Valeria Turriziani | Università degli Studi "La Sapienza" di Roma (original) (raw)

Ph.D. Thesis by Valeria Turriziani

In 1851, K. R. Lepsius had already spoken of “große Götter” and “kleine Götter”. According to D. ... more In 1851, K. R. Lepsius had already spoken of “große Götter” and “kleine Götter”. According to D. Meeks (1993), the hierarchical relations between the gods would be defined according to a very simple terminology: the gods are divided into “major/big” and “minor/small”, without excluding the “middle ones”. This definition, far from being a modern categorization, is made explicit within the same Pyramid Texts. Utterance PT 274 – which is a part, together with the previous utterance (PT 273), of the so-called “Cannibal Hymn” – reads:
Wnis pi wnm HkA.sn iam axw.sn iw wrw.sn n iSt.f dwAwty iw Hry-ibw.sn n mSrwt.f iw Srrw.sn n iSt.f xAw
«It is Unas who eats their magic (= their divine essence, power) and swallows their akhu (= spirits). Their big ones (are) for his morning meal, those who are in the heart (= the “middle ones”) (are) for his evening meal, the small ones (are) for his night meal (PT 403c-404a-c)».
In the Egyptian texts, whereas the expression “Great God” (nTr aA) is well documented, references to the term “small/minor” are poorly attested. After the Old Kingdom, on a stele dated to the reign of Ramses IV from Abydos, in reference to the sovereign’s intensive study of religious texts, a passage reads:
«[I am leaving all of them (= the books), not because I did not read them, (but) in order to search for] the Great ones and the Small ones (among) the gods and goddesses (wrw nDsw nTrw nTryt)».
Another reference to these definitions appears in the so-called “Papyrus of Astarte”, dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty:
[…] iw nA.n aAyw Hr ptry ir st iw sn Hr aHa r Hat.st iw nA.n Srywt Hr ptry st
«[So Astarte came in the sight of the Ennead and found them occupied]. The Great Ones saw her and they rose up before her. The Small Ones saw her and they crouched on their bellies»
It does seem that the same Egyptians had precise hierarchies in mind concerning the gods and it is with these texts, in particular, that this research had taken a start. It is otherwise obvious that a modern taxonomy of deities undoubtedly implies some simplification since we are not actually able to establish the actual degree of greater or lesser importance of a god. Nevertheless, those referred to as “minor deities”, how minor could they be? It means indeed that they are less known than the other major gods, or probably, that they were not so widely worshipped: moreover, in regard to many of these deities, we do not have much information. This problem particularly affects the minor deities during the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom, times when the pieces of evidence are lacking and often of difficult interpretation. Whilst shaping the religious thought himself, however, these periods are crucially essential for later developments.
Considering a god more or less “important” might seem an impossible attempt from the outset. Indeed, defining its gods as minor or unimportant is probably not in the nature of any civilization, at any time: not surprisingly, in Egypt as in the Near East, expressions which refer to a deity as “Great God” are the most recurring. Of course, there is, on the contrary, a modern methodological distinction, both in relation to Near Eastern religion and to Egyptology. In this sense, the use of the term “minor god” might indicate deities with a limited cult to a city or to a historical period or even deities who are far less represented both archaeologically and epigraphically. Still, even modern studies do not miss the use of the term, with more or less cognition cause.
The presence of the dual definition “major and minor gods” has been recently referred to in the publication bearing the same name “Kleine Götter - Grosse Götter: Festschrift für Dieter Kessler zum 65. Geburtstag” (2013) . Within the same collection of writings, this distinction is again underlined by Thissen and Quack:
« „Kleine Götter – große Götter“ lautet der Titel dieser Festschrift. Dieter pflegt Kontakt zu den großen Götter, vornehmlich zu Thot, dem dreimal Großen von Hermopolis. […] dem Jubilar mit einem kleinen Gott gesucht und gefunden […].» . (Thissen 2013: 495).
