypt? In order to answer this question we have to look at thegods in their different characteristics, roles and allocations.

First, let us have a look at the general concept of a deity. The gods, along withthe humans and animals, represented one of the main groups of created beings. If weclassify them according to a degree of authority, as the Egyptians did (as indicated bythe survivingList of Kings, Onomastica, hymns and other sources), the gods stand at the


6/14

120 JIR JANK

3 Gardiner (1947); Derchain (1965).4 This topic is dealt with in Hornung (1971, 1983). I focus on it in detail in Jank (2009).5 Hornung (1983), 6699.6 Cf. Jank (2009).

highest level followed by the blessed dead (Eg.: akhu) and the king.3 The gods andgoddesses embodied the invisible powers controlling the forces and phenomena ofthe visible world. They also possessed dominance (Eg.: was) over lesser beings andcontrol over life (Eg.: ankh) itself.

The gods were characterized both linguistically (by their names, epithets andtitles) and visually (through their images, attributes and insignia). These two attemptsat expressing the characteristics of the divine represented the ways in which humanstried to describe the invisible and imponderable god. The Egyptians usually equippedtheir gods with a multitude of names and forms. On the one hand, a single deity couldhave many different names, titles, forms and attributes, and on the other hand, onename or image could be shared by a number of different gods or goddesses.4

A similar facility is encountered with respect to function, roles or professionalorientation of the gods. The main characteristics of a god were usually supplemented

by several related aspects. These supplementary aspects could then gain moreimportance for the god as well as shift his original function, as we can see in thefollowing three examples:

1) Thoth: moon time measuring accuracy records script textswisdom justice magic-healing;

2) Khenty-irty: sun and moon (his eyes) disappearance of those eyes blindness eye-illnesses healing blind musicians music;

3) Nefertem: lotus (symbol of sun renewal) sun birth creation lotusas a flower scent perfume oils ointments mummification re-

creationAs mentioned above, names and images of the gods demonstrate or rather depicttheir essential characteristics and functions. Thus, the names could indicate theirfeatures, qualities or abilities (Sakhmet, Mafdet, Amun), their roles and functions(Shed, Khentyimentyu, Amemait) or local affiliations (Nekhbet, Banebdjedet,Herishef). There are also names of deities representing personifications of abstractnotions, senses or powers (Maat, Sedjem, Heka) and names that are poorly understood(some of them might have been mysterious for the Egyptians themselves).5 Similarly,the images of gods display their nature and essential abilities, behaviour, activities,

mobility and movements, roles, functions, positions and possessions. In Egyptian artand iconography, the head represents the essence or the main characteristics of a(divine) person. The body usually stands for secondary characteristics or helps providethe god with attributes, insignia, etc. Hands can be used in similar function (the godsare holding staffs, sceptres, swords, etc.), however, they primarily show the personsactions and attitudes through gestures (greeting, praising, etc.). Position of the legsrefers to the persons movements.6


7/14

The Structure o f the Egyptian Pantheon 121

7 Assmann (1984).8 For the three (semantic) dimensions in Egyptian texts for reaching the afterlife see Jank (2003).9 For instance Leitz (2002).10 Wilkinson (2003).11 Cf. Hornung (1983), 21722.

In his bookgypten: Theologie und Frmmigkeit einer frhen Hochkultur, Jan Assmannvery aptly distinguished three dimensions of divine presence in which Egyptian godsrevealed themselves (cosmos, cult and myth).7 The Egyptians perceived the world,their lives and their activities in several modes (or dimensions) simultaneously. A single

religious phenomenon, divine existence or sacred event could be viewed within thenatural or cosmic dimension. It was, however, also interpreted as an event of a (divineor human) life-cycle in the mythical dimension and formed a part of systematizedaction at the ritual level. While Assmann was quite right in recognizing the threedimensions, I believe that he set them too narrowly and restricted them only to thegods. I would prefer to speak about modes of divine existence or even existence ingeneral.8 Thus, following the pattern proposed by Assmann, the gods could be charac-terized by their modes of existence, i.e., activities and manifestation. They eitheracted or manifested their power within the created world (natural presence of divine

powers, the so-called cosmic dimension) or they descended to the world of human beingsto have become objects of worship and care (the so-called cultic dimension). Theunknowable nature and secret life of the gods was described by means of names, titles,images and texts (the so-called mythical dimension).

