sign in sign up
<<
Home , Amun, Aten, Four sons of Horus, Hapi (Son of Horus), Ihy, Min (god)

ANTHROPOMORPHIC اآللھة المجسمة

Richard H. Wilkinson

EDITORS

WILLEKE WENDRICH Editor-in-Chief University of California Los Angeles

JACCO DIELEMAN Editor Area Editor Religion University of California Los Angeles

ELIZABETH FROOD Editor Oxford University

JOHN BAINES Senior Editorial Consultant Oxford University

Short Citation: Wilkinson, 2008, Anthropomorphic Deities. UEE.

Full Citation: Wilkinson, Richard H. 2008, Anthropomorphic Deities. In Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of , Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000rz52f

1003 Version 1, April 2008 http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000rz52f

ANTHROPOMORPHIC DEITIES اآللھة المجسمة

Richard H. Wilkinson

Anthropomorphe Götter Dieux anthropomorphes

The ancient visualized their deities in many ways, and while anthropomorphic and represented only one of the major forms that deities took in ancient Egyptian culture, the sub-category was broad and encompassed several different types. Although they all shared the common characteristic of exhibiting primarily anthropomorphic identity in their iconographic form and mythological behavior, deities of this class might take fully human, hybrid (“bimorphic”), or composite form. They could include deifications of abstract ideas and non-living things, as well as deified humans—living, deceased, or legendary (such as ). While a category of “anthropomorphic deities” was not one that the Egyptians themselves differentiated, deities of this type included many of ’s greatest gods and goddesses, and the anthropomorphic form was used more than any other to depict the interactions of humans and the gods in religious iconography. تصور المصريون القدماء آلھتھم بأشكال عديدة ومع أن اآللھة المجسمة ّتمثل شكال واحدا فقط من األشكال الرئيسية التي اتخذتھا اآللھة في ھذه الثقافة فإن ھذه الفئة عريضة وتشمل عدة أنواع مختلفة. فبالرغم من أن اآللھة في ھذه الفئة متشابھة في إظھار ھوية أساسھا مجسم في شكلھا األيقوني وفي سلوكھا الميثولوجي فھي قد تأخذ شكل آدمي أو شكل مزدوج أو شكل ّمركب. وقد تشمل الفئة تأليه األفكار التجريدية واألشياء الغير الحية باإلضافة إلى البشر المؤله من األسطوريين والميتين واألحياء. وفي حين أن المصريين لم ّيفرقوا بين اآللھة المجسمة وغيرھم من اآللھة فإن ھذه الفئة كانت من أھم اآللھة في مصر القديمة وكان الشكل المجسم مستخدم أكثر من أي شكل آخر في األيقنة الدينية لتوضيح التفاعل بين البشر واآللھة.

he visualization of deities in . Thus, both male and female (Hassan Egyptian culture was manifold and 1992) anthropomorphic deities seem to have T could include a great many played a role in Egyptian religious thought different forms ranging from strictly human, to before the establishment of the earliest known hybrid (or “bimorphic”) and composite dynasties, though many clearly originated in the varieties. Dynastic Period (fig. 1). It has been suggested that this “anthropomorphization of powers” Development and Iconography was associated with a fundamental change in Deities manifested in fully human form appear human perception of the world occurring at a fairly early date. Decorated vases from the between the time when Predynastic kings still Naqada II Period (c. 4000 - 3300 BCE) display had animal names and a time in which humans a number of apparent divine emblems including began to impose their own identity upon the two that have been connected with cosmos (Hornung 1982: 105 - 107; Morenz anthropomorphic deities worshipped in the 1973: 19 - 20). Pharaonic Period: the and the

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 1

product of a compromise between anthropomorphic thought aimed at abstraction and the appearances of natural forces” (Traunecker 2001: 46). Technically, one might argue that representations of goddesses with wings (, , etc.) are hybrid forms, though these are usually classified as fully anthropomorphic (fig. 2).

Figure 1. of Menkaura, , Figure 2. Winged goddess, Tomb of , Valley . A possible connection between the relatively of the Kings. Depictions of anthropomorphic late rise of many anthropomorphic deities— goddesses with wings are really a form of the hybrid primarily in the Dynastic Period—and the position type, but are usually classified as purely of the human king cannot be ignored. The anthropomorphic, as this attribute is only shown in association of monarchs and deities is clear from as some cases. early as the Old Kingdom.