J. Quack has faced this particular issue in a more or less extensive way, before the previously mentioned publication and within the same. In the year 2009, during the analysis of a demotic papyrus of the Roman period from Tebtunis (pOxy Ex. 79/103), the scholar was able to underline the presence of a clear reference to a god referred to as small/minor, indicated by the demotic term xm: this same reference to a nTr xm is also found within the Papyrus Harkness, now at the Metropolitan Museum of New York . In both the texts, the use of the specific demotic word xm, albeit in reference to a later and demotic text, is important for the general issue of gods defined as “big” or “small” by the same Egyptians, as seen with the aforementioned and more ancient texts. It is not possible to determine to what extent the opposite and widespread definition of “Great God” (nTr aA) , other than a simple epithet guaranteed to a god, could possibly indicate a precise will to differentiate, in a typological way, a “big/major” god from a “minor/small” god . This last category – if possible– is much less familiar and documented, but it is undeniable that a definition “small/minor god”, although not too frequently, is unequivocally attested. All these texts seem to relegate this concept to the context of the divine “wrath” or to specific funerary passages. What is needed to be argued is the basic difference in the use of the term nTr wr rather than nTr aA: it is likely that the former, which is frequently associated with the opposite words (sSr; nDs; xm), could contain a nuance of meaning that is different from the epithet aA and that could possibly imply some sort of categorization. However, except for the passage in the Pyramid Texts, references to these “categorizations” are not yet documented for the Old Kingdom, which makes the previous assessment utterly conventional. At the same time, it is worth reiterating that there is a concept, a definition, which can or cannot be applied in a typological way, but establishes the actual basis of a research which wants to exclude certain divine figures and to embrace other ones.
The sources of the Old Kingdom are often silent on the subject and the modern scholar is often forced to draw on information within documents of later periods. Different kinds of documents had been taken into account: first of all, the quotes in the Pyramid Texts, although generally cryptic in most of the cases; subsequently, the evidence of the cult testified through priests’ titles, the names of the funerary estates, personal names, inscriptions from private tombs and royal monuments, in order to shed light on the evolution of these deities and their worship, so far never dealt with comprehensively. Isolating the individual deities is not always an easy task and it is somehow difficult to determine their individual nature.
The identification of the divinities as such follows a purely methodological approach. The selection is based essentially on the number of identified pieces of evidence, at least for the chronological period at issue. The collection of the material has been initially elaborated through a database, where the main data were recorded in synthetic terms: from the database, separate analyses were carried out according to the type of evidence and for every single one of the divine figures within the database.
The research has resulted in a final – but certainly not definitive – number of 71 divine names. The collection of data has followed this pattern:
A. Epigraphic and literary sources:
a. Prosopography
b. Royal Annals
c. Priestly titles
d. Formulae in tombs
e. Funerary domains
f. Pyramid Texts
B. Archaeological evidence and iconography.
The final work has been divided into two parts – the first and second volume of the Thesis. Part One presents, quantifies and analyses all data, from the oldest evidence – a single chapter is entirely devoted to the Pre- and Early Dynastic periods – and then, in relation to the Old Kingdom, the chronological focus of the research, each type of data has been treated individually in distinct chapters. Part Two, within the second volume, consists in a final discussion regarding each one of the analysed deities and their interrelations according to the collected data in Part One, with the aim of providing a clearly defined picture of each single deity, its functions and features from the origins to the end of the Old Kingdom.

