What’s in a name?

Divine pairing by
hieroglyph sharing

Lloyd D. Graham

ABSTRACT

It has long been recognised that some Egyptian deities are meaningfully linked by the presence of
the same hieroglyph in both of their names; for example, the presence of the falcon glyph (Gardiner
sign G5 or equivalent) in the names of both Horus and Hathor indicates that their identities are
interrelated. This paper reports a systematic search for instances where divine relationships may be
encoded or hinted at via this kind of “glyph sharing,” and ranks positive results into the categories
of certain (Horus – Hathor), highly likely (Osiris – Isis, Shu – Maat, Khnum – Banebdjedet),
probable (Nun – Nut, Atum – Nefertum) and possible (Thoth – Hu, Nehebukau – Heretkau). More
speculatively, a related process may have connected the Aten (Itn) with the father (it) of Akhenaten
in the mind of the latter. Some candidate pairings (Montu – Amun, Seth – the King) were
superficially appealing but did not survive closer scrutiny. Nevertheless, one of the underlying mis-
parsings did enjoy some currency as a folk etymology in ancient Egypt.

KEYWORDS

Hieroglyphs, onomastics, glyph sharing, semantic overlap, names of gods and goddesses,
relationships between deities.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This paper documents a search for links between Egyptian deities whose names have a
meaningful overlap in hieroglyphic content.1 Overlaps of this kind already countenanced in the
literature include the falcon glyph (Gardiner sign G5 or equivalent) in the names of both Horus
and Hathor, and the throne glyph in the names of both Isis and Osiris. The survey identified
many more potential instances of relationships encoded by “glyph sharing,” some of which do
not seem to have attracted previous discussion. Appraisals of each candidate pair allowed it to
be assigned to one of five confidence categories, which ranged from “Certain” to “Not
credible.”

To ensure that the scope of the project was manageable and to maintain a focus upon the more
important deities, only those listed in the reference works of Hart and Wilkinson were
considered.2 Also excluded were synthetic gender-pairs in which the name of the goddess had
been formed by rote and her personality barely differentiated from that of the god, as one finds
with the divine couples that make up the Hermopolitan Ogdoad. Other pedestrian overlaps were
also excluded.

1
The paper’s title opens with a question posed by Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet, 2.2.43.
2
Hart, Dictionary; Wilkinson, Complete Gods.

1
RESULTS

Eleven candidate pairings are presented in this section; the glyphic overlap is shown in Table
1. The linkage is variously assessed as being certain (Horus – Hathor), highly likely (Osiris –
Isis, Shu – Maat, Khnum – Banebdjedet), probable (Nun – Nut, Atum – Nefertum), possible
(Thoth – Hu, Nehebukau – Heretkau, Aten – deified Amenhotep III) or not credible (Montu –
Amun, Seth – the King).

Certain
1. Horus – Hathor [1r.w – 1w.t-1r.w],3 linked via Gardiner sign G5 (the falcon ideogram),
sometimes present in variant form (G6-7, G11-13, etc.).

Of the eleven glyph-driven pairings considered in this paper, only this one can be considered
definite because the deities’ names – “Horus” and “Mansion of Horus,”4 respectively – make
the link explicit. The Hathor ideogram is a combination of Gardiner sign O6 (Hw.t, a mansion,
precinct or estate)5 and G5 (falcon, the Horus ideogram),6 with the latter often contained within
the former (O10).7

Hathor, a bovine sky-goddess, is variously the mother or wife of Horus. Her name may be
explained on the basis that the sky is the proper precinct or estate for the falcon. When viewed
as Horus’s mother, which is probably the earlier of her two kinship roles, the mansion glyph
containing the Horus ideogram may be construed as representing the child gestating in her
womb.8 In time, of course, Hathor was displaced from the motherhood role by Isis, which
allowed Hathor of Dendera to become the consort of Horus of Edfu.9 As the mother or wife of
Horus, Hathor also stood in the same relationships – both of them nurturing – to the king.10

Highly likely
2. Osiris – Isis [Wsir – As.t],11 linked via Q1 (the throne, ideogram for s.t, meaning seat/place;
phonetic biliteral As or ws), sometimes as variant Q2 (portable seat/throne).

The names of Osiris and his sister/wife Isis – the protagonists in the central myth of Egyptian
religion12 – both contain the throne glyph, which has been interpreted as signifying the close
relationship of both deities with kingship.13 In origin, Isis – who is typically depicted with the
throne glyph on her head – was probably a divine personification of the royal throne.14

3
Hart, Dictionary, 61 & 70; Leitz, Lexikon V, 75 & 230; Ockinga, Concise Grammar, 160 (for full writing
Horus’s name).
4
Hart, Dictionary, 61.
5
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 493.
6
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 467.
7
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 494; Leitz, Lexikon V, 75.
8
Hart, Dictionary 62; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 140.
9
Hart, Dictionary 62.
10
Hart, Dictionary, 62-63; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 141-143.
11
Hart, Dictionary, 79 & 114; Leitz, Lexikon I, 61 & II, 528.
12
Hart, Dictionary, 80; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 146.
13
Hart, Dictionary, 80 & 115-117.
14
Roth, “Representation of the Divine,” 34.

2
Table 1. Candidate pairings, showing hieroglyphic overlap and glyph typology

No. Pair Hieroglyphsa (overlaps in red) Typeb

Horus I
1
Hathor I

Osiris P
2
Isis I

Shu I
3
Maat or D

Khnum or D
4
Banebdjedet I

Nun P
5
Nut P

Atum P
6
Nefertum P

Thoth or P
7
Hu P

Nehebukau I
8
Heretkau I

3
 Aten P
9
“Father” P

Montu P
10
Amun P

Sethc or P
11
“the King” I
a
Representative orthography (from Hart, Dictionary, supplemented by Leitz, Lexikon).
b
Conventional typology of the shared glyph(s) (as per Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 442-548), not including
any additional significance proposed in this paper (e.g. to regard the nu-pot as an ideogram in Pair 5).
Abbreviations: I, Ideogram; D, Determinative; P, Phonetic element.
c
Versions that do not contain Gardiner sign M23 are not shown.