“Hybrid,” or perhaps more accurately Composite deities differed from the hybrid or “bimorphic” (half-human, half-animal), deities bimorphic forms in that they embodied a could have the head of either a human or an combination of several deities or parts thereof, animal and the body of the opposite type. The rather than an individual god in a particular head is consistently the essential element of guise. They could thus be made up of bimorphic deities (Fischer 1987). Such deities numerous anthropomorphic or zoomorphic are only partly anthropomorphic in nature as deities and include, in the former case, beings well as in form, however, and are not central to such as multiple-headed and many-armed the focus of this survey. They were “. . . the deities that may have incorporated a

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 2

combination of as many as a dozen different anthropomorphically in her earliest gods. Yet despite their bizarre appearances, representations) was depicted as a , a there remains a degree of logic to many of these bird, a scorpion, or other creature, based on her polymorphic deities. This is perhaps most particularly rich mythology. When individual obvious in zoomorphic examples such as the gods or goddesses were depicted in multiple fearsome and the more benign Tawaret, forms, the various forms often reflected the which were both part hippopotamus, , original nature of the deity (for example, and , but fused to very different effect. It , who could be represented as a cow, as also seems probable that fused a woman with the head of a cow, or as a anthropomorphic deities of this type shared woman with a face of mixed human and bovine some connection or suggested a specific kind of features). It was also theoretically possible for divine identity to the ancient Egyptians, though all deities to be depicted in human form—at the connections may not be clear to us today. least from the New Kingdom—and Syncretized deities such as -Horakhty, - representations of groups of Sokar-, and -Ra may also be anthropomorphically depicted gods (including classified as deities of this type, though they are such traditionally zoomorphic or hybrid deities usually viewed as one deity simply residing as ) do occur, for example, in some within another, and their iconography may temple settings. stress the characteristics and attributes of only one of the component deities (Bonnet The Nature of Anthropomorphic Deities 1939/1999; Hornung 1982: 91 - 99). Despite the prevalence of zoomorphic deities in Egyptian thought and the fact that these forms appear to have represented the earliest of Egypt’s , anthropomorphic gods and goddesses were of great importance and embraced a greater number of deities than any other form in developed Egyptian religion. The fluid manner in which anthropomorphic deities were represented in different forms argues against the notion that the human-formed gods were viewed as more important, yet they were nevertheless of fundamental significance in terms of the developed concept of deity itself. Figure 3. Four sons of in fully It is perhaps not coincidental that anthropomorphic form, Tomb of Aye, West Valley. anthropomorphic forms were routinely utilized Even where strong representational traditions were for the generic representation of “god” or established, variation occurs in the form in which “gods” from the Old Kingdom onward deities were portrayed. This may be seen in deities (Hornung 1982: 40), and representations of such as the —with zoomorphic —which suggest the totality of the gods identities for three of the four usually, but not by their nature and numerical significance— always, utilized in the New Kingdom. most frequently depict gods anthropomorphically (fig. 4). Deities of this While a rigidly fixed iconography for a given type included many of Egypt’s greatest gods god was uncommon (fig. 3), and many deities and goddesses and the anthropomorphic form appeared in several guises, deities with primary was that in which deities were most frequently anthropomorphic identities (usually those depicted in their interactions with humans in deities whose earliest representations are religious iconography. anthropomorphic) are less frequently depicted in other forms, though exceptions occur. As time progressed, the goddess Isis (depicted

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 3

Figure 4. Deities of the Solar Barque, Gilded Shrine Figure 6. Personified estates bearing offerings, of , Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Temple of Ramesses II, Abydos. The generic nature Representations of enneads commonly utilize of some anthropomorphic deities—such as anthropomorphic depictions of deities in generic personifications of geographic regions, estates, form where the individual deities are identified only temples, etc.—meant that they were often only by name labels. identified by name.

The preponderance of deities of anthropomorphic form may also have historical implications. Although there were numerous reasons why the nature of religion was inimical to Egyptian religious orthodoxy, the fact that the greatest of Egypt’s established deities were anthropomorphic, or portrayed as at least partly so in developed Egyptian religion, may have made it less likely that the non- anthropomorphic nature of the would have been widely accepted as a supreme deity. It is certainly clear that the anthropomorphic deities of other ancient Near Eastern cultures were readily absorbed into Egyptian religion, whereas non-anthropomorphic foreign deities usually were not. In many cases, the anthropomorphic form was applied to deities whose original identities and roles were abstract or not easily symbolized in the natural world (fig. 5). Thus the so-called “cosmic” gods and goddesses of the heavens and earth such as , god of the or light, and , goddess of the , were generally anthropomorphic in form, as were “geographic” deities, i.e., deities representing Figure 5. Statue of Amun, Dynasty 18, specific topographical and geographic features Museum. Many anthropomorphic deities, such as or areas such as mountains, cities, estates, and Amun, god of and “hiddenness,” personify temples (fig. 6). Though in some cases abstract aspects of reality that were difficult to attributes—such as blue skin for the marsh personify in zoomorphic form. gods and for , god of the inundation—might be given to these deities,

