0

U DUGANI S MUNIIBDU

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

IN MEMORY OF

BLAHOSLAV HRUKA
edited by Ludk Vacn

Dresden 2011

U4 DU11-GA-NI S MU-NI-IB-DU11

Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hruka edited by Ludk Vacn ISLET-Verlag Dresden
Alle Rechte vorbehalten All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the permission of the publisher.

Schriftsatz und Umschlaggestaltung: Cornelia Wunsch Herstellung: Quickprinter Overath Printed in Germany ISBN 13: 978-3-9808466-6-0

0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Bibliography of Blahoslav Hruka JITKA SKOROV & LUDK VACN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Blahoslav Hruka: An Appreciation JITKA SKOROV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 An Excerpt from a Sumerian Myth Mentioning Enlil BENDT ALSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 On Sheep, Sumerians and the Early State PETR CHARVT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 YOS 6 225: A Dispute about a Sesame Delivery MUHAMMAD A. DANDAMAYEV & CORNELIA WUNSCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Die Keilschrifttexte der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek Mnchen GERTRUD & WALTER FARBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Divination or Medicine? MARKHAM J. GELLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 The Book of Esther: Revealing or Re-Veiling the Identity? MARKTA HOLUBOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Structure of the Egyptian Pantheon JI JANK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Piling Up Barley Sheaves: A Study of SU7 DU8 and ZAR(3) SAL(4) KAZUYA MAEKAWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 VAT 5057: Eine fara-zeitliche Kaufurkunde JOACHIM MARZAHN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Aramisches equ Holz im keilschriftlichen Brief aus Tyros und eq in der aramisch-keilschriftlichen Uruk-Beschwrung CHRISTA MLLER-KESSLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Einige neusumerische Texte aus dem Verwaltungsbereich der Textilproduktion von Umma HANS NEUMANN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 vii

The Official Called U.I (gallbum) in the Latter Part of the Old Babylonian Period LUK PECHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 The abbuttu and the Alleged Elamite Slave Hairstyle DANIEL T. POTTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Mari Theomorphism: Intimation of Sacrality in the Royal Correspondence JACK M. SASSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Zur Holzwirtschaft im altsumerischen Laga GEBHARD J. SELZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 An Old Babylonian List of Objects MARTEN STOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Gudea and Ninizida: A Ruler and His God LUDK VACN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Die Vermittlungsaufgabe des L dU nach hethitischen Quellen RKA VELHARTICK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Der Mythos Enlil und Ninlil: Vom Schrecken des Kanalbaus durch Stadt und Unterwelt ANNETTE ZGOLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

viii

The STrucTure of The egypTian panTheon

Ji Jank r
Charles University, Prague
The following paper represents an outcome of two broader projects concentrating on 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 basic publications dealing with similar problems and to the views and concepts of their authors: Erik Hornung and Jan Assmann.2 I would like to dedicate the paper to the memory 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 many of his fellow colleagues and students. I believe that their gratitude and constant friendship is beyond any memorial volume. In dealing with Egyptian religion, it is important to raise the question of whether the 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, ancient statements about all the gods (Eg.: netjeru nebu) and modern lexicons of Egyptian gods mainly employ the word pantheon in the former sense. But this understanding, taking the 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 structured pantheon 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 the gods in their different characteristics, roles and allocations. First, let us have a look at the general concept of a deity. The gods, along with the humans and animals, represented one of the main groups of created beings. If we classify them according to a degree of authority, as the Egyptians did (as indicated by the surviving List of Kings, Onomastica, hymns and other sources), the gods stand at the

Research project of the Czech Ministry of Education (MSM 0021620826) and Grant Project of the Grant Agency of the Czech Academy of Sciences. I am also very indebted to Prof. John Baines for his suggestion that I focus on the topic of the present article. It was presented at a Faculty of Oriental Studies of the University of Oxford seminar in May 2008. Hornung (1971) and Assmann (1984). In the following footnotes I quote from John Baines English translation of Erik Hornungs book (Hornung 1983).