Papers by Valeria Turriziani

Power and Identity At the Margins of the Ancient Near East, edited by Sara Mohr & Shane M. Thompson, University Press of Colorado, Mar 2023

The Egyptian vision of the world is clearly expressed in a division between the outside and the ... more The Egyptian vision of the world is clearly expressed in a division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, between the Egyptians and the peoples existing beyond the borders of the country. Despite the looseness of their concrete definition, and thus, beyond a real political conception, the boundaries of Egypt are marked through a mythical and religious setting. This latter involves dedicated celebrations, specific divine epithets and a symbolic system of delimiting the country. A celebration known as the “day of delimiting the borders” (hrw.w wp tASw) is recalled in some religious texts at Edfu. Some deities like Wadjet, Horus and Thoth acquire the epithet wp tAwy “he who delimits the Double Country”, while other minor gods were referred to as geographical points. Divine struggles and encounters eventually occur at the margins of Egypt, where specific divine figures have the role of defenders of the same borders/frontiers against the outside world. Religion and symbolism are therefore perceived as strong means of marking the limits, as well as defending the borders of Egypt.

STUDI E MATERIALI DI STORIA DELLE RELIGIONI, 2018

In the Egyptian mind, there was a clear division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, bet... more In the Egyptian mind, there was a clear division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, between the Egyptians and the “others”, namely the Nubians, the Libyans and the Asians, who existed outside the borders of the country, inhabitants of deserts and foreign countries, and for this reason were potential enemies (Zivie-Coche 1994). Despite the looseness of Egypt’s real boundaries, the marking of the borders of Egypt as a whole is recalled in much more mythical and religious ways. The frontiers of Egypt were extended in every direction, towards the four cardinal points, and remarked in a symbolic way by the presence of deities who served themselves as geographical points. Iahes, Dedun, Ha and Sopedu appear in references both in the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts. Already in the Old Kingdom, most of these deities also served as controllers of the same borders/frontiers against the outside world. The religious geography of Egypt, particularly with regard to liminal deities, is quite complex both in the features and functions of each deity and in the aims of their actions. When the Egyptians started to have access to areas frequented by populations of other cultures, these territories, and their more-or-less defined limits and frontiers, became populated by hybrid divine beings, mostly frontier deities disguised as foreigners in order to assure domination over a territory, or to act as points of reference for the Egyptians within a dangerous area or a border. The aim of this contribution is to face the issue of the Egyptian versus the Other at the very borders of the country: from the Egyptian vision of the world, the boundaries and their mythical setting up to the role played by the liminal gods, analysing their features, their function and the use of iconography and specific epithets in order to shed a light on the concept of liminality in the Egyptian divine world.

“Atti del XVI Convegno di Egittologia e Papirologia, Siracusa 29 settembre – 2 ottobre 2016”, Quaderni del Museo del Papiro XV (2018), a cura di Anna Di Natale e Corrado Basile., 2018

Il presente contributo prende avvio dall’analisi del termine Tnnt (Wb V, 382.1) il quale si rifer... more Il presente contributo prende avvio dall’analisi del termine Tnnt (Wb V, 382.1) il quale si riferisce, almeno dal Medio Regno, ad un santuario dell’area menfita; successivamente all’Antico Regno lo stesso termine diviene anche un epiteto del dio Ptah di Menfi, spesso indicato come “a capo di Tjenenet” (PtH xnty-Tnnt). Tuttavia, già nell’Antico Regno, il nome divino Khenty-Tjenenet è ampiamente attestato, sebbene generi non pochi problemi di interpretazione: si discute spesso se debba essere considerato una divinità indipendente o un aspetto del dio Ptah, al quale risulta inevitabilmente legato. Una stele datata al regno di Amasis contiene una dedica al dio Ptah come xnty-Tnnt, a Iside “la grande, madre del dio, che risiede in Tjenenet” e vengono inoltre invocati “gli
dèi originari di Tjenenet”. In questa tarda menzione del santuario menfita, di cui Ptah e Iside sembrano essere tra i principali guardiani e titolari, sembra esservi un chiaro riferimento all’esistenza di altre divinità oltre alle due citate che vi possiedono un culto. Le attestazioni del
santuario Tnnt sembrano concentrarsi all’interno del Libro dei Morti e ancora numerose iscrizioni di epoca saitica e tolemaica menzionano le divinità di Tjenenet e i loro sacerdoti. Nell’Antico Regno il termine si riscontra nuovamente in riferimento alla probabile esistenza di una dea
Tjenenet/Tjenenet(y), ampiamente attestata all’interno della prosopografia. Secondo alcuni autori si tratta di una divinità non meno nota, forse venerata all’interno dello stesso santuario menfita, mentre in altri casi si intende il termine come semplice nome di luogo, alludendo ad una preesistenza del suddetto santuario in epoca anteriore al Medio Regno. Una grafia analoga a questa supposta divinità dell’Antico Regno si riscontra peraltro nella più tarda dea Tjenenet, documentata per la prima volta nel Medio Regno e il cui culto si sviluppa in particolare nel Nuovo Regno nell’area tebana.
In questo quadro di riferimento, il presente contributo – parte di una più ampia Tesi di Dottorato già discussa sulle divinità cosiddette minori dalle origini all’Antico Regno – vuole soffermarsi sull’analisi della documentazione concernente il santuario Tnnt e delle sue implicazioni riguardo all’Antico Regno, concentrandosi in particolare sulle figure divine del dio Khenty-Tjenenet e della probabile dea Tjenenet, per i quali verranno presentati documenti che ne illustrino le attestazioni e
lo status divino e verranno elaborate nuove ipotesi.