Osiris was the king of the Netherworld; Adolf Erman and Gwyn Griffiths have interpreted his
name as meaning “He who takes his throne,” albeit with Griffiths seeing it primarily as devious
writing of wsr, “Mighty One.”15 Spell 684 of the Pyramid Texts seems to suggest an etymology
along the former lines in its expression iri.y (NN)| s.t=f Wsir, “king NN will take his place as
Osiris,”16 but this is probably just a word-play prompted by the presence of both Gardiner sign
D4 (the eye, which specifies the ir in iri, meaning to make/do/create/achieve) and Q1/2
(ideogram for s.t, meaning place) in Osiris’s name.17

The fact that Osiris’s name is formed by addition of Gardiner sign D4 to the core glyph of Isis’s
name could indicate that his identity is derived from hers, just as Hathor’s identity is derived
by the addition of a glyph to the name of Horus (as discussed above).18 If so, the presence of
the throne glyph in Osiris’s name might not signify his relationship to kingship so much as his
dependance upon Isis, who may be the older divinity.19

3. Shu – Maat [5w – MAa.t],20 linked via H6 (the ostrich feather, ideogram for Sw.t, meaning
feather; determinative or phonetic biliteral Sw).

15
Griffiths, “Osiris,” cols. 624-625; Hart, Dictionary, 115; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 118.
16
Allen, Concordance VI, PT 684 §2054 (for Pepy II); Faulkner, Pyramid Texts, 294. Literally, “the king will
achieve his place/throne of Osiris.”
17
Griffiths, “Osiris,” cols. 623-624.
18
Roth, “Representation of the Divine,” 35.
19
Roth, “Representation of the Divine,” 34-35.
20
Hart, Dictionary, 89 & 147; Leitz, Lexikon III, 222 & VII, 34.

4
Shu was originally the breath of the creator-god Atum, the god of air who supported all life.21
In the solar theology of the New Kingdom, his nature became increasingly identified with light
(the newly promoted source of all life).22 His name is typically written with Gardiner sign H6,
the single ostrich feather which – understandably – symbolises air.23 The tiny hairs of an ostrich
plume also capture light and make it shimmer, “giving it the appearance of radiating an inner
glow.”24 In iconography, Shu typically wears this plume on his head.25

Maat is the goddess of truth, justice and balance. Her name is also written with Gardiner sign
H6, which here represents the “feather of truth” against which the hearts of deceased humans
are weighed in the Judgement Hall.26 Like Shu, in iconographic depictions Maat wears the
single ostrich feather on her head.27 Her hieroglyph – Gardiner sign C10 – depicts the seated
goddess wearing this plume.28

The linkage between Shu and Maat, which is symbolised by the shared ostrich feather,29 is
explained by Spell 80 of the Coffin Texts, in which Atum says: “Tefnut is my living daughter,
she is together with her brother Shu. ‘Life’ is his name, ‘Maat’ is her name.’30 If Maat is in fact
Tefnut, then she is the sister/wife of Shu. Coffin Text 80 also indicates that Shu and Maat
represent nHH and D.t, respectively,31 thereby constituting an all-encompassing dyad.

4. Khnum – Banebdjedet [3nm.w – BA-nb-9d.t],32 linked via E10/11 (the ram ideogram,
determinative or phonetic biliteral bA).

Khnum and Banebdjedet – the latter usually being translated as “The bA, the Lord of Mendes”33
– are the Upper and Lower Egyptian ram god, respectively, both of which were linked with
fecundity. In his procreative role, Khnum moulded the body of the new person on his potter’s
wheel.34 The Greek poet Pindar claimed that the living ram which embodied Banebdjedet was
so venerated that it was permitted to have intercourse with women, but there is no trace any of
such practice in Egyptian records.35

Banebdjedet was associated with and sometimes identified with Tatenen,36 the god who
embodied Nile silt. The latter is of course the raw material worked and fired by Khnum, the

21
Coffin Texts 80-81 (CT II 35-44); Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 83-87; Assmann, Search for God, 182.
22
Assmann, Search for God, 213, 216 & 233-234.
23
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 474; Hart Dictionary, 147; Leitz, Lexikon VII, 34; Larsen, Ma'at’s Mysteries,
106.
24
Larsen, Ma'at’s Mysteries, 106.
25
Hart, Dictionary, 147; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 129.
26
Hart, Dictionary, 88; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 150.
27
Hart, Dictionary, 88.
28
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 449 & 474.
29
Larsen, Ma'at’s Mysteries, 106; Shirun-Grumach “Remarks on the Goddess Maat.”
30
Coffin Text 80 (CT II 32-33); Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 83; translation by Assmann, Search for God, 178.
31
Coffin Text 80 (CT II 28-29); Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 83; Assmann, Search for God, 179.
32
Leitz, Lexikon II, 683 (also 710, as Ba(en)djedet, Bafemdjedet and Bamdjedet) & VI, 25; Hart, Dictionary, 44
& 85.
33
Hart, Dictionary, 44; Herman de Meulenaere, “Mendes.”
34
Hart, Dictionary, 86.
35
Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 193.
36
Inscriptions at Medinet Habu and in P. Chester Beatty I (Hart, Dictionary, 44-45). Despite the connection
between the Nile inundation and the waters of creation, the final syllable of Tatenen is not a reference to

5
Elephantine-based god of pottery, who was himself credited with controlling the Nile
inundation.37 The “Contendings of Horus and Seth” in P. Chester Beatty I identifies
Banebdjedet as being resident at Aswan, and thus clearly equates him with Khnum.38 In the
same account, Banebdjedet recommends that the assembly of the gods seek the counsel of Neith
– another Delta deity – in respect of whether Horus or Seth should be awarded the kingship;39
interestingly, Neith was the most prominent guest deity in Khnum’s important temple at Esna.40
The Hymn to Khnum in the temple states outright that he is “the generative one who is in
Mendes.”41 Reciprocally, Khnum features extensively on stelae from the temple at Mendes,42
thereby further linking him with Banebdjedet.

