|
We are able to study the
gods of ancient Egypt very well back to the
beginning of recorded history (around 3000 BC), and we can also find
representations of divine powers back another millennium before the Egyptian
began to write down their thoughts. However, since these earliest beginnings of
religion in Egypt predate the written word, and the
non-written evidence often comes from relatively uncertain
contexts and settings and is difficult to interpret, the
subject is open to differing opinions.
Nevertheless, various evidence suggests that even very
early Egyptians had concepts of spiritualism. The care with
which the dead were buried in the prehistoric period, and the
afterlife belief implied by that care, certainly suggests that
the necessary intellectual sophistication was present for such
a belief.
During the true neolithic period in Egypt (Merimda and Fayoum cultures), no
representations are known that can be interpreted with any certainty as
depictions or symbols of divine power. However, no real conclusions can be drawn
from this lack of evidence because the art during that time frame which we have
been able to recover consists of pottery vessels and the first cosmetic
palettes, none of which have depictions of human beings, animals or objects.
Hence, there could have been a worship of fetishes made from perishable
materials, though none have been found. The lack of animal burials seems
to suggest the absence of divine worship, though future finds could certainly
change our perceptions of this period.
During the chalcolithic period, which lasted through most of the fourth
millennium BC in Egypt, offers us our first clear evidence for a belief in gods,
which is already at this early stage surprisingly multifarious and highly
differentiated. Hence, the evidence from this period suggests that earlier
worship took place for which no direct evidence has been found. The main sites
that evidence the belief in gods during the chalcolithic period are Maadi and
Heliopolis in Lower Egypt and
Badari and Naqada in Upper Egypt. At all of these
locations, animal burials, typically consisting of gazelles and dogs (or
jackals), and more rarely cattle and rams, have been found, and the care with
which these animals were buried and provided with grave goods evidences a cult of
sacred animals or at least of divine powers in animal form.
During this period also, cosmetic palettes begin to assume the form of
animals, and finally, by the end of the Predynastic
Period, they are richly
decorated with animal figures in relief. The most notable examples of these are
the "animal palettes" in Oxford and in the Louvre. We also see, from
the Naqada I period, figures of animals on decorated vases and in the form of
clay statuettes.
Hence, considering this evidence, there can scarcely be any doubt that, at
least in the last centuries of prehistory the Egyptians worshiped divine power
in animal form. Yet, even in that period there was no pure zoolatry. If these
zoomorphic images are not merely totems of tribal groups and
do signify manifestations of the divine in some way, the
represent a significant stage in the development of Egyptian
gods. The idea that the divine might be manifest in animal
form is a vital prerequisite for the animals which are shown
acting in human ways and which are the major representations
of the Egyptian gods at the end of the Predynastic
Period.
From the Naqada II period and from the beginning of recorded history, the
animals on "standards" and archaic objects of uncertain character
which were carried on poles evidence the worship of sacred objects. It
would seem that this fetishism was far less important than animal worship,
though because these objects were rather perishable, it may have had more
importance than we now realize.
What we do not know is whether anthropomorphism, or the worship of deities in
human form, took place in predynastic
times. Though human figures made of clay
and ivory are infrequently found in the Badari culture and even became common in
the Naqada cultures, there remains much doubt about these objects. Though they
have been repeated interpreted as deities, many pointers lead us to suspect that
they may not be. For example, nude, possibly female figures, have been labeled
as a "great mother goddess", but in fact, nude statuettes such as
these are quite unknown in Egypt during the early historical period. One should
also be very skeptical about identifying naked, bearded figures as gods. Such
figures may more likely be associated with enemies of
Egypt, for foreigners were
frequently shown with beards, and captives especially were often naked. Scholars
also believe that the fragile nature of clay, from which many of these figures
are made, probably also provides evidence that they did not represent gods.
Hence, there is no certain evidence for the worship of anthropomorphic
deities in predynastic Egypt, even though such deities as Min,
Neith and Onuris,
who we find in human form at the beginning of history, were most probably
worshiped in prior times.
Unfortunately, few gods that we may name from later Egyptian times can be
traced back into prehistory. For example, while the standards of the prehistoric
Egyptians document the existence of hawk cults, they do not really provide any
evidence that they depicted Horus, or other known hawk deities. Nor can the
opponent of Horus, Seth, be made out with certainty though there were dog-like
animals represented. Also, the cow goddess found on the Narmer palette and about
three centuries earlier on a palette from Girza, is iconographically more
similar to Bat, rather than to the better known Hathor. However, stars added to
the image show that she was already a sky goddess, so alongside animal deities,
it should be clear now that the Ancient Egyptians were also
worshiping inanimate objects, or rather the manifestation of
gods through them.
How the predynastic Egyptians viewed the relationship between animals and
human beings can perhaps best be seen in the "Battlefield" palette,
pieces of which are in both the Oxford and London. The retro of this composition
depicts a battlefield crowed with contorted bodies of defeated enemies, while
others have been captured and bound. The subjugated enemies, who are naked and
without weapons, appear utterly defenseless. The victors are represented as
animal powers, consisting of a lion, birds of prey and standards surmounted by
birds. However, on other contemporary palettes of the time and in predynastic
rock drawings, there are sometimes human hunters.