I. Baglioni (a cura di), Ascoltare gli Dèi / Divos Audire. Costruzione e Percezione della Dimensione Sonora nelle Religioni del Mediterraneo Antico. Vol. 1: Egitto, Vicino Oriente Antico, Area storico-comparativa., 2015

Ihy rappresenta una delle divinità più inusuali del pantheon egiziano. Considerato il figlio dell... more Ihy rappresenta una delle divinità più inusuali del pantheon egiziano. Considerato il figlio della dea Hathor, per quanto raro nelle rappresentazioni prima del periodo Tardo, in realtà il dio era noto già durante l’Antico Regno. Nella “Pietra di Palermo” Ihy viene menzionato nel primo anno del regno di Neferirkara della V dinastia: la presenza di nomi teofori e, soprattutto, la menzione del dio all’interno degli Annali Reali mostrano che, apparentemente, esisteva già una qualche forma di culto dedicata al dio. Ihy non sembra tuttavia figurare nel testo sacro principale dell’Antico Regno, ovvero i Testi delle Piramidi, mentre sembra acquisire maggiore importanza alla fine dell’Antico Regno con la comparsa dei Testi dei Sarcofagi. Una menzione interessante di Ihy, ancora controversa nella interpretazioni, è presente nell’Inno ad Hathor di Wakh-ankh-Antef, datato all’XI dinastia del Medio Regno e riportato su una grande stele proveniente dalla tomba del sovrano nella necropoli tebana. Il nome del dio è stato tradotto come “musicista” o “suonatore di sistro”: il nome può dunque indicare in pieno la sua funzione ma potrebbe anche considerarsi un diminutivo della parola iH, “vitello”, probabilmente in allusione alla relazione con sua madre Hathor e al suo aspetto bovino. Nella mastaba di Kagemni (VI dinastia) è conservata una scena con la rappresentazione di passaggio del bestiame al guado di un fiume. In particolare, un allevatore spinge un vitello al cui fianco compare nell’iscrizione il nome del dio Ihy, scritto foneticamente e accompagnato dal determinativo per “dio”, per cui si è voluto in alcuni casi ravvisare nell’iscrizione un’identificazione del dio Ihy con il vitello. La raffigurazione in forma bovina di Ihy rappresenterebbe tuttavia un unicum. Generalmente antropomorfo, Ihy veniva rappresentato come un giovane nudo con la treccia di capelli laterale tipica delle rappresentazioni infantili, con in mano un sistro o una collana menat. La sua iconografia come bambino che porta strumenti musicali è attestata per la prima volta solo nel Nuovo Regno a Deir el-Bahari, nel tempio di Hatshepsut (XVIII dinastia). Ihy acquisisce importanza come figlio di Hathor a Dendera, e in generale come divino musicista e bambino solare: proprio a Dendera, le scene in cui sua madre Hathor gli offre il sistro, lo strumento attraverso cui il dio diviene “suonatore di sistro”, sono particolarmente interessanti. Durante questi riti il faraone stesso veniva rappresentato come il musicista personale della dea e in questo ruolo egli si identificava proprio con il figlio di Hathor, Ihy. Il legame con la musica, già presente nei Testi dei Sarcofagi – «Io sono il Bambino carne di mia Madre. Sono le perle del Menat […]. Io sono il sistro, ho suonato per la sua contentezza» (CT, Spell 334) – diviene ormai effettivo, reso evidente dalle iscrizioni: «L’Occhio di Ra è là, così come Hathor la Grande che gioisce in Ta-rer, il musicista Ihy e il sema-irou sono là insieme con “colui-che-calma-il-suo-cuore” che suona il sistro» (Edfu I, 339, 2) o ancora: «Io sono il dio grande nella Dimora del Sistro, il dio divino di Dendera, signore della menat, sovrano del sistro-bxn, che illumina il doppio paese, il bambino perfetto che fa gioire sua madre, brillante nel suo apparire tra gli dèi» (Dendara III, 30-31). L’analisi delle iscrizioni e in particolare dei formulari presenti nel tempio di Hathor a Dendera rendono evidente la funzione del dio nei confronti della madre Hathor: la pacificazione e il rallegramento della dea, compiuto a opera di Ihy attraverso il suono di due strumenti, il sistro e la menat. Scopo del presente contributo è quello di analizzare l’origine, l’evoluzione e le caratteristiche del dio Ihy dall’Antico Regno all’epoca Tarda, quando il suo carattere di “dio musicista” risulta stabilmente affermato ed emerge chiara la funzione della dimensione sonora in relazione alla dea Hathor. Un riferimento importante sarà costituito inoltre dall’analisi in nuova luce della presunta rappresentazione di Ihy all’interno della mastaba di Kagemni.