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 4

they are often only identified iconographically different names and epithets suggesting by their names. Fecundity figures representing multiple identities. Some, such as the deity personifications of aspects of non-sexual Neferhotep, clearly fulfilled several distinct fertility (Baines 1984) are minor deities of this roles, sometimes without exhibiting any single type. Other deities—some of them very ancient, identity that could be said to be clearly such as the fertility god Min—do not fit “primary” (Hassan 1998; Silverman 1991: 23). precisely within these general categories but Generally, and often as a result of the fusion of were also usually manifested in human form. In multiple deities, the greater the god or goddess, addition, this category includes elevated humans the wider the range of associations and such as deified living kings, deceased kings— identities the deity might have (fig. 7). and to some extent their royal kas (Bell 1985: 256ff.; Frankfort 1948b: 74 and passim; Human Characteristics Silverman 1991: 58 - 74)—as well as some other Not only were deities perceived as taking notable individuals (Wildung 1977). human forms, but they were also imagined to take on human roles, characteristics, and behavior. The Memphite , which describes the god Ptah (fig. 8) as creating with his heart and his tongue (i.e., through deliberative thought and executive speech), underscores the essentially anthropomorphic nature of the god’s actions at even the most transcendent level. Like their human subjects, gods were said to speak, to hear, and to perceive smells and tastes. They could eat and drink (sometimes to excess), they could work, fight, lust, laugh, and cry out in despair. Anthropomorphic deities were clearly viewed as having human needs, and this was, of course, the basis of many aspects of their cults (Teeter 2001). They could also interact well or poorly and could express anger, shame, and humor— sometimes exhibiting distinctive personality traits as part of their identities. The “humanness” of anthropomorphic deities also embraced human social structures: the social relationships inherent in human pairs and family groups were just as much a part of the divine as the human sphere. As time progressed, many of the cults of the major Figure 7. Figure of Isis, Tomb of deities were organized into triads (te Velde Amunhorkhepeshef, . The 1971) of a “father,” “mother,” and “son”— somewhat fluid nature of the identities of Isis and such as that of Amun, , and Khons at Hathor, which were often blurred both in terms of Thebes (fig. 9), or Ptah, Sakhmet, and their iconographies and their titles and epithets, is at Memphis—and “child deities” such as Horus not uncommon among anthropomorphic deities. the child and were also independently venerated, especially in the first millennium The essential identity of many (Budde et al. 2003; Sandri 2006). Many deities anthropomorphically depicted deities can be were also organized into generational groups, difficult to ascertain, however. A number of and a great deal of Egyptian religious thought important gods and goddesses were given

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 5

Figure 8. The god Ptah, Tomb of , Valley Figure 9. Statue of the presentation of a triad of of the Kings. The fact that the creative Amun, Mut, and Khons, Egyptian Museum, Cairo. accomplishments of Ptah were effected by means of The of Amun, Mut, and Khons deliberative thought and executive speech exemplifies the familial and generational underscores the essentially anthropomorphic nature relationships found in many groupings of of that god’s divine role according to the Memphite anthropomorphic deities. Theology. was developed within the parameters of these limit the gods’ power in other settings.Indeed a familial structures. wide range of roles and powers is particularly associated with anthropomorphic deities, as The anthropomorphic deities of the Egyptian noted above. also reflected non-kinship societal relationships. Just as the Egyptians were ruled Ultimately, the very categorization of by a king, so there was also a “king of the Egyptian deities as “anthropomorphic” must be gods.” Although Ra (or Amun-Ra) was usually mediated through an understanding of the given this epithet, the god Osiris could be said multiple ways in which these deities could be to fulfill this role in terms of the realm envisioned and depicted, as well as the divine and Ptah was often said to be “King of roles and associations that were shared by Heaven.” Several deities were given monarchial deities of different forms. The category was, attributes (fig. 10). Likewise, the essential roles after all, not one that the Egyptians used of some deities (for example, the , themselves. Yet the importance of this type of and the warrior) reflected aspects of deity in understanding Egyptian religion is not human society. Although such roles bound the only found in the development of humanity’s respective deities to specific mythological view of itself and its gods that seems to have situations, they were not exclusive and did not occurred in the earliest stages of Egyptian

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 6

history (the “anthropomorphization of powers”), but perhaps also in the underlying possibility that at some level the ancient Egyptians may have felt an increasing identification with their anthropomorphic gods—especially in periods of Egyptian history when the phenomena of personal piety and communication with the gods (Wilkinson 2003: 50 - 51) seem to have been more pronounced.

Figure 10. wearing the double , Luxor Museum. The ideological association of anthropomorphic deities with the Egyptian king is perhaps seen in both the divine or quasi-divine aspects of representations of kings as well as the monarchial attributes of certain deities.