The Egyptian word for ram is bA, which invited the identification of ram-gods with the bAs
(projected powers) of various gods.43 In respect of lordship of Elephantine, Khnum was credited
as the bA of Re,44 but he was also believed to represent the bAs of Shu (at Esna), Geb (at Herwer,
near Hermopolis) and Osiris (at Shashotep, modern Shutb).45 Banebdjedet was originally
accredited as the bA of Osiris.46 Since a major and early epithet of Osiris was nb 9d.w, “Lord
of Busiris (Djedu)”47 – the latter being a city just 27 km from Mendes (Djedet)48 – it seems
likely that Banebdjedet was originally conceived as (or soon came to be equated with)
Banebdjedu, “The bA of the Lord of Busiris.” Indeed, many hieroglyphic writings of
Banebdjedet omit the final .t and include a .w in its place,49 these letters merely supplying a
feminine or masculine grammatical ending (respectively) to the toponym;50 apparently, “The
Egyptian words for Busiris and Mendes were so incredibly similar that Egyptian scribes
confused them often.”51 From the Ramesside Period onward, Banebdjedet was considered to
represent not just the bA of Osiris but also the bAs of Shu, Geb and Re, and accordingly was
often depicted as a four-headed ram.52 The fact that Khnum and Banebdjedet came to represent

Nun; the name actually reads 6A-Tnn, “Land that Becomes Distinct” (Allen, Middle Egyptian, 131) or “The
Land that is Lifted Up,” Tnn being the imperfective participle of Tni (Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 305).
37
Hart, Dictionary, 85-86.
38
Hart, Dictionary, 44-45; Wente, “Contendings,” 93.
39
Wente, “Contendings,” 93; Hart, Dictionary, 45; Pinch, Handbook, 115.
40
Hart, Dictionary, 86
41
Daressy, “Hymne à Khnoum,” 87 (Hymn, line 49).
42
University College London, “Gods and Goddesses.”
43
Pinch Handbook, 114; Žabkar, Ba Concept, 11-12.
44
Hart, Dictionary, 85-86.
45
Daressy, “Hymne à Khnoum,” 87 (Hymn, line 47); Žabkar, Ba Concept, 12; Hart, Dictionary, 86.
46
Wente, “Heavenly Cow,” 296; Pinch, Handbook, 114; Žabkar, Ba Concept, 13.
47
As featured in countless offering formulae from the 5th Dynasty onward, e.g. Collier & Manley, Egyptian
Hieroglyphs, 36 & 40-41; Hart, Dictionary, 122.
48
The distance between Abu Sir Bana (Busiris) and Tell El-Ruba (Mendes) on Google Maps.
49
Leitz, Lexikon II, 683.
50
Some writings of the toponym for Busiris even include a t, appearing as 9dt.w or 9dw.t; see Schweitzer,
“Ḏd.w” (the corresponding entry for Mendes is at Schweitzer, “Ḏd.t”). Equally, some writings of the
toponym for Mendes include the w, also appearing as 9dw.t (Montet, Géographie, 98).
51
Klotz, Adoration, 112. In the Pyramid Texts, PT 254 §288 lists all of the variants in quick succession:
“[Tefnut], she makes spacious my place in Busiris [9d.w], in Mendes [9d.t, 9db.t] and in Djedut [9dw.t]”
(Faulkner, Pyramid Texts, 64, with transliterations – from the tombs of Unas and Teti – sourced from Allen,
Concordance, §288c). 9d.wt could also designate the necropolis at Heliopolis (Faulkner, Pyramid Texts, 65
n. 26-27; TLA, lemma-no. 852781).
52
Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 192; Pinch, Handbook, 114.

6
the bAs of the same four gods – who in turn embody the first four generations in the Heliopolitan
cosmogony, as well as the four elements53 – is a strong testament to their equivalence.

Banebdjedet’s role as both the bA of Djedet/Djedu and the bA of Osiris, and later as the bA of
Re, takes on great significance in light of a cognate passage in Spell 335 of the Coffin Texts54
and Spell 17 of the Book of the Dead.55 In this, we learn that “the great soul [bA] of Osiris […]
entered into Djedu[/Djedet, i.e. Busiris/Mendes56] and found the soul [bA] of Re there, and one
embraced the other. Then they became his twin souls [bA.wy=fy].”57 “As for ‘his Twin Souls
lodging in his Twin Progeny,’ they are Re’s Soul and Osiris’ Soul, the Soul of him who is in
Shu and the Soul of him who is in Tefnut; they are the Twin Souls of them that are in Mendes.”58
One could also read this meeting and embrace as an encounter and integration of Banebdjedet
(who is primarily the bA of Osiris) with Khnum (who is primarily the bA of Re). Either way, the
stated union of Re with Osiris prefigures with extraordinary clarity the solar-Osirian fusion that
was to become central to afterlife belief in the New Kingdom.59

Re and Osiris are the quintessential embodiments of nHH-eternity and D.t-eternity,

respectively.60 With regard to the Twin Progeny, we know from Coffin Text 80 that Shu and
Tefnut were also considered avatars of nHH and D.t, respectively.61 When we are told that the
Progeny are also to be identified in turn with Horus, Protector of His Father,62 [i.e. Harendotes]
and with Horus the Eyeless [i.e. Horus Mekhenty-en-irty],63 we may likewise expect these two
forms of Horus to be associated with the unending nHH-time of the solar cycle and the atemporal
changelessness of D.t, respectively. This prediction seems to be borne out, insofar as Harendotes
succeeds Osiris and takes control – in perpetuity – of the earthly kingdom that his father has
relinquished,64 while the sightless Mekhenty-en-irty cannot see the sun and largely exercises a
funerary role in the afterlife,65 the D.t-related domain of Osiris.66 The latter’s animal form is a
blind shrew,67 a creature whose chthonic nature again associates him with D.t.68