Current Research in Egyptology 2013 - Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge 2013, Apr 4, 2014

I. Baglioni (a cura di), Sulle Rive dell’Acheronte. Costruzione e Percezione della Sfera del Post Mortem nel Mediterraneo Antico , vol. 1 (Egitto, Vicino Oriente Antico, Area Storico-Comparativa), 2014

La frammentazione del reale non è di certo rara nel linguaggio egiziano dei segni. Nelle immagini... more La frammentazione del reale non è di certo rara nel linguaggio egiziano dei segni. Nelle immagini, tuttavia, e soprattutto nella statuaria, l’utilizzo di una parte per il tutto appare poco diffusa. L’esempio più antico e forse più noto delle rappresentazioni “parziali” è quello delle cosiddette Teste di Riserva, datate alla IV dinastia dell’Antico Regno, il cui significato reale ancora ci sfugge sebbene ne siano state date diverse interpretazioni. Sempre durante l’Antico Regno, vi sono pochi esempi all’interno delle mastabe che indicano una pratica ammessa e senza dubbio significativa, consistente nel fare emergere dalla nicchia della falsa porta o della finestra che la sormonta l’immagine parziale del defunto. É questo il caso della stele falsa porta di Neferseshemptah a Saqqara, o ancora quella di Idu a Giza, datate alla VI dinastia: in entrambe, seppur con modalità diverse, vi si trova scolpito un busto del defunto. In anni recenti, A. Bolshakov ha supposto che il celebre busto di Ankhhaf (Boston 27.442), più vicino temporalmente alle Teste di Riserva, datandosi anch’esso alla IV dinastia, fosse originariamente riconducibile alla stessa tipologia degli esempi sopra citati. Ancora nel Nuovo Regno e in particolare a Deir el-Medina, sono diffusi una serie di busti in calcare dipinto che sono stati messi in relazione con rappresentazioni di antenati defunti che portano il titolo di akh iqr Ra (“spiriti effettivi di Ra”), ai quali bisognava rivolgersi per ottenere un intervento diretto nel mondo dei vivi, come mostrano le ben note “Lettere ai Morti” datate all’Antico e al Medio Regno. Tali busti sembrerebbero portare avanti la tradizione associata con l’akh fin dall’Antico Regno, principalmente nella sua richiesta di sostentamento: un certo numero di scene sulle tombe di Giza nella IV e V dinastia illustrano il proprietario della tomba, probabilmente inteso come statua, in una cerimonia funebre chiamata “la nutrizione dell’akh” (snmt Ax), nella quale le offerte venivano deposte da sacerdoti. Che il defunto come akh richiedesse offerte di cibo è reso chiaro anche dalla letteratura funeraria successiva (Testi dei Sarcofagi). Le rappresentazioni di busti nelle tombe dell’Antico Regno sembrano riprodurre le scene presenti sulle pareti attraverso la scultura in una manifestazione concreta del processo di ricezione delle offerte, con un significato che va ben oltre il semplice principio del “pars pro toto”, secondo il quale una parte simboleggia il tutto. Con l’ausilio della documentazione testuale e archeologica disponibile, scopo del presente contributo è quello di inquadrare al meglio quest’aspetto così singolare nella rappresentazione del defunto, in particolare nella sua funzione specifica legata alla condizione post mortem del defunto stesso nell’ambito della complessa ideologia funeraria che caratterizza questo periodo antico della storia egiziana.

Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress for Young Egyptologists: Cult and Belief in Ancient Egypt. 25-27 September 2012, Sofia., 2014