But the main question still remains: how did the Egyptians classify their deities?We can classify or group them according to their names and titles (alphabetically orsemantically),9 or according to their appearance (which is the method used byWilkinson).10 But neither way is attested in Egyptian sources. We do not encountergroupings like all the A gods or all the ram gods. Classifications of gods and theirgroups according to their function and roles (for example, all the sun gods) are notattested either. The identification of several sun-gods Kheper-Re-Atum does notconstitute a classification but rather a description of one type of deity.

Some scholars proposed the use of a numerical or genealogical system (dyads,triads, , ogdoads and enneads) when dealing with classifications and groupings ofEgyptian gods.11 It is true that such groups existed within the Egyptian religioussystem and were popular. However, they often represented individual, independentgroups (small, locally based units) within the Egyptian pantheon. Thus, although theEgyptians used a numerical grouping on a local level, they generally did not use it toclassify their gods in a country-wide pantheon.

The only exception relates to the use of the termpesedjet (the Ennead). Already thePyramid Texts contain multiple groupings of Enneads (Ennead, Two Enneads,Enneads, All Enneads) within the Egyptian pantheon. According to some scholarsthe concept of the Ennead represented a community, or rather a corporation, of gods


8/14

122 JIR JANK

12 Brunner (1982).13 Hornung (1983), 22122.14

Cf. Baines (1995).15 Assmann (1984).

regardless of their exact number.12 The Egyptian pantheon would thus (at the statelevel) consist of locally based or affiliated groups of gods or small-scale pantheons.Some Egyptologists even find the earliest attestation of such a corporation of all thegods in the term khet (body, corporation).13

The Egyptian view of created cosmos worked with three vertical spheres, theearth, the sky and the underworld. Yet the word sphere does not fit to the underworldvery well, since it often constitutes a region or area within the sky or the earth. Inaddition to these spheres, Egyptian religion also recognized three horizontal cosmo-graphical spheres reflecting the aspects of the created world and its order within acity, the unified land of Egypt and the cosmos as a whole.

In our interpretation of ancient Egyptian religion and its structure we must care-fully take into account the two basic categories of beings, i.e., the gods and the people,a sub-category, i.e., the blessed dead, and especially their intermediary, i.e., the king.

The fundamental duty of all the divine, royal and non-royal persons was to respectand maintain the order of the created world, known to the Egyptians as the maat, andto prevent it from collapsing. The king was the key figure in this matter, because hispower and responsibility involved both the divine and human spheres of the world.14

The level of his authority and influence (i.e., the Egyptian state) encompassed the sub-levels (the cities) and was mirroring, or even determining the sphere of the wholecosmos. Some scholars understand the ancient Egyptian religion as an organizedmaintenance of the maat.15

Yet the ancient Egyptian religion as a whole must be considered as a ratherlocally based system of cults, united under the authority of the state within a unifiedtheological and ideological pattern. The basic units in the horizontal cosmographicaland social structure of the world (family, city, state and cosmos) represented the maincentres of Egyptian concepts of authority and responsibility. All categories of beings(the gods, the living and dead humans and the king) were envisaged diversely in eachof them. A man held different positions in his various roles, as a father, citizen, subjector a human being. Moreover, the roles and characteristics of a single deity could bedifferent in his/her city, within the state cult and in the scope of the whole cosmos.

The Egyptians themselves attest to this form of horizontal geopolitical classifi-cation within the pantheon. Several texts document classifications and allocations of

gods according to their cosmic affiliation from the Old Kingdom onwards. For instancethe Pyramid Texts, the Coffin Textsand later the Book of the Deadrefer to the gods ofheaven and the gods of earth (later the gods of underworld were added) and to thegods (or bau) of the North, South, East and West. Such a classification, however, in-volved the entirety of the gods and provides no evidence of the internal structure ofa pantheon.


