Notes on Kingship and the Image of God in Ancient Egypt

Kingship and the Image of God in Ancient Egypt

  • Central premise: kingship is an ancient Egyptian institution inseparably linked to the gods; the king’s authority is ultimately derived from divine sanction. The lecture traces how this ideology develops from earliest times to the Greco-Roman period.
  • Availability of sources: references to translations and texts on screen; slides PDF may be available on the ILN site for further study.

Origins and evolution of kingship

  • Kingship in ancient Egypt is inseparable from divine sanction from the outset.
    • Example: Hatshepsut’s Speos Artemidos text condemns Hyksos rule as illegitimate because they ruled without Ra.
  • The relationship between the king and the gods, especially the sun god Ra, evolves slowly over time but changes nonetheless.
  • Chronology goal: follow the development from the very early periods to the Greco-Roman era.
  • Prehistoric kingship: likely long-preceding dynastic records, but no direct information for interpretation.
  • Earliest Egyptian king lists begin with Minis (often identified with Aja), possibly son of Naama.
    • Wilkinson’s work on Naama and the early dynastic period (kingship, including a chapter on kingship).
  • Why information is sparse for pre-Min Dynasty: records begin with Naama and Horus Aja; annals begin to be kept on ivory/wood plaques.
  • Palermo Stone and later annals: Palermo stone as a later compilation from earlier records; shows how later Egyptians imagined earlier rulers.
  • Turin Canon (Royal Canon) as a key source for historic kingship:
    • Beginning of the papyrus is lost; preserved sections are fragmentary.
    • Initial rulers named are gods: Osiris, followed by Seth, Horus, Thoth, Ma’at.
    • After these, Menes is listed, followed by the group called the “spirits, followers of Horus,” likely the prehistoric rulers.
  • Core implication: kingship is tied to divine genealogy; historic kings are seen as successors of the gods.

Divine embodiment and kingship in art and titulary (early periods)

  • From the earliest historical period, pharaohs are depicted with divine attributes:
    • Deities commonly shown in animal form; over time, gods depicted in human form begin to appear.
  • Kings depicted in animal form suggest the “luminous” power attached to the king; the king also bears animal attributes.
  • The Horus connection is central:
    • The king’s titulary often includes a Horus-name written in a serech (palace facade with a falcon on top).
    • This indicates the king as earthly embodiment of Horus, the heavenly Horus ruler.
  • Examples: Llama Palette shows kings depicted as a wild bull and as a smiting king; the falcon above the kneeling enemy points to Horus’s presence.
  • The Jer comb (ivory) shows the same Horus-king juxtaposition; the king often shown with an animal tail, symbolizing the luminous power.
  • Two Horuses on a single monument may reflect the heavenly Horus (in the heavens) and the earthly Horus (the king on earth).
  • Interpretive model: earthly king as bodily incarnation of the heavenly king; god present in the king so he can act on earth.
  • The Horus-based conception persists across dynasties into the Greco-Roman period (Horus and Horus-name features remain relevant).

The Horus–Seth interlude and later developments

  • Late Second Dynasty: Per Ibsen adopts Seth as a divine embodiment in his serech; this is a brief divergence before reverting to Horus.
  • The “Horus-Seth” pairing appears again in the titles of later kings (e.g., a king’s serech may include both Horus and Seth for a period).
  • Despite this, the general pattern after the early period is a return to Horus as primary earthly embodiment.
  • In the Old Kingdom, the emergence of the “son of Ra” designation marks a shift in how the king is related to the sun god.

The Old Kingdom: Son of Ra and the sun cult

  • Fourth Dynasty marks a major change: the king’s titulary includes the designation “son of Ra” (sa-rʿ) initiated by Pepi II? (commonly Hefren is cited as first to use it).
    • This designation is written inside the king’s birth-name cartouche during the Old Kingdom.
  • Pyramids and sun temples: the classical pyramids are linked to Ra’s sun cult; Benben stone in Heliopolis is connected to the sun god.
  • Fifth Dynasty: rise of dedicated sun temples; solar cult grows while the king still links to Ra; but the cult centers separate: the king’s temple is distinct from Ra’s temple.
  • Theories about sun temples and pyramid relationships:
    • Stadelmann’s view: sun temples reflect a change in the solar cult; pyramids served as both royal tombs and sun temples for the king.
    • Gurdeka’s view: possible spatial relationship between Giza pyramids and Heliopolis (rising sun on the east bank vs setting sun on the west bank); this suggests a cosmological map linking political power to solar cult geography.
  • Old Kingdom to Fifth Dynasty transition: the sun cult’s prominence grows; the king’s sun affiliation strengthens his legitimacy.
  • Westcar Papyrus (Old Kingdom): tale of the birth of the first three kings of the Fifth Dynasty as sons of Ra, born by the wife of Ra’s priest; earliest explicit myth of the god-king birth.
  • Import of the “son of Ra” designation:
    • It highlights legitimacy through the sun god’s heavenly authority.
    • It also signals a potential decline in the king’s autonomous power, as the god’s role grows more direct.

From the Middle Kingdom onward: the “image of God” and new titulature

  • Introduction of a new designation in the Middle Kingdom: the king is called the “image of God” (henti image) or the notion of the king as God’s image becomes dominant.
  • This does not replace the fivefold titulary (ren, wꜥr, etc.) but becomes so frequent it’s treated as a de facto title.
  • The two terms for “image” that we focus on are tutu and henti.
  • The talk promises two detailed explorations of tutu and henti (etymology, use, significance) because these terms help explain the king’s role as image of the god.