"In 1851 K. R. Lepsius had already spoken about “großen Götter” and “kleine Götter”. According to... more "In 1851 K. R. Lepsius had already spoken about “großen Götter” and “kleine Götter”. According to D. Meeks (1993), hierarchical relationships among the gods reveal a simple terminology. Deities are divided into “major/big” and “minor/small”, without excluding the “middle” (Pyr. 404ac). Nevertheless, those referred to as “minor deities”, how minor could they be? It means that they are less known than the other major gods, or probably, that they were not so widely worshipped: with regard to many of these deities, we do not have much information. This problem particularly affects the minor deities during the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom, times when the evidence is lacking and often of difficult interpretation, but which are essential for later developments as periods of formation for the religious thought itself.
Part of a wider research project, concentrating on the so-called minor deities within the previously outlined framework, this paper focuses in particular on the evidence of cult tributed to minor gods during the Old Kingdom. Different kinds of documents will be taken into account: first of all, the quotes in the “Pyramid Texts”, although generally cryptic in most of the cases; subsequently, the evidence of cult testified through priests’ titles, the names of the funerary estates, personal names, inscriptions from private tombs and royal monuments. The aim of this contribution, having a simple preliminary character, is to cast a light on this kind of research, also with examples of some of these minor deities."

Aegyptus 93 (2013)

When it comes to geographic boundaries, if we refer to Egypt as a “state” in the modern sense of ... more When it comes to geographic boundaries, if we refer to Egypt as a “state” in the modern sense of the term, we should speak of the boundaries between “the state” and other “states” within the lands surrounding it. For a long time, however, and especially in the earliest times, there are no real states in the neighbors of Egypt. In many cases, the “boundaries” were between Egypt, as a centralized state system and some of the nomadic groups which lived on the other side of the borders. When signs of some kind were placed at the boundaries, these served to defend civilization (the interior of the country) from the incivility in the other side of them. Egypt represents in each case the traditional place of residence of gods: their presence outside the borders varies in relation to the space considered. Although, despite the traditional opposition of the “Egyptian” to the “Other”, Egypt always maintained contact with its neighbors (Nubia, the deserts, the oasis and Near East) and these interconnections also affected religion: foreign deities were imported into the Egyptian pantheon, but there were also deities of Egyptian origin that were worshipped in these external and marginal regions (i.e. Hathor or Seth, the principal “border crosser” god). During the Old Kingdom, evidences of foreign deities, namely deities which were imported into Egypt from the outside at a specific time, are extremely rare, whereas some deities, associated with Egypt’s frontier zones, were thus defined. This paper takes into account some minor deities associated with the border areas of Egypt, the deserts and the oasis – hence the definition of “marginal deities”, where the term “margin” is to be intended in a geographical sense but also with reference to the edges of the same divine world, as minor, or at least, less known gods. The aim is to draw a picture of the divine world above the geographical framework of the Old Kingdom, to explore the frontiers of Egypt and their divine setting in order to identify which of these deities connected to the borders are indeed foreign gods and which are purely Egyptian deities who served as controllers of the same borders/frontiers against the outside world.

Talks by Valeria Turriziani

The aim of this paper is to shed light on a particular source for the reconstruction of the Old K... more The aim of this paper is to shed light on a particular source for the reconstruction of the Old Kingdom divine pantheon: the so-called “writing-boards” from Giza (G1011 and G2000). These documents, first published by G. Reisner (1911) and revised in a general outline by E. Brovarski (1987), present substantial evidence of royal names and funerary estates. The board G1011, in particular, contains an actual “list of deities”, a unique example for the Old Kingdom. The names presented within the list are very important since they pertain to major and to minor deities, showing in most cases a defined image of such gods already at these early times. This contribution will offer a detailed analysis of the boards, and mainly, of the list of deities – and the writing of the divine names – so far never dealt with completely. Being these boards the earliest known example of this kind of artefact, an insight on the use and function of writing-boards is outlined, also in reference to later examples.

In 1851, K. R. Lepsius had already spoken of „große Götter‟ and „kleine Götter‟. The hierarchical... more In 1851, K. R. Lepsius had already spoken of „große Götter‟ and „kleine Götter‟. The hierarchical relations among the deities would be defined according to a very simple terminology: the gods are divided into “major/big” and “minor/small”, without excluding the “middle ones”. This definition, far from being a modern categorisation, is made explicit within the Pyramid Texts (PT 274). In the Egyptian texts, whereas the expression „Great God‟ (nTr aA) is well documented, references to the term “small/minor” are poorly attested. This contrast may have reflected the will to differentiate the gods in terms of power/authority, whereas evidence of this terminology also from later periods, i.e. some Demotic papyri, seems to list all of the possible „categories‟ in order to point out the wholeness. Within the modern literature on Egyptian religion, this division of major and minor gods is particularly common. The use of the term „minor god‟ might indicate deities with a limited cult to a city or to a historical period or even deities who are far less represented both in archaeological and epigraphic sources. This dichotomy and conflict in terminology is reflected in the very definition of the Egyptian pantheon: what did the Egyptians mean by „minor‟ and how the term „minor god‟ is employed and interpreted nowadays with regard to ancient cultures? The purpose of the paper is to focus on the contrast between the possible ancient meaning and purpose of this terminology versus the modern opposition between „major‟ and „minor‟, aiming at a reassessment of the issue based on examples mainly dated to the Old Kingdom.

It is clearly possible to define a vocabulary of body parts within the ancient Egyptian texts, in... more It is clearly possible to define a vocabulary of body parts within the ancient Egyptian texts, in particular those which pertain to medical and magic contexts. Nevertheless, there are often different meanings behind the terminology of body parts in the two more ancient corpora of texts, the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts. This particularly happens with terms relating to sexual and reproductive body parts, which appear very rarely in the texts and with various significances. References to sexual body parts do not always imply, in fact, a sexual connotation and sometimes they are part of specific devices, such as the so-called “deification of the members” (Gliedervergottung), in which every part of the human body is identified with a deity. In addition to this, the god Babi, in particular, occupies a prominent place in this matter, since he is mentioned in relation to his penis in various occasions. Cosmogony («It was before vulvae were made and before wombs were born that I came into being» [CT IV 135b]) or the use of metaphors represent other important features, while the mythology of Horus and Seth obviously plays an important role. The aim of this contribution is to examine all of the occurrences of terms related to sexual body parts – i.e. penis, vulva/vagina, testicles, womb, breasts, hind parts etc. – within the Pyramid and Coffin Texts, analyzing the word, its context and meaning, with special regard to the specific religious characterization of the same texts.
Keywords: sexual body parts; Pyramid/Coffin Texts; Gliedervergottung; Babi.

«Borders are nothing other than lines drawn to demarcate states’ sovereignty […] they have to be ... more «Borders are nothing other than lines drawn to demarcate states’ sovereignty […] they have to be agreed upon by each of the states whose borders they are» (Giddens 1985). The national border of Egypt belongs more to the defences of the state, and, as such, it is strictly connected with kingship and occupies a prominent place in the vocabulary of official compositions. Within a blurred and peculiar system of boundaries, already in the Old Kingdom some officials had supervision duties specifically intended at the borders of the country (i.e. “Head of the Western Door”); in the Middle Kingdom we find titles such as “Bolt of the door to foreign countries”, while a “commander of the garrison of the frontier of the Southern Lands” is mentioned in the tomb of Sarenput II. By analyzing administrative titles in connection with the borders, and thus the related defensive, security and exchange activities, this paper will explore the nature of the Egyptian system in the maintenance of the state.

In the Egyptian mind, there was a clear division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, bet... more In the Egyptian mind, there was a clear division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, between the Egyptians and the ‘others’, namely the Nubians, the Libyans and the Asians, who existed outside the borders of the country, inhabitants of deserts and foreign countries, and for this reason were potential enemies (Zivie-Coche, 1994). Despite the looseness of Egypt’s real boundaries, the marking of the borders of Egypt as a whole is recalled in much more mythical and religious ways. The frontiers of Egypt were extended in every direction, towards the four cardinal points, and remarked in a symbolic way by the presence of deities who served themselves as geographical points: Iahes, Dedun, Ha and Sopedu appear in references both in the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts. Already in the Old Kingdom, most of these deities also served as controllers of the same borders/frontiers against the outside world. The religious geography of Egypt, particularly in regard to these liminal deities, is quite complex both in the features and functions of each deity and in the aims of their actions. When the Egyptians started to have access to areas frequented by populations of other cultures, these territories, and their more-or-less defined limits and frontiers, became populated by hybrid divine beings, mostly frontier deities disguised as foreigners in order to assure domination over a territory, or to act as points of reference for the Egyptians within a dangerous area or a border. The aim of this contribution is to face the issue of the Egyptian versus the Other at the very borders of the country: from the Egyptian vision of the world, the boundaries and their mythical setting up to the role played by the liminal gods, analyzing their features, their function and the use of iconography and specific epithets in order to shed a light on the concept of liminality in the Egyptian divine world.

The boundaries of the lands, their overall design, were made by the god Thoth: «[...] he (Thoth) ... more The boundaries of the lands, their overall design, were made by the god Thoth: «[...] he (Thoth) assigns the limits to the countries and also to the fields» (statue of Kheruef, Thebes, 18th Dynasty). When it comes to geographic boundaries, if we refer to Egypt as a “state” in the modern sense of the term, we should speak of the boundaries between “the state” and other “states” within the lands surrounding it. For a long time, however, there are no real states in the neighbors of Egypt. In many cases, the “boundaries” were between Egypt, as a centralized state system, and some of the nomadic groups which lived on the other side of the borders. In Egyptian, the use of the terms tAS as “border/frontier” and Drw “limits” served as concepts for the geographical, political and physical world, as well as for the ideal, cosmic view of Egypt‟s world. As pointed out by J. M. Galán, both are equally unfixed, since they are adjacent in space. Although, there is a clear distinction both in the real and mythical world between what is inside and what is outside the very land of Egypt. The frontiers inside Egypt were established by royal commands and the vizier is mentioned fixing them on king‟s behalf; stelae or cairns (wD/is) were set up on the frontiers, with the purpose to fix the limits and separate territories at an internal and administrative level and already in the Old Kingdom, Metjen has the title “Head of the Western Door”. On the contrary, there are no border-stelae to mark the country of Egypt as a whole, besides the natural limits – the deserts or the First Cataract – whereas in the Egyptian mind, there was a clear division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, between the Egyptians and the „others‟, namely the Nubians, the Libyans and the Asians, who existed outside the borders of the country, inhabitants of deserts and foreign countries, and for this reason were potential enemies. Despite this looseness of Egypt‟s real boundaries, the marking of the borders of Egypt as a whole is recalled in much more mythical and religious ways: a celebration known as the “day of delimiting the borders/frontiers” (hrw.w wp tASw) is recalled in some religious texts at Edfu, while some deities acquire the epithet wp tAwy “he who delimits the Two Countries” (i.e. Wadjet, Thoth). The frontiers of Egypt were extended in every direction, towards the four cardinal points, and remarked in a symbolic way by the presence of deities who served themselves as geographical points: Iahes, Dedun, Ha and Sopedu appear in references both in the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts; most of these deities also served as controllers of the same borders/frontiers against the outside world.

La religione dell’Egitto antico mostra un’estrema complessità di credenze e una moltitudine di di... more La religione dell’Egitto antico mostra un’estrema complessità di credenze e una moltitudine di divinità, in un politeismo spesso confuso e contraddittorio. Nel 1851 K. R. Lepsius aveva già parlato di “Grossen Götter” e “Kleinen Götter”. Secondo D. Meeks (1993), le relazioni gerarchiche tra gli dèi rivelano una terminologia molto semplice: le divinità risultano divise in “maggiori/grandi” e “minori/piccole”, senza escludere le “medie” – così infatti vengono catalogate le divinità egiziane in un passo dei Testi delle Piramidi (Pyr. 404a-c). Tuttavia, quelle che vengono denominate come “divinità minori”, in realtà, quanto minori possono essere? La loro classificazione come tali implica che esse risultano meno note rispetto agli altri grandi dèi, o probabilmente, che non erano così ampiamente venerate dagli stessi Egiziani: riguardo gran parte di queste divinità non abbiamo molte informazioni e questo problema colpisce in particolare le divinità minori durante il periodo Protodinastico e l’Antico Regno, epoche in cui le testimonianze sono carenti e spesso di difficile interpretazione ma che risultano essenziali per i successivi sviluppi della religione egiziana in quanto periodi di formazione dello stesso pensiero religioso. Parte di un progetto di ricerca più ampio, incentrato sulle cosiddette divinità minori nel quadro descritto in precedenza, questo intervento si concentra in particolare sulle evidenze di divinità minori offerte da una precisa tipologia di testimonianze: la prosopografia e i nomi delle proprietà funerarie. Il nome della divinità può spesso farsi esso stesso nome, divenire cioè parte di nomi di persone comuni o costituire parte del nome delle proprietà funerarie, le cui attestazioni si trovano nelle iscrizioni di tombe o statue private e su monumenti reali. Un numero considerevole di nomi personali egiziani sono infatti teofori, contengono cioè una qualche dichiarazione riguardante una specifica divinità. Per quanto riguarda l’Antico Regno, sono stati registrati più di 490 nomi teofori, nei