9/14


Miscellaneous texts also present other types of classifications that might be ofmore value to us. These classify gods according to administrative and political divisionsof the state. Thus, they refer to the gods of Upper Egypt and the gods of Lower Egypt,to the gods (or bau and akhu) of important Egyptian cities (Buto, Hierakonpolis,

Heliopolis and Hermopolis). We can also encounter different deities representingindividual nomes, cities, areas and localities. Some royal rituals even involved somesort of state council or congress of all the chief local gods. A very special position wasalso held by the god of the city (Eg.: niuty). The chief city deities (they could have dif-fered from city to city) represented the highest authority within their cities, areas andnomes, and were considered to be the proprietors of their cities. The high status andimportance of those gods and of that concept itself is attested in various textual sourcesand reflected in the Greek names of Egyptian cities usually modelled upon the majorcity gods Greek name, function or form: Sun-city, Vulture-city, Crocodile-city,

Hermes city, etc.Alongside the above-mentioned vertical division into three independent cosmicspheres we encounter three independent but interconnected horizontal units in theEgyptian view of cosmos and society: family and city state and official administra-tion world and pantheon. The concept and structure of these units embraced andreflected the same notions of the world and existence.

The Egyptian state consisted of separate cities or areas representing the basicunits not only within the state economy and administration but also within thestructure of the Egyptian pantheon. Thus, a country-wide pantheon consisted ofrespective local gods or even small pantheons (partial or locally based pantheons) butthese smaller units were not strictly unifiedunder the authority of the state, becausethey did not lose their own value and individuality. They were rather united.

Moreover, these spheres of the city, state and cosmos were closely interconnectedand individual local cults (or rather locally based cults and small pantheons) could belinked to other cults, or encompass gods worshipped at the country-wide or state level.However, they were separate and have to be dealt with as such. Thus, while a singledeity could have a distinct role and position in the respective cities, he or she couldbe viewed in an entirely different way in the state pantheon. It has to be stressed thatwe do not deal with the so-called cultic-homes or original places of worship here but

rather with a kind of local affiliation or distribution.At the state level, where the partial pantheons were united (being neither unified

nor uniform), individual gods both manifested certain phenomena and acted asrepresentatives of their cities. Hence, they kept some of their locally based roles,functions and titles, though their general significance might have been modified andthey could have been integrated into new relations in different roles. If Ptah, Thothor Khnum, for instance, were considered the heads of local pantheons and evencreator-gods, their positions in the country-wide pantheon could be either lower(Thoth as a vizier or a scribe, Khnum as a maker of beings) or at least not exclusive.


10/14

124 JIR JANK

16 For instance theBook of the Celestial Cow. Cf. Hornung (1982).

As a sum of all the gods the country-wide or all-state pantheon encompassed allthe deities worshipped throughout Egypt, even those who did not belong to any localpantheon (e.g., Bes) as well as some foreign gods. Therefore, its formal structure musthave been flexible enough in order to both embrace different concepts and gods and

to emphasize the unifying elements and general aims within the religious system andideology. If we examine it closely, we indeed do not find exactly structured societiesof gods where every member has a special position and clearly defined, permanentstatus.

Some narrative descriptions of the pantheon and its internal relations are attestedfrom the time of the late New Kingdom onwards (such as in the Contending of Horusand Seth, theBook of the Celestial Cow, the Story of Osiris, theMemphite Theology, textsfrom Ptolemaic temples, etc.). However, they vary in their views since they stem fromdifferent traditions and reflect different purposes and usages. Thus on a general scale,

the Egyptian country-wide pantheon was not arranged according to specific namesbut rather to general divine types, roles and functions, and instead of the particulargods it dealt with special categories with prescribed values and relationships. Forexample, the sun as a male god could represent a son and a partner of a sky-goddess(regardless of their names) and their offspring would have been the reborn sun, a

youth-god representing the new creation and the king.In this system, every Egyptian god had more than one function or role and a