53
Klotz, Adoration, 99 & 168.
54
Coffin Text 335 (CT IV 276-283); Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 264.
55
BD 17 a S14 in Allen, Book of the Dead, 29.
56
Six inscriptions read 9d.t, five 9d.w, three 9dw.t, and three 9d (presumably for 9d.w); De Buck, Coffin
Texts IV, 278-279. Overall, Faulkner renders the toponym as “Djedu” while Žabkar, Ba Concept, 12,
translates it as “Mendes.”
57
De Buck, Coffin Texts IV, 277-281; Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 264 (incl. p.268 n. 63); for bA.wy=fy, see Žabkar,
Ba Concept, 12 and Leitz, Lexikon II, 711.
58
BD 17 a S14 in Allen, Book of the Dead, 29. In both this and the previous quotation, the word bA has been
translated as “soul.”
59
Hornung, Conceptions, 93; Klotz, Adoration, 33 & 99.
60
Assmann, Search for God, 109-110; Gregory, Tutankhamun, 1-12.
61
Coffin Text 80 (CT II 28-29); Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 83; Hornung, Idea, 1992: 69; Gregory, Tutankhamun,
75.
62
Pyramid Text 593 (Faulkner, Pyramid Texts, 244) links this form of Horus with Mendes: “Horus has protected
his father in you, you being alive as a living beetle, that you may be permanent in Mendes.” The toponym is
rendered as 9d.t in the tombs of Merenre, Pepi II and Neith (Allen, Concordance V, PT 593 §1633).
63
Coffin Text 335 (CT IV 276-283); Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 264; BD 17 a S14 in Allen, Book of the Dead, 29.
64
Hart, Dictionary, 72.
65
Coffin Text 106 (CT II 117-118); Faulkner, Coffin Texts I, 103; Leitz, Lexikon III, 394-395; Junker, Sehende
und blinde Gott, 18-22 & 81-93; Pinch, Handbook, 131.
66
Pinch, Handbook, 131; Gregory, Tutankhamun, 5-6 & 8.
67
Pinch, Handbook, 131; Bohms, Säugetiere, 354-355.
68
Gregory, Tutankhamun, 8 (incl. n. 31).

7
While the Progeny in Coffin Text 335 are the product of a mysterious union between Re and
Osiris, their identities conform to the standard Heliopolitan genealogy; Shu and Tefnut are the
canonical offspring of Re-Atum, just as Horus is the child of Osiris. Where the narrative is
unusual is in its implication that the bA of Re is stationary in Busiris while the bA of Osiris is
mobile. In the Netherworld Books of the New Kingdom, it is Re in his ram-headed nocturnal
form (bA) who travels through the Duat in the night-barque in search of union with the stationary
body of Osiris.69 For example, in the Sixth Hour of the Amduat we are told of the sungod that:
“This great god sails in this region on the water, he rows through this field to the place of the
corpse of Osiris.”70

Probable
5. Nun – Nut [Nw.w – Nw.t],71 linked via W24 (the nu-pot, biliteral nw).

The nu-pot – present in triplicate in the name of Nun and singly in that of Nut – is a bowl-
shaped container which was often used to hold an offering of wine or milk.72 A ritual container
designed to hold liquid is an appropriate glyphic overlap for these two divine names because
the sky, personified by the goddess Nut, was the upper container for the encircling
chaotic/creative waters – originally Nw.w (Nu) but later Nn.w (Nun).73 Accordingly, she
provided the waterway upon which the solar barque sailed daily. At the twelfth hour of the
night, Nun’s arms lift the sun into the horizon to begin its journey in the day-boat.74 In images
which depict this version of sunrise, the sungod is usually shown as being handed to Nut rather
than emerging from her birth canal. An exemplary illustration of the dawn handover from Nun
to Nut is present in the final scene from the Book of Gates on the sarcophagus of Seti I.75 In
this scheme, Nun (captioned Nw.w), holds the boat with its entourage in his upraised arms,
accompanied by the text: “These arms emerge from the water, they lift up this god.” From above
the boat, the inverted figure of Nut (whose feet contact the Duat at the top of the scene) takes
hold of the sundisk, accompanied by the banner: “This is Nut. She receives Re.”76

From at least the New Kingdom, Nun and Nut are further linked by corresponding epithets
which identify them as father and mother of the gods, respectively.77

6. Atum – Nefertum [Itm.w — Nfr-tm],78 linked via U15 (the sledge, biliteral tm).

Atum is the creator sungod in the Heliopolitan cosmogony,79 where he is the progenitor and
head of the Ennead.80 The verb tm means to be complete, hence Atum may be regarded as the

69
Hornung, Books of the Afterlife, 26-27, 37, 62 & 87.
70
Warburton, Amduat, 192-193.
71
TLA, lemma-no. 500006; Hart, Dictionary, 109-110; Leitz, Lexikon III, 535.
72
Brooklyn Museum, 39.121.
73
Allen, Middle Egyptian, 130; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 125 & 134. Nw.w (TLA, lemma-no. 500005)
replaces the earlier erroneous reading ni.w (TLA, lemma-no. 79990), and seemingly nw.y as well (absent
from TLA); Nun is TLA, lemma-no. 500006.
74
Hart, Dictionary, 109.
75
Hornung & Abt, Book of Gates, 452; Hornung, Pforten, 289-292.
76
Hornung & Abt, Book of Gates, 453.
77
Hornung, Conceptions, 146-147.
78
Leitz, Lexikon IV, 221 & VII, 411; Hart, Dictionary, 40 & 99; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 33 & 132.
79
Hart, Dictionary, 40-42; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 98-101.
80
Hart, Dictionary, 53; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 78-79.

8
embodiment of completeness or totality who “finished up” as the world.81 On the other hand, a
different (but orthographically identical) word tm is a verb of negation and therefore specifies
absence.82

Within the cosmogony, Nefertum is the personification of the waterlily from which the sungod
arose to cause the first sunrise83 – the sp tp.y or First Occasion.84 Since the sungod’s first
appearance was as a young child, Nefertum is associated with rejuvenation.85 Both parts of this
god’s name are ambivalent. The more obvious reading takes both nfr and tm as positive, giving
readings such as “The completeness is perfect.”86 On the other hand, one could also understand
nfr in its minor sense of “zero/not”87 and tm as the negative verb to create a double negative
expression,88 which by definition must be positive – if not quite a grammatical creatio ex nihilo,
then at least an elegant articulation of the self-starting primum mobile.89

Possible
7. Thoth – Hu [9Hw.ty – 1w],90 linked via V28 (twisted flax wick, uniliteral H) plus G43/Z7
(quail chick or its hieratic equivalent, uniliteral w).

