Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists Abstracts of Papers

XICE – Abstract of Papers
Crocodile gods in pairs have manifold connotations in late Egyptian religion and
may denote, among others, Pnepheros and Petesuchos in the Fayyum, Geb and
Khonsu in Coptos, Shu and Tefnut or Osiris and Re in Esna. However, as the objects
in question are certainly of a Theban origin, the explanation of this representation
should be searched for in the framework of the Theban theology. Figures of falconheaded
crocodiles in Hibis, el-Qal’a and Karnak were to represent Khonsu, Khonsu-
Shu or Horus. The Khonsu theology in the god’s temple at Karnak illustrates that the
above three deities merged during the Ptolemaic Period in the person of the Theban
Khonsu. Graeco-roman textual sources verify, moreover, that the falcon-headed
crocodile was also understood as a specific form of Kematef, procreator god of the
Theban Amun cosmogony. Since the Khonsu cosmogony elaborates on the fusion of
the progenitor Ptah/Kematef and Khonsu, it seems reasonable to identify the god on
hypocephali as Kematef-Khonsu, ancestor and, at the same time, son of Amun-re. The
other four-headed crocodile seems to be a substitute of the seated deity with four
ram’s heads on “standard” hypocephali. The latter, usually shown in the centre of the
disks as being adorned by eight baboons representing the Ogdoad, is Amun-re, the
visible form of the creator god. The application of the same interpretation to the fourheaded
crocodile is supported by the naos of el-Arish, which makes mention of four
crocodiles —Sobek-ra, Shu, Geb and Osiris-re— a group of gods, actually the male
progenitors of Heliopolitan cosmogony, representing the creative force of the solar
god. Taking this into account, the two crocodiles may refer to the key figures of
Theban theology, viz. the procreator Kematef and the solar god Amun-re. On another
level the two gods were to represent the opposition of Sun and Moon, a central theme
in late Theban theology, which is frequently depicted on “standard” hypocephali as
well. Such an interpretation follows from the identification of Khonsu as a lunar god.
The representation of the two gods/celestial bodies are placed on these hypocephli in
a broader context of subsidiary deities alluding to the changing of day and night and,
through this, to the liminal rites of death and resurrection.
Since this late group of hypocephali appears to reflect the doctrines of Ptolemaic
Khonsu cosmogony, a late development in Theban theology, they certainly postdate
the early Ptolemaic Period. Such a chronological assessment is in accordance with the
context of the hypocephali from the area of TT 32 which suggest in general a dating
between the later 3rd century BC and the second half of the 2nd century BC. A dating
to this period may be deduced from a mummy linen inscribed with the names of
Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III as well as from the style-critical analysis of painted
pottery and multiple-piece cartonnages found in association with the hypocephali in
question.
The historical treatment of mummies and the impact upon museums today
[poster]
Gillian Scott
The modern history of the treatment of ancient Egyptian mummies is almost as
diverse as the ancient cultural treatments of the body during the course of ancient
Egyptian civilisation. From having been used as paint, through to their role in the
development of our understanding of human anatomy, mummies have been sought
out from their resting places and used in many different ways. Some have been
‘lucky’ and have survived to the present day relatively unscathed- although with
230