single role was played by more than one deity. Thus, the gods could meet variousdeities in different aspects of their own divinity, even though originally they may havehad a contrasting nature. On the one hand, several female deities (e.g., Nut, Isis,Hathor, Sakhmet, Tefnut, Bastet, Pakhet) could be considered goddesses of the sky,sunshine, East, motherhood, etc. There are texts and visual representations takingtwo or more of these deities as manifestations of a single being.16 On the other hand,one of those goddesses (Hathor) could embody or represent different aspects of thenatural world (sky mother of the sun sunshine underworld horizons mountains desert minerals flame passion love war charm music,etc.). Thus in the course of time due to natural, cultural, or local adaptations theprofessional orientation of deities could be modified. The Egyptian view of Sethchanged even more dramatically. From a New Kingdom divine protector of the sun-

god against Apep, the champion of chaos and evil, he became an ally or manifestationof Apep himself in the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods.

The phenomena of evolving orientation and suppressing local varieties under auniform unity enabled the gods to be connected, identified or joined within thepantheon without necessarily losing their original, independent nature. Indeed, theresult was quite the opposite: the gods gained more power and acquired new divineaspects. This was shown mainly through their new forms, attributes and titles. In some


11/14


17 This view is based mainly on the occurrence of specific titles and on depictions of deities wearingroyal insignia. Although the concept of the ruler of the pantheon might well have been

introduced quite early, the principles of royal ideology were used to describe divine roles in thepantheon only from the Middle and New Kingdom onwards.

cases, two or more gods were united into a new syncretistic deity that represented anew and more powerful (or more universal) entity. The Egyptian religious systemitself (at the state level) was special in its ability to unite (not unify) independenttraditions, concepts and different gods or even pantheons without diminishing their

autonomy. Thus, we can find several distinct religious concepts and different versionsof the creation myth in one temple or within a single text. Similar features can beobserved in the use of exclusive titles (the Lord of , the Great god, etc.) for differentgods. This motif is usually connected with the so-called henotheism but in some casesit rather reflects Egyptian ability to view independent spheres or levels of cosmos,state or cults separately. The country-wide pantheon and the religion as a whole seemsto have been structured more like a federation with a degree of tolerance to locally-based diversities rather than authoritatively and exclusively. Bearing this concept inmind, we can suppose that Akhenatens disregard for all the gods except for Aten was

also linked to the intention to disregard all (local) levels of authority except for thestate and the king.If we outline the layout of the pantheon as explained above now, what could its

inner structure and hierarchy look like? Already in Old Kingdom texts we find godswith titles ofNeb(Lord) orNebet (Mistress) dominating a specific cosmic sphere, an areaof the world or a natural phenomenon (Neb pet; Neb Abdju,Neb maat). Those deities,however, represented only partial (independent but limited) authority as their domi-nance was linked only to a single sphere or phenomenon. Until the late New Kingdomthe internal relations within the pantheon(s) did not take a specific form (e.g., of theroyal court) with different ranks or offices but usually reflected simple relations aswith a family. Thus, the gods were considered fathers, mothers or offspring and thegenealogy constituted one way of classifying the gods hierarchically. But this classifi-cation was explicitly applied mainly to the partial pantheons.

Although it has often been stated that the idea of kingship among the gods hadbeen introduced in the Middle Kingdom and became popular during the late NewKingdom,17 some Old Kingdom texts (appeals to the living, letters to the dead or thePyramid Texts) give evidence in favour of a concept of a single dominant authoritywithin the country-wide pantheon. ThePyramid Textsuse the phrase king of the gods(nisut netjeru, Pyramid Texts 814, 1458) to denote the resurrected king or the god

Horus. However, a more common term used to denote the dominant individualwithin the society was the bull (the Bull of the Ennead Pyramid Texts 511, 717,1238; the Bull of Two Enneads Pyramid Texts 2105, 2248; the Bull of the Sky Pyramid Texts 280, 283, 293, 332). It represented the transfigured king in his role of