Two key terms for the king as image of the god: Tutu and Henti

  • Tutu (image; “similitude”): etymology and usage
    • Derived from verbal root tut: “to be similar”; tutu = “similitude”.
    • Attested from the Old Kingdom onward.
    • Applies to royal statues in temples; tomb statues of non-royals; carries over to processions of provincial governors; used for statue cults and in various contexts (e.g., Merikare’s or Nebawi’s passages).
    • Examples: Tutankhamun or Amenhotep II: priests use tutu to refer to statues, linking the statue to the living king.
    • In some inscriptions, tutu is used in parallel with henti, indicating the same statue.
  • Henti (often written with a predicate determinative showing a processional statue with a scepter): etymology and use
    • The hieroglyph for henti uses a hand holding a paddle; linked to the verb heni “to row, convey by water” and the noun henet (processional statue/nominal form).
    • From first intermediate period: henti statues appear in tombs and inscriptions; they are carried in processions (e.g., Siut inscriptions; Hatnub quarry inscriptions).
    • From the Middle Kingdom onward: henti designates royal statues set up in temples; in New Kingdom, henti statues are dragged on a sledge in processions.
    • Three attributes of henti statues:
    • Associated with public processions.
    • They partake of offerings and are honored in processions.
    • They can be connected to a journey or pilgrimage (e.g., journeys to quarries or temples) and are depicted with offerings in front of them.
    • Some henti statues could not be physically carried; nevertheless, they were integrated into procession contexts (e.g., Ramesses II’s colossal Luxor Ramesses II statues in the Temple of Amun).
  • Relationship between tutu and henti
    • Both terms can refer to the same statue; climactic parallelism in inscriptions shows the interplay between general image (tutu) and public, processional, offering-bearing image (henti).
    • One inscription: Nebawi says “tutu of his father” and “henti of millions of years” referring to the same statue.
    • In some contexts, henti is used specifically for processional or temple-placed statues, while tutu is a general term for image; however, the two terms can designate the same statue in different literary devices.
  • Summary: tutu = general image (similitude); henti = processional/public statue (with offerings); both refer to the same statue in many cases and together express the king’s image on earth.

The role and significance of statues in Egyptian belief

  • Statues are not mere representations; they are living, functional receptacles of the ka (life force).
    • The ka separates at death; ritual aims to rejoin ka with the body.
    • The statue can serve as a substitute for the person, a locus where the ka can reside and be worshipped.
  • Notable statements about statues and offerings:
    • Tuthmosis III: “Honor my statues as a reward for the monuments which I have made; provide the offerings that come forth; clothe my statues with linen; furnish vegetables, roast meats, and cattle as I have provided for the temples.”
    • This shows the statue’s equivalent status to the king himself in offerings and honors.
  • Non-royal statues can also be described as tutu or henti; the same logic applies to officials (e.g., Amenhotep, vizier Uzzah, and Echu Osiris) who request offerings for their statues posthumously.
  • In practice, a monument could become a substitute for the person (a state of ritual life after death through the statue).
  • Sculptor’s role: the Egyptian term for sculptor is se'anh – “ones who cause to live” – underscoring the statue as a living thing inhabited by the owner’s ka.

Statues as a presence across the empire and in foreign lands

  • Statues could “go” to foreign lands to symbolize the king’s presence where the king himself was not.
    • Example: Merikare’s suggestion to send tutu/henti statues abroad; potential Punt example (Hatshepsut’s statues or Amun’s statues set up in Punt).
    • Ramesses II’s statue in Syria/Northern Thebes and in Nubia: statues granted the king’s presence in distant lands.
  • A relief from Penut (Aniba, Nubia) shows the king’s presence as a statue: the king’s substitute body (his statue) rests before Penut while a viceroy performs the reward in the king’s name.
  • The Nubian cult of the king’s statue (ka) becomes central in Nubia; dedicatory stelae show how officials petition the king via his divine statue for help.
  • An example: Rahhotep, vizier, petitions the king’s statue for life, prosperity, health, etc.; the king’s statue receives offerings on his behalf.
  • Conclusion: statues function as substitute bodies through which the divine power of the king (and the god’s own power) can be appealed to by people on earth.

The king as image of the god: which gods and what this implies

  • The king is designated as tutu or henti of several solar deities, especially the sun god Ra and other forms of the sun god (Amun-Ra, Atum, Hepri, Akti).
  • The living image formulation is typically described as: the king is the living image of the sun god on earth, sometimes qualified as the living image on earth, or living image of Ra/Amun-Ra, etc.
  • The king’s role as image on earth: to rule the land just as the god would rule, performing the god’s will on earth and maintaining Maʿat (order).
  • Foundational scriptural support:
    • Merikare’s teaching: the sun god created rulers in the egg to uphold the weak.
    • Neferhotep (17th/13th dynasty) stele: Ra appointed you as his image to rescue the shipwrecked; linking divine mandate to kingly action.
    • Amenhotep III’s memorial temple inscription (Amenhotep IV’s era shows a shift): the god Amundra Khamutef charges the king to rule in peace with a loving heart, as the son who has come forth from my limbs.
  • The king’s authority on earth is the god’s authority, but it has limits: it exists to maintain Maʿat and to protect the vulnerable.
  • The