120

J I R JANK

highest level followed by the blessed dead (Eg.: akhu) and the king.3 The gods and goddesses embodied the invisible powers controlling the forces and phenomena of the visible world. They also possessed dominance (Eg.: was) over lesser beings and control over life (Eg.: ankh) itself. The gods were characterized both linguistically (by their names, epithets and titles) and visually (through their images, attributes and insignia). These two attempts at expressing the characteristics of the divine represented the ways in which humans tried to describe the invisible and imponderable god. The Egyptians usually equipped their gods with a multitude of names and forms. On the one hand, a single deity could have many different names, titles, forms and attributes, and on the other hand, one name 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 professional orientation of the gods. The main characteristics of a god were usually supplemented by several related aspects. These supplementary aspects could then gain more importance for the god as well as shift his original function, as we can see in the following three examples: 1) Thoth: moon time measuring accuracy records script texts wisdom 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 lotus as a flower scent perfume oils ointments mummification recreation As mentioned above, names and images of the gods demonstrate or rather depict their essential characteristics and functions. Thus, the names could indicate their features, 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 abstract notions, 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 art and iconography, the head represents the essence or the main characteristics of a (divine) person. The body usually stands for secondary characteristics or helps provide the god with attributes, insignia, etc. Hands can be used in similar function (the gods are holding staffs, sceptres, swords, etc.), however, they primarily show the persons actions and attitudes through gestures (greeting, praising, etc.). Position of the legs refers to the persons movements.6
3 4 5 6

Gardiner (1947); Derchain (1965). This topic is dealt with in Hornung (1971, 1983). I focus on it in detail in Jank (2009). Hornung (1983), 6699. Cf. Jank (2009).

The Structure of the Egyptian Pantheon

121

In his book gypten: Theologie und Frmmigkeit einer frhen Hochkultur, Jan Assmann very aptly distinguished three dimensions of divine presence in which Egyptian gods revealed 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 the natural or cosmic dimension. It was, however, also interpreted as an event of a (divine or human) life-cycle in the mythical dimension and formed a part of systematized action at the ritual level. While Assmann was quite right in recognizing the three dimensions, I believe that he set them too narrowly and restricted them only to the gods. I would prefer to speak about modes of divine existence or even existence in general.8 Thus, following the pattern proposed by Assmann, the gods could be characterized by their modes of existence, i.e., activities and manifestation. They either acted 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 beings to have become objects of worship and care (the so-called cultic dimension). The unknowable 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 or semantically),9 or according to their appearance (which is the method used by Wilkinson).10 But neither way is attested in Egyptian sources. We do not encounter groupings like all the A gods or all the ram gods. Classifications of gods and their groups according to their function and roles (for example, all the sun gods) are not attested either. The identification of several sun-gods Kheper-Re-Atum does not constitute 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 of Egyptian gods.11 It is true that such groups existed within the Egyptian religious system and were popular. However, they often represented individual, independent groups (small, locally based units) within the Egyptian pantheon. Thus, although the Egyptians used a numerical grouping on a local level, they generally did not use it to classify their gods in a country-wide pantheon. The only exception relates to the use of the term pesedjet (the Ennead). Already the Pyramid Texts contain multiple groupings of Enneads (Ennead, Two Enneads, Enneads, All Enneads) within the Egyptian pantheon. According to some scholars the concept of the Ennead represented a community, or rather a corporation, of gods

7 8 9 10 11

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

122

J I R JANK

regardless of their exact number.12 The Egyptian pantheon would thus (at the state level) 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 the gods in the term khet (body, corporation).13 The Egyptian view of created cosmos worked with three vertical spheres, the earth, the sky and the underworld. Yet the word sphere does not fit to the underworld very well, since it often constitutes a region or area within the sky or the earth. In addition to these spheres, Egyptian religion also recognized three horizontal cosmographical spheres reflecting the aspects of the created world and its order within a city, the unified land of Egypt and the cosmos as a whole. In our interpretation of ancient Egyptian religion and its structure we must carefully 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 respect and maintain the order of the created world, known to the Egyptians as the maat, and to prevent it from collapsing. The king was the key figure in this matter, because his power 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 sublevels (the cities) and was mirroring, or even determining the sphere of the whole cosmos. Some scholars understand the ancient Egyptian religion as an organized maintenance of the maat.15 Yet the ancient Egyptian religion as a whole must be considered as a rather locally based system of cults, united under the authority of the state within a unified theological and ideological pattern. The basic units in the horizontal cosmographical and social structure of the world (family, city, state and cosmos) represented the main centres 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 each of them. A man held different positions in his various roles, as a father, citizen, subject or a human being. Moreover, the roles and characteristics of a single deity could be different 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 classification within the pantheon. Several texts document classifications and allocations of gods according to their cosmic affiliation from the Old Kingdom onwards. For instance the Pyramid Texts, the Coffin Texts and later the Book of the Dead refer to the gods of heaven and the gods of earth (later the gods of underworld were added) and to the gods (or bau) of the North, South, East and West. Such a classification, however, involved the entirety of the gods and provides no evidence of the internal structure of a pantheon.
12 13 14 15

Brunner (1982). Hornung (1983), 22122. Cf. Baines (1995). Assmann (1984).