12/14

126 JIR JANK

18 Cf. Baines (1983), Hornung (1983), 114.19 Assmann (1984).

the ruler (or dominant authority) of the sky and of all the gods. A similar divine roleand position was denoted by the phrase netjer aa (Great or the Greatest god). In lateOld Kingdom texts this term (more an epithet than a title) indicated the greatestauthority of the divine world that had the power to rule, judge and maintain the maat

order. In this period, the term netjer aa probably referred to the sun-god as the creator,or to the resurrected king playing the role of the creator.18 Therefore, I believe thatthe concept of the ruler of all the gods was already present in Egyptian religion duringthe Old Kingdom. This divine entity represented the head of the country-widepantheon at the universal level, uniting respective sub-pantheons and their leaders.Different titles or epithets are attested for divine authority, varying with respect tothe specific sociopolitical level (ruler of cosmos netjer aa; king of the state netjernefer; city god netjer niuty; personal god netjer).

Several gods (sub-pantheon chief deities) began to be considered netjeru aau or

nebuXand were depicted with royal insignia. The ultimate head of the country-widepantheon, on the other hand, was endowed with power that went beyond the worldof the gods and encompassed the authority and responsibilities connected with thelesser spheres of the state and the city in the world of the living. Jan Assmann evenspeaks about the transcendent god.19

In conclusion we can say that there were two major and distinct levels within theEgyptian pantheon. One concerns small, self-contained, locally-based pantheons orpantheon units and the other consists of the sum of these pantheons at the country-wide level and involves also some unassigned gods. Although these two levels werequite independent, they were still interconnected. They coexisted in an inseparableand yet distinguishable way. Similarly, as for the respective gods we should differen-tiate the locally-based roles and meanings from the country-wide ones. With respectto the inner structure, partial pantheons seem to have been more specific whereasthe country-wide Egyptian pantheon must have been more flexible, general andstandardized (divine types). Internal relations, relationships and hierarchy at bothlevels seem to have concerned mainly family relations and genealogy. I also believethat in the time of the Old Kingdom there existed a concept of the chief god as thehead of the country-wide pantheon mirroring the status of the earthly king. However,the notion of an actual kingship among the gods was introduced only during the

Middle Kingdom when concepts and ideas connected with royal ideology penetratedthe world of the gods and the non-royal, private sphere.


13/14


BiBliography

Assmann, Jan

1984 gypten: Theologie und Frmmig kei t einer frhen Hochkultur, Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne/Mainz: Kohlhammer.

Baines, John

1983 Greatest God or Category of Gods?, Gttinger Miszellen 67, 1328.

1995 Kingship, Definition of Culture and Legitimation, in David OConnor/David P.Silverman (eds.),Ancient Egyp tian Kingship, Leiden/New York/Cologne: E. J. Brill.

Brunner, Hellmut

1982 Neunheit,Lexiko n der gyptologie 4, 47379.

Derchain, Philipe

1965 Le Papyrus Salt 825 (BM 10051), Brussels: Palais des Acadmies.

Gardiner, Alan H.1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hornung, Erik

1971 Der Eine und die vielen: g yptische Gottesv orstellungen, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-sellschaft.

1982 Der gyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh: Eine tiologie des Unvollkommenen, OBO 46,Fribourg/Gttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

1983 Conceptions of God in Ancient Egyp t: The One and the Many, London: Routledge and KeaganPaul.

Jank, Ji

2003 From Dusk till Dawn,ArOr71, 112.2009 Staroeg yp tsk nboenstv I: Bo hov na zemi a v nebesch (Ancient E gyp tian Religion I: Gods on

Earth and in Heav en), Prague: OIKOYMENH.

Leitz, Christian et al. (Hrsg.)

2002 Lexikon der gyptischen Gtter und Gtterb ezeichnungen , 7 Bde., OLA 110116, Louvain:Peeters.

Wilkinson, Richard H.

2003 The Complete Gods and Go ddesses of Ancient Egypt, London: Thames and Hudson.


14/14

09GsH_Janak Egyptian Pantheon

Documents

Transcript of 09GsH_Janak Egyptian Pantheon