Wilmos Wessetzky has proposed an attractive etymology of the name 9Hw.ty in which Hw(w).t,
the verbal noun derived from Hww (to proclaim),91 is converted to a nisbe (Hw.ty, i.e. a
messenger or herald) and supplemented – somewhat unnecessarily and archaically – with a D-
prefix to express instrument.92 This accords well with Thoth’s primary role as the messenger
who conveys the divine commandments; after all, he is the Vizier/Scribe of Re and the
Secretary/Herald of the Ennead.93 But if Wessetzky is correct, then an unremarked corollary of
his etymology is that the central element in 9Hw.ty, namely Hw, is also a god in his own right.
Specifically, he forms half of the divine dyad 1w (authoritative utterance) and 4iA (divine
perception), two gods who are often shown in the crew of the solar barque.94 These three gods
are sometimes linked in ritual; in a limb deification from Dendera, the tongue of the patient is
identified as that of Thoth, Hu and Sia.95

81
Hart, Dictionary, 40; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 98-99; Allen, Middle Egyptian, 147; Assmann, Search for
God, 179.
82
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 298-299; Hornung, Conceptions, 66-67; Roth, “Representation of the Divine,”
35.
83
Hart, Dictionary, 99; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 133-135.
84
Hornung, Idea, 39-42.
85
Hart, Dictionary, 99; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 135; O’Connor, Abydos, 51
86
This is the sense when the name is understood as an adjectival non-verbal sentence.
87
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 132.
88
Roth, “Representation of the Divine,” 35.
89
Reading the name as a nominal non-verbal sentence in which tm is an infinitive would yield a sense like “Non-
doing is (set at) nought,” i.e. “action begins.”
90
Leitz, Lexikon V, 51 & VII, 639-640; Hart, Dictionary, 76 & 156.
91
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 164.
92
Wessetzky, “ḏ-Präfixes,” 152.
93
Wessetzky, “ḏ-Präfixes,” 153.
94
Hart, Dictionary, 76 & 147-148; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 110-111 & 130; Hornung & Abt, Book of Gates,
452-453.
95
Leitz, Lexikon VII, 642.

9
Occasionally the name of the god Hu takes (inexplicably) the elephant tusk (Gardiner sign F18)
as a phonetic determinative.96 Unfortunately, this sign does not appear within any known
writing of Thoth’s name.97 Its presence would have strengthened the connection proposed here
and, in its absence, the link between Thoth and Hu must remain tentative. Interestingly, the
feather of Maat or the glyph of Maat with her feather – both discussed in detail above –
sometimes do appear in Greco-Roman writings of Thoth’s name,98 revealing a late appreciation
of Thoth’s role as the mediator through whom the world is kept in balance.99 Despite Thoth’s
lunar nature, the sundisk appears in some writings of his name from the Late and Greco-Roman
periods; this presumably recognises his role as the deputy of Re.

8. Nehebukau – Heretkau [NHb(.w)-kA.w – 1r.yt-kA.w],100 linked via D28 (the upraised arms,
ideogram for a kA-spirit, biliteral kA) in triplicate or by D28 followed by plural strokes (Z2/3).
Their names mean “He who harnesses the ka-spirits” and “She who is above the ka-spirits,”
respectively.101 These are both snake-deities of the afterlife who date back to the Old Kingdom.

Nehebukau is an invulnerable snake-god who protects and feeds the deceased king.102 The kA.w
element in his name can denote food as well as kA-spirits, and Ptolemaic writings that provide
it with a breadloaf determinative (Gardiner sign X4a) cast him as “the Provisioner.”103 He was
worshipped inter alia at Heliopolis and Herakleopolis Magna (near the Fayum),104 but also
appears as far south as Kom Ombo.105 Like all Netherworld snake deities, he is potentially
dangerous; his power is seemingly constrained by Atum pressing his fingernail into the snake’s
spine.106

Heretkau is a relatively obscure cobra-goddess who had a priesthood in the Old Kingdom and
who features in temple foundation rituals in Lower Egypt.107 She is mentioned as far south as
Philae;108 she appears in New Kingdom foundation rituals at Medinet Habu and Luxor as
Heretkau-in-Wenemet, “Heretkau in the City of Food.”109

Despite both deities seeming to control ka-spirits and having associations with food, Nehebukau
and Heretkau are not known to be linked as partners.110 While they clearly have aspects in
common, the much greater wealth of attestations and associations for Nehebukau (including

96
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 463; Leitz, Lexikon V, 51.
97
Leitz, Lexikon VII, 639-640.
98
Leitz, Lexikon VII, 639-640.
99
Wessetzky, “ḏ-Präfixes,” 153.
100
Leitz, Lexikon IV, 273-274 & V, 442; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 136; Hart, Dictionary, 68 & 99.
101
Hart, Dictionary, 68 & 99; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 145 & 224.
102
Hart, Dictionary, 99-100; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 224-225.
103
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 283; Leitz, Lexikon IV, 274; Shorter, “Neḥebkau,” 46-47; Ali, “Nehebkau,”
33.
104
Ali, “Nehebkau;” Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 225.
105
Leitz, Lexikon IV, 275.
106
Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 100; Hart, Dictionary, 100; Leitz, Lexikon IV, 274; Ali, “Nehebkau,” 33 & 36-
37.
107
Hart, Dictionary, 68; Wilkinson 145; Leitz, Lexikon V, 442.
108
Leitz, Lexikon V, 442.
109
Leitz, Lexikon V, 442.
110
Leitz, Lexikon IV, 274 & V 442.

10
pedigrees which identify him as the son of Serket or Renenutet) makes for an unbalanced
comparison.111

The kA.w element is also present in the name of Weret-Hekau, another goddess who protects
and nurtures the king.112 She can take the form of a lioness or cobra, and at times is identified
with the cobra-goddess Wadjet and the uraeus,113 so there are similarities to the previous two
deities. However, most of Weret-Hekau’s actions protect and sustain the king while he is alive
rather than after his death.114 Parsing Weret-Hekau’s name reveals that its hieroglyphic overlap
with Nehebukau and Heretkau is not meaningful, as the kA.w glyphs do not denote “ka-spirits”
but rather just provide phonemes for the term HkA.w, “magic.” Accordingly, Weret-Hekau
translates as “Great of Magic” and thus corresponds with a common epithet of Isis, one which
at times is also applied to Hathor, Mut and Sakhmet.115 No doubt many subsidiary linkages
between deities would be uncovered if the present survey was expanded to include their
epithets.