The Structure of the Egyptian Pantheon

123

Miscellaneous texts also present other types of classifications that might be of more value to us. These classify gods according to administrative and political divisions of 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 representing individual nomes, cities, areas and localities. Some royal rituals even involved some sort of state council or congress of all the chief local gods. A very special position was also held by the god of the city (Eg.: niuty). The chief city deities (they could have differed from city to city) represented the highest authority within their cities, areas and nomes, and were considered to be the proprietors of their cities. The high status and importance of those gods and of that concept itself is attested in various textual sources and reflected in the Greek names of Egyptian cities usually modelled upon the major city gods Greek name, function or form: Sun-city, Vulture-city, Crocodile-city, Hermes city, etc. Alongside the above-mentioned vertical division into three independent cosmic spheres we encounter three independent but interconnected horizontal units in the Egyptian view of cosmos and society: family and city state and official administration world and pantheon. The concept and structure of these units embraced and reflected the same notions of the world and existence. The Egyptian state consisted of separate cities or areas representing the basic units not only within the state economy and administration but also within the structure of the Egyptian pantheon. Thus, a country-wide pantheon consisted of respective local gods or even small pantheons (partial or locally based pantheons) but these smaller units were not strictly unified under the authority of the state, because they did not lose their own value and individuality. They were rather united. Moreover, these spheres of the city, state and cosmos were closely interconnected and individual local cults (or rather locally based cults and small pantheons) could be linked 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 single deity could have a distinct role and position in the respective cities, he or she could be viewed in an entirely different way in the state pantheon. It has to be stressed that we 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 as representatives of their cities. Hence, they kept some of their locally based roles, functions and titles, though their general significance might have been modified and they could have been integrated into new relations in different roles. If Ptah, Thoth or Khnum, for instance, were considered the heads of local pantheons and even creator-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.

124

J I R JANK

As a sum of all the gods the country-wide or all-state pantheon encompassed all the deities worshipped throughout Egypt, even those who did not belong to any local pantheon (e.g., Bes) as well as some foreign gods. Therefore, its formal structure must have 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 and ideology. If we examine it closely, we indeed do not find exactly structured societies of gods where every member has a special position and clearly defined, permanent status. Some narrative descriptions of the pantheon and its internal relations are attested from the time of the late New Kingdom onwards (such as in the Contending of Horus and Seth, the Book of the Celestial Cow, the Story of Osiris, the Memphite Theology, texts from Ptolemaic temples, etc.). However, they vary in their views since they stem from different traditions and reflect different purposes and usages. Thus on a general scale, the Egyptian country-wide pantheon was not arranged according to specific names but rather to general divine types, roles and functions, and instead of the particular gods it dealt with special categories with prescribed values and relationships. For example, 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 various deities in different aspects of their own divinity, even though originally they may have had 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 taking two 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 the natural 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 the professional orientation of deities could be modified. The Egyptian view of Seth changed even more dramatically. From a New Kingdom divine protector of the sungod against Apep, the champion of chaos and evil, he became an ally or manifestation of Apep himself in the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. The phenomena of evolving orientation and suppressing local varieties under a uniform unity enabled the gods to be connected, identified or joined within the pantheon without necessarily losing their original, independent nature. Indeed, the result was quite the opposite: the gods gained more power and acquired new divine aspects. This was shown mainly through their new forms, attributes and titles. In some