Yet it seems certain that men of this period felt themselves defenseless
without an animal disguise. Mankind had not yet become so dominate, and animals
still appear to be the most powerful and efficacious beings. This may explain
why, in late predynastic times, the powers that determine the course of events
were mostly conceived in animal form.
Then, at the beginning of the historical period, the human view changes
drastically regarding the superiority of animals. The earliest documented kings
of Egypt retain animal names such as Scorpion,
Catfish, Kite (?), Cobra and
"Wing-spreader" (probably a bird of prey), but towards the end of the
1st Dynasty, this type of name disappears for good. Apparently, mankind was no
longer feeling subjected to incomprehensible powers and so the powers that were
worshiped as deities came more and more to show a human face as their original
animal or inanimate form changed into a human one.
However, one must not discount the emergence of monarchy and the resultant
origin of the Egyptian state, which transformed ancient religion by providing a
new focus which unified its different goals and needs. In fact, at this point it
might be said that the infancy of Egyptian deities had ended, and there is
almost no doubt that the state greatly effected the direction that religion
would take.
So this evolution from dynamism to personalism took place
shortly after Egyptians began to write, taking place between
3000 and 2800 BC, and while other regions experienced the same
transitions, only in Egypt can it be observed and documented.
This process has been called the anthropomorphization of
powers, and it produced the first gods in human form, though
other methods of depicting this anthropomorphization appear at
the same time. For example, the cow heads that crown the
Narmer palette contain a human face, while the subjugated
"and of papyrus" has a human head attached.
 
Front and Back of the Narmer Palette
Yet, it should be noted that, in many ways, the ancient
Egyptians never completely abandoned the power of animals. Hathor,
for example, appears to have been one of the earliest deities
to be given anthropomorphic form, but even she retained the
horns of her sacred animal, the cow, and was frequently
depicted in bovine form millennia after her appearance. The Apis
Bull also retained
immense importance, and the various protective deities were
often in the form of animals throughout Egyptian
history.
At first the depictions of gods as humans takes on the form of a body
without separate limbs. Erik Hornung has pointed out that this
cannot be attributed to mummy form, as Osiris and other gods
were later depicted, because it would be some centuries before
mummification was practiced. However, one must also remember
that the dead were probably at this early time wrapped in some
sort of shroud. Still, a more likely explanation is the
Egyptian tendency in art throughout the historic period to emphasis
the most prominent human features. Note even on the Narmer
palette the stance of the king as he smites his enemies. As in
later artwork, his head is profiled while his chest and
shoulders are viewed from the front. His legs once again
return to profile. Hence, Egyptians concentrated on essential
and unavoidable features of the human form. The archaic figure
of a god shows no more and no less than is necessary to evoke
an image in human form.
Initially, there were few gods in human form. Min
was
probably depicted in human form, as recorded on the annal
stone in Palermo, but this is a late copy from early records,
so it could have been influenced by later statuary. However,
an image of Ptah in human form on a stone vase from Tarkhan
can certainly be placed in the early dynastic period. Neith
and Satis, who in later periods were depicted in human form,
are attested by their inclusion in names during the early
dynastic period, but whether they were then represented in
human form is unknown. However, we can assume that by the end
of the at the beginning of the Old
Kingdom, Min,
Geb, Nut, Shu and
Atum were all depicted in human form and
already familiar to Egyptians (though no absolutely certain
evidence exists).
Interestingly, though the predynastic Narmer Palette
displays a cow's head with a human face, during the first two
dynasties of Egypt's historical period, purely anthropomorphic
deities appeared along side purely animal forms of gods, who
were still predominant, such as Horus
(hawk), Seth (dog),
Apis (bull) and the baboon-form "great white one".
It would not be until later that gods combining human and
animal elements, which is so characteristic of Egypt, would
make their appearance. Only at the end of the 2nd Dynasty do
the first gods in human form with animal heads appear on
cylinder seal impressions of King Peribsen. The earliest
examples in fact show the god Ash, "lord of
Libya". The earliest form with a hawks head and a
human body is on the 3rd Dynasty stela in the Louvre,
representing the god Horus.
Thus, Egypt's ancient representation of gods would be
complete, and continue into the later dynasties with
remarkably little change over the next several thousand
years.
See Also:
References:
| Title |
Author |
Date |
Publisher |
Reference Number |
|
Ancient Gods Speak, The: A Guide to Egyptian Religion |
Redford, Donald B. |
2002 |
Oxford University Press |
ISBN 0-19-515401-0 |
|
Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, The |
Wilkinson, Richard H. |
2003 |
Thames & Hudson, LTD |
ISBN 0-500-05120-8 |
|
Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many |
Hornung, Erik |
1971 |
Cornell University Press |
ISBN 0-8014-8384-0 |
|
Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, A |
Hart, George |
1986 |
Routledge |
ISBN 0-415-05909-7 |
Archives
|