9. Aten – “Father” [Itn – it,116 the latter – in one hypothesis – being Amenhotep III, father to
Akhenaten], linked via M17 (reed, uniliteral i) plus X1 (breadloaf, uniliteral t).

The name of the Aten (Itn) is written with the same phonetic glyphs as the full writing for “our
father” (it=n). The orthography of “father” (it) ends with Gardiner sign I9 (horned viper), a
glyph which is usually sounded as the uniliteral f but which here serves as an unexplained and
unvoiced determinative.117 In writings of Itn and it=n, the inclusion of the sundisk or man/king
determinative (respectively) would of course provide further differentiation; in speech,
however, the two words would effectively have been homonymous. Indeed, in Late Egyptian –
the spoken language of the Amarna period – the final n would probably have been indistinct or
even lost, with Itn (Aten), it=n (our father), it=i (my father) and it (the father) all sounding very
similar; cuneiform transliterations of the personal name Meritaten suggest that the
pronunciation of Itn was something like “atu” or “yati.”118

The foregoing begs the question of whether Akhenaten might not – consciously or otherwise –
have connected the word it (father) with the corresponding element in the name Aten (Itn). In
lines 2-3 of Amarna Boundary Stela S, Akhenaten speaks of the Aten as having birthed him
and refers to himself as provisioning pr.w=f n(.y) D.t, “his [i.e. the Aten’s] House of
Eternity,”119 which makes the king’s Aten-worship sound very much like the mortuary cult of
a son for his deceased father. The earlier form of the proclamation, preserved in Boundary
Stelae K, X and M, makes it abundantly clear that Akhenaten saw the Aten as his father, e.g.
Dd.in Hm=f n=sn ptr itn i[t=i] … xr m pA itn pAy=i it … m pA itn pAy=i it [smtr wi] r=s,120 “Then
His Majesty said to them: ‘Behold the Aten, my father … for it is the Aten, my father … It is

111
Shorter, “Neḥebkau;” Ali, “Nehebkau;” Hart, Dictionary, 163-164; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 224.
112
Hart, Dictionary, 163; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 228.
113
Hart, Dictionary, 163; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 228.
114
Hart, Dictionary, 163; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 228; Leitz, Lexikon II, 494.
115
Hart, Dictionary, 163; Leitz, Lexikon II, 494.
116
Leitz, Lexikon I, 611; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 32-33.
117
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 43 n. 1.
118
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 157.
119
Davies, Amarna, Pl. 26; Lichtheim, Egyptian Literature, 49.
120
“Aten” and “father” are in bold to highlight their repeated juxtaposition.

11
the Aten, my father, who instructed me concerning it.’”121 Other considerations prompted
Raymond Johnson to argue that Akhenaten identified the Aten with his deceased and deified
father, Amenhotep III.122 While this contention remains controversial, countless attestations
prove that Akhenaten considered the Aten to be his divine father, if not his earthly one as well.
More broadly, it is also clear that “The Aten is the ‘divine father’ who rules Egypt as the
celestial co-regent of his earthly incarnation, his son.”123 It seems to me that the suggestive
hieroglyphic and phonetic overlap between the two key words – Itn and it(=n) – could easily
have reinforced such identifications in the minds of Akhenaten and his subjects.

An additional consideration is whether the word father (it) might not similarly be connected
with the creator-god Atum (Itm.w), father of the Ennead. In the Amarna period, one might also
find the three-way overlap between father (it), Aten (Itn) and Atum (Itm.w) suggestive, given
that Akhenaten seems to have modelled his relationship with his father Amenhotep III / the
Aten on the pre-Amarna theology of Shu and Atum.124 However, the initial yodh (M17,
uniliteral i) in the full writing of Atum’s name is typically omitted in inscriptions,125 so “Atum”
and “father” do not share any meaningful glyphic overlap in respect of the initial syllable It.
Moreover, the consonant m was usually sounded in Late Egyptian,126 and there is no suffix
pronoun =m.127 Accordingly, there is little incentive to link Atum’s name phonetically or
graphically with the Egyptian word for “father,” or for that matter with “Aten.”

Not credible
10. Montu – Amun [MnTw – Imn.w],128 linked via Y5 (the draught-board, biliteral mn).

While the meaning of the verb mn, “to be firm, established or enduring,”129 fits well with the
qualities of the unyielding war-god Montu,130 there is no evidence that this is etymologically
relevant to his name, whose root may be mnT.w, “nomad.”131 And while Amun – the king of the
gods – could equally be seen as one who endures forever,132 the verbal root to his name is
actually imn, “to conceal,” since he is the hidden or invisible god.133 There seems to be no
intrinsic connection between Montu and Amun beyond the fact that both gods became identified
with Re,134 with Amun gradually displacing Montu in the Theban region,135 and the fact that
the king could call upon either god for aid in battle.136 The most famous instance of such

121
Helck, Urkunden, 1968.1-1968.10; Murnane & van Siclen, Boundary Stelae, 20 (block 8) - 21 (block 1) & 37.
122
Johnson, “Amenhotep III,” 80-82; Bryan “18th Dynasty,” 254-255.
123
Van Dijk, “Amarna Period,” 268.
124
Johnson, “Amenhotep III,” 81.
125
Hart, Dictionary, 40; Leitz, Lexikon VII, 411.
126
Peust, Egyptian Phonology, 158.
127
The masculine grammatical ending (.w) to Atum is almost never written, so it plays no role in this
comparison.
128
Hart, Dictionary, 13 & 96; Leitz, Lexikon I, 305 & III, 319; Ockinga, Concise Grammar, 148 (for full writing
Imn.w).
129
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 106.
130
Hart, Dictionary, 96-97; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 203-204.
131
Ruiz, Spirit, 115; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 110.
132
Ancient Egyptian attestations to this effect will be discussed below in respect of folk etymologies.
133
Hart, Dictionary, 13-14; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 92-97; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 21.
134
Hart, Dictionary, 14-15; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 203.
135
Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 92 & 94.
136
Hart, Dictionary, 16-17 & 96; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 94 & 203-204.