16

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

The Structure of the Egyptian Pantheon

125

cases, two or more gods were united into a new syncretistic deity that represented a new and more powerful (or more universal) entity. The Egyptian religious system itself (at the state level) was special in its ability to unite (not unify) independent traditions, concepts and different gods or even pantheons without diminishing their autonomy. Thus, we can find several distinct religious concepts and different versions of the creation myth in one temple or within a single text. Similar features can be observed in the use of exclusive titles (the Lord of , the Great god, etc.) for different gods. This motif is usually connected with the so-called henotheism but in some cases it 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 seems to have been structured more like a federation with a degree of tolerance to locallybased diversities rather than authoritatively and exclusively. Bearing this concept in mind, 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 the state 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 gods with titles of Neb (Lord) or Nebet (Mistress) dominating a specific cosmic sphere, an area of the world or a natural phenomenon (Neb pet; Neb Abdju, Neb maat). Those deities, however, represented only partial (independent but limited) authority as their dominance was linked only to a single sphere or phenomenon. Until the late New Kingdom the internal relations within the pantheon(s) did not take a specific form (e.g., of the royal court) with different ranks or offices but usually reflected simple relations as with a family. Thus, the gods were considered fathers, mothers or offspring and the genealogy constituted one way of classifying the gods hierarchically. But this classification was explicitly applied mainly to the partial pantheons. Although it has often been stated that the idea of kingship among the gods had been introduced in the Middle Kingdom and became popular during the late New Kingdom,17 some Old Kingdom texts (appeals to the living, letters to the dead or the Pyramid Texts) give evidence in favour of a concept of a single dominant authority within the country-wide pantheon. The Pyramid Texts use 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 individual within 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

17

This view is based mainly on the occurrence of specific titles and on depictions of deities wearing royal 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 the pantheon only from the Middle and New Kingdom onwards.

126

J I R JANK

the ruler (or dominant authority) of the sky and of all the gods. A similar divine role and position was denoted by the phrase netjer aa (Great or the Greatest god). In late Old Kingdom texts this term (more an epithet than a title) indicated the greatest authority 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 that the concept of the ruler of all the gods was already present in Egyptian religion during the Old Kingdom. This divine entity represented the head of the country-wide pantheon at the universal level, uniting respective sub-pantheons and their leaders. Different titles or epithets are attested for divine authority, varying with respect to the specific sociopolitical level (ruler of cosmos netjer aa; king of the state netjer nefer; city god netjer niuty; personal god netjer). Several gods (sub-pantheon chief deities) began to be considered netjeru aau or nebu X and were depicted with royal insignia. The ultimate head of the country-wide pantheon, on the other hand, was endowed with power that went beyond the world of the gods and encompassed the authority and responsibilities connected with the lesser spheres of the state and the city in the world of the living. Jan Assmann even speaks about the transcendent god.19 In conclusion we can say that there were two major and distinct levels within the Egyptian pantheon. One concerns small, self-contained, locally-based pantheons or pantheon units and the other consists of the sum of these pantheons at the countrywide level and involves also some unassigned gods. Although these two levels were quite independent, they were still interconnected. They coexisted in an inseparable and yet distinguishable way. Similarly, as for the respective gods we should differentiate the locally-based roles and meanings from the country-wide ones. With respect to the inner structure, partial pantheons seem to have been more specific whereas the country-wide Egyptian pantheon must have been more flexible, general and standardized (divine types). Internal relations, relationships and hierarchy at both levels seem to have concerned mainly family relations and genealogy. I also believe that in the time of the Old Kingdom there existed a concept of the chief god as the head 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 penetrated the world of the gods and the non-royal, private sphere.

18 19

Cf. Baines (1983), Hornung (1983), 114. Assmann (1984).

The Structure of the Egyptian Pantheon

127

B iBliography
Assmann, Jan 1984 gypten: Theologie und Frmmigkeit 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 Egyptian Kingship, Leiden/New York/Cologne: E. J. Brill. Brunner, Hellmut 1982 Neunheit, Lexikon 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: gyptische Gottesvorstellungen, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 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 Egypt: The One and the Many, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul. Jank, Ji 2003 From Dusk till Dawn, ArOr 71, 112. 2009 Staroegyptsk nboenstv I: Bohov na zemi a v nebesch (Ancient Egyptian Religion I: Gods on Earth and in Heaven), Prague: OIKOYMENH. Leitz, Christian et al. (Hrsg.) 2002 Lexikon der gyptischen Gtter und Gtterbezeichnungen, 7 Bde., OLA 110116, Louvain: Peeters. Wilkinson, Richard H. 2003 The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, London: Thames and Hudson.