Bibliographic Notes

The literature regarding Egyptian anthropomorphic deities is vast and the following comments regard only some of the works mentioned in this article. Among works of a general nature, Silverman (1991) provides a short but useful examination of the nature of and deities that touches on numerous aspects of the role of anthropomorphic deities in Egyptian religion. Other relevant literature includes studies by Assmann (1984), Bonhême (2001), Černý (1952), Derchain (1979), and Frankfort (1948a).

Among more focused works, Hornung’s (2005) study—a re-worked sixth edition—provides a broad but substantive examination of the concept of divinity in that maintains a fairly constant dialogue with Morenz’s (1973) ideas regarding the question of the unity and plurality of Egyptian deities. Bonnet (1939), Baines (1984), Bell (1985), Budde, Sandri and Verhoeven (2003), te Velde (1971), and Wildung (1977) are all important studies of specific types or groupings of anthropomorphic deities. Similarly, Hassan (1992, 1998) discusses a possible development of anthropomorphic goddesses and their relationships with Egyptian religion in general, though many aspects of the earliest development of Egyptian deities remain beyond our current knowledge.

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 7

References Assmann, Jan 1984 Ägypten: Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Translated by Lorton as The search for God in ancient Egypt (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001). Baines, John 1984 Fecundity figures: Egyptian personification and the iconology of a genre. Warminster: Aris & Phillips; Chicago: Bolchazy-Carducci. (2001 edition published by Oxford's Griffith Institute.) Bell, Lanny 1985 and the cult of the royal ka. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44(4), pp. 251 - 294. Bonhême, Marie-Ange 2001 Divinity. In The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, ed. Donald Redford, pp. 401 - 406. Oxford: . Bonnet, Hans 1939 Zum Verständnis des Synkretismus. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 75, pp. 40 - 52. Translated by John Baines as "On understanding " (Orientalia 68, pp. 181 - 214.) Budde, Dagmar, Sandra Sandri, and Ursula Verhoeven 2003 Kindgötter im Ägypten der Griechisch-Romischen Zeit. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 128. Leuven: Peeters. Černý, Jaroslav 1952 Ancient Egyptian religion. London: Hutchinson. Derchain, Philippe 1979 Der ägyptische Gott als Person und Funktion. In Aspekte der spätägyptischen Religion, ed. Wolfhart Westendorf, pp. 43 - 45. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fischer, Henry 1987 The ancient Egyptian attitude towards the monstrous. In Monsters and demons in the ancient and medieval worlds: Papers presented in honor of Edith Porada, ed. Ann Farkas, Prudence Harper, and Evelyn Harrison, pp. 13 - 26. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Frankfort, Henri 1948a Ancient Egyptian religion: An interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press. 1948b Kingship and the gods. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hassan, Fekri 1992 Primeval goddess to divine kingship: The mythogenesis of power in the early Egyptian state. In The followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman 1944 - 1990, ed. Renée Friedman, and Barbara Adams, pp. 307 - 322. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 1998 The earliest goddesses of Egypt: Divine mothers and cosmic bodies. In Ancient goddesses: The myths and the evidence, ed. Lucy Goodison, and Christine Morris, pp. 98 - 112. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Hornung, Erik 1982 Conceptions of God in ancient Egypt: The one and the many. Translated by John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2005 Der Eine und die Vielen: Altägyptische Götterwelt. 6th edition. Primus: Darmstadt. (Originally published 1971 as Der Eine und die Vielen: ägyptische Gottesvorstellungen.) Translated by John Baines as Conceptions of God in ancient Egypt: The one and the many (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982). Morenz, Siegfried 1973 Egyptian religion. Translated by Ann Keep. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Originally published 1960 as Ägyptische Religion.)

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 8

Sandri, Sandra 2006 Har-Pa-Chered (Harpokrates): Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 151. Leuven: Peeters. Silverman, David 1991 Divinity and deities in ancient Egypt. In Religion in ancient Egypt: Gods, myths, and personal practice, ed. Byron Schafer, pp. 7 - 87. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Teeter, Emily 2001 Cults: Divine cults. In The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, ed. Donald Redford, pp. 340 - 345. Oxford: Oxford University Press. te Velde, Herman 1971 Some remarks on the structure of Egyptian divine triads. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57, pp. 80 - 86. Traunecker, Claude 2001 The gods of Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Originally published 1992 as Les Dieux de l'Égypte.) Wildung, Dietrich 1977 Egyptian saints: Deification in pharaonic Egypt. New York: New York University Press. Wilkinson, Richard 2003 The complete gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt. London and New York: Thames and Hudson.

Image Credits

Photography by the author.

Anthropomorphic Deities, Wilkinson, UEE 2008 9