12
supplication is undoubtedly the battlefield invocation of Amun by Ramesses II, when the king
found himself surrounded by enemy forces at Kadesh.137

11. Seth – “the King” [4wtx/4wty – nsw],138 linked via M23 (the sedge plant sw.t, ideogram
or biliteral sw).139

The sw.t plant is the emblem of Upper Egypt, so the full translation of nsw is “king of Upper
Egypt.”140 Seth, too, is traditionally associated with Upper Egypt and was at first closely
associated with kingship.141 Although several spellings of Seth’s name commence with the sw
glyph,142 the overlap of these writings with nsw appears to be fortuitous. Orthographies of
Seth’s name that commence with the sw glyph begin in the Middle Kingdom,143 but most date
from the New Kingdom and especially from the Ramesside period.144 Even the earliest
attestations that support the proposed hieroglyphic overlap are too late to be etymologically
relevant. Moreover, it seems that the use of the sw glyph arises from the practice of group-
writing, a convention in which the glyph is merely used to specify the initial consonant (here,
s).145

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

It has long been known that the presence of the falcon glyph (Gardiner sign G5 or equivalent)
in the names of both Horus and Hathor indicates that their identities are interrelated. This paper
documents the results of a systematic search for other instances where divine relationships may
be encoded or hinted at via meaningful “glyph sharing” between the deities’ names. Eleven
candidate pairings were assessed and ranked into confidence categories ranging from “Certain”
to “Not credible.”

The types of hieroglyphic overlap considered in the survey encompassed ideograms (six pairs),
phonetic glyphs (seven pairs), and determinatives (two pairs), with some overlaps being
counted twice because they straddled two types (Table 1, column 4). Among the potentially
credible pairings, the encoded relationships were varied in nature; they encompassed identity
(Khnum – Banebdjedet, Aten – deified Amenhotep III), parent-child (Hathor – Horus), spouse
(Horus – Hathor, Osiris – Isis, Shu – Maat/Tefnut) and sibling (Osiris – Isis, Shu –
Maat/Tefnut), as well as functional overlap (Thoth – Hu, Nehebukau – Heretkau) or contiguity
(Nun – Nut, Atum – Nefertum). Some of the pairings were already known or suspected in the
literature, as is only to be expected, but the members of other pairs have not often been
considered in relation to one other. The analyses of the five pairings in the “Probable” and
“Possible” confidence categories (Nun – Nut, Atum – Nefertum, Thoth – Hu, Nehebukau –
Heretkau, Aten – deified Amenhotep III) are particularly novel. Most of these pairings are based
on functional overlap or contiguity rather than on identity or kinship.

137
Lichtheim, Egyptian Literature, 66: “I found Amun came when I called to him, […] All I did succeeded, I
was like Mont” (Kadesh Poem, lines 120-130).
138
Te Velde, Seth, 1-2; Leitz, Lexikon VI, 691; Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 139.
139
Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 482.
140
Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 139.
141
Hart, Dictionary, 143-144; Wilkinson, Complete Gods, 197-199; Assmann, Search for God, 135 & 138.
142
Leitz, Lexikon VI, 691; te Velde, Seth, 1 (fn. c).
143
Te Velde, Seth, 2.
144
Leitz, Lexikon VI, 691.
145
Te Velde, Seth, 2.

13
In respect of functional overlap, it is worth adding that a number of goddesses are linked by
carrying the egg glyph (Gardiner sign H8) as a determinative in their names;146 these include
Amaunet, Anat, Astarte, Isis, Mehet-Weret, Nebethetepet, Nut, Sekhmet, Ta-Bitjet, Wadjet and
Wosret. Since some of these deities are mother-goddesses who bore important offspring, the
inclusion of the egg glyph is understandable because it acts logographically in other contexts
to denote filiation.147 Interestingly, the names of the two goddesses most closely connected with
the process of childbirth – Heket and Meskhenet – do not seem to have contained the egg glyph
until Greco-Roman times,148 perhaps because they themselves did not give birth to an important
deity.

Not all of the candidate relationships proved viable; two that were investigated (Montu – Amun,
Seth – the King) had to be discarded. Of course, the ancient Egyptians’ love of paronomasia
(word-play) and their “enormous flexibility in allowing non-harmonized parallel truths”149
means that pseudo-etymologies of the kind countenanced in the “Not credible” category might
still have enjoyed some popularity in ancient Egypt. This is certainly true for the mn element in
Imn.w, for we read in P. Berlin 3055 that “Amun endures (mn) in all things in his name of
Amun”150 and, on the Edifice of Taharqa at Karnak, that “he gives breath to the throat in his
name of Amun, enduring in all things” (mn m ix.t nb.t).151 While priority should of course be
given the potentially credible pairings identified in the survey, it would seem that even some of
the false pairings were able to prompt insights with some Egyptological value.

© Lloyd D. Graham, 2022; v02_21.03.2023.

Cite as: Lloyd D. Graham (2022) “What’s in a name? Divine pairing by hieroglyph sharing,” online at
https://www.academia.edu/91255328/Whats_in_a_name_Divine_pairing_by_hieroglyph_sharing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali, N.O. (2012) “The God Nehebkau in Heliopolis,” Abgadiyat 7: 32-38.

Allen, J.P. (2010) Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of
Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, J.P. (2013) A New Concordance of the Pyramid Texts. 6 vols. Providence: Brown
University.
Allen, T.G. (1974) The Book of the Dead, or Going Forth By Day. Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 37. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

146
Ockinga, Concise Grammar, 102.
147
Ockinga, Concise Grammar, 102.
148
Leitz, Lexikon III, 437 & V, 490.
149
Hornung, Conceptions, 67 & 150; Roth, “Representation of the Divine,” 28; Hellum, “Name Formula;”
Wendrich, “Egyptian Archaeology,” 4 (quotation).
150
P. Berlin 3055 XIII, 9 ff.; Assmann, Hymnen, 270 (No. 121, lines 2-3).
151
Leitz, Lexikon I, 306.

14
Assmann, J. (1999) Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete: Übersetzt, Kommentiert und Eingeleitet.
Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Assmann, J. (2001) The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Bohms, I. (2013) Säugetiere in der altägyptischen Literatur. Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Brooklyn Museum. “Kneeling Statuette of Pepy I.” Accession 39.121. Accessed June 25,
2022. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3448.
Bryan, B. (2003) “The 18th Dynasty Before the Amarna Period (c.1550–1352 BC).” In The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 207-264.
Collier, M. & B. Manley (1998) How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs. London: British
Museum Press.
Daressy, G. (1905) “Hymne à Khnoum du Temple d’Esnéh,” Recueil de Travaux 27: 82-93.
Davies, N. de G. (1908) The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna V. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
De Buck, A. (1938) The Egyptian Coffin Texts II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Buck, A. (1951) The Egyptian Coffin Texts IV. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Meulenaere, H. (1982) “Mendes.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, eds. W. Helck & W.
Westendorf (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), cols. 43-45.
Faulkner, R.O. (1962) A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Faulkner, R.O. (1969) The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Faulkner, R.O. (2015) The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. Oxford: Aris & Phillips.
Gardiner, A. (1957) Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs.
Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Gregory, S.R.W. (2022) Tutankhamun Knew the Names of the Two Great Gods: 9t and nHH
as Fundamental Concepts of Pharaonic Ideology. Archaeopress Egyptology 38. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Griffiths, J.G. (1982) “Osiris.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, eds. W. Helck & W.
Westendorf (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), cols. 623-633.
Hart, G. (2005) The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. London:
Routledge.
Helck, W. (1958) Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV.22. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Hellum, J. (2015) “In Your Name of Sarcophagus: The ‘Name Formula’ in the Pyramid
Texts.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51: 235-242.
Hornung, E. (1980) Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits, II: Übersetzung und Kommentar.
Aegyptiaca Helvetica 8. Geneva: Ägyptologisches Seminar der Universität Basel &
Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Genève.
Hornung, E. (1982) Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. J.
Baines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,.
Hornung, E. (1992) Idea Into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought, trans. E. Bredeck.
New York: Timken.
Hornung, E. (1999) The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.

15
Hornung, E. & T. Abt (2014) The Egyptian Book of Gates. Zurich: Living Human Heritage.
Johnson, W.R. (1996) “Amenhotep III and Amarna: Some New Considerations.” Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 82: 65-82.
Junker, H. (1942) Der sehende und blinde Gott. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Klotz, D. (2006) Adoration of the Ram: Five Hymns to Amun-Re from Hibis Temple. Yale
Egyptological Studies 6. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar.
Larsen, L.S. (2018) Ma'at’s Mysteries: The Roots of Renewal. PhD thesis, Pacifica Graduate
Institute, Santa Barbara. Ann Arbor: ProQuest.
Leitz, C. (2002) Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. 7 vols. Peeters,
Leuven.
Lichtheim, M. (1976) Ancient Egyptian Literature II. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Montet, P. (1957) Géographie de l’Égypte Ancienne I: To Mehou / La Basse Égypte. Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale & Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Murnane, W.J. & C.C. van Siclen III (1993) The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. London &
New York: Kegan Paul.
O’Connor, D. (2009) Abydos: Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osiris. Cairo: American
University in Cairo Press.
Ockinga, B.G. (2012) A Concise Grammar of Middle Egyptian. Darmstadt/Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern.
Peust, C. (1999) Egyptian Phonology: Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language.
Monographien zur Ägyptischen Sprache 2. Göttingen: Peust und Gutschmidt.
Pinch, G. (2002) Handbook of Egyptian Mythology. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.
Roth, A.M. (2006) “The Representation of the Divine in Ancient Egypt.” In Text, Artifact,
and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, Brown Judaic Studies 346, eds. G.
Beckman & T.J. Lewis (Providence: Brown University), 24-37.
Ruiz, A. (2001) The Spirit of Ancient Egypt. New York: Algora.
Schweitzer, S.D. “Ḏd.w.” In AED – Ancient Egyptian Dictionary, v1.0. Accessed June 25,
2022. https://simondschweitzer.github.io/aed/185980.html.
Schweitzer, S.D. “Ḏd.t.” In AED – Ancient Egyptian Dictionary, v1.0. Accessed June 25,
2022. https://simondschweitzer.github.io/aed/185930.html.
Shirun-Grumach, I. (1985) “Remarks on the Goddess Maat.” In Pharaonic Egypt, the Bible
and Christianity, ed. S. Israelit-Groll (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University), 173-
201.
Shorter, A.W. (1935) “The God Neḥebkau,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 21: 41-48.
Te Velde, H. (1967) Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and
Religion. Leiden: Brill.
Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (TLA). Accessed June 25, 2022.
http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/TlaLogin.

16
University College London (2002) “Gods and Goddesses in Ancient Egypt: The Main Names
at the Main Places.” UCL Digital Egypt. Accessed June 25, 2022.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/religion/deitiesplaces.html.
Van Dijk, J. (2003) “The Amarna Period and Later New Kingdom (c.1352-1069 BC),” In The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 265-307.
Warburton, D. (2007) The Egyptian Amduat: The Book of the Hidden Chamber, ed. E.
Hornung & T. Abt. Zurich: Living Human Heritage.
Wendrich, W. (2010) “Egyptian Archaeology: From Text to Context.” In Egyptian
Archaeology, ed. W. Wendrich (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell), 1-14.
Wente, E.F. Jr. (2003) “The Book of the Heavenly Cow.” In The Literature of Ancient Egypt,
ed. W.K. Simpson (New Haven: Yale University Press), 289-298.
Wente, E.F. Jr. (2003) “The Contendings of Horus and Seth.” In The Literature of Ancient
Egypt, ed. W.K. Simpson (New Haven: Yale University Press), 91-103.
Wessetzky, W. (1957) “Zur Problematik des ḏ-Präfixes und der Name des Thot,” Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 82: 152-154.
Wilkinson, R.H. (2003) The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Žabkar, L.V. (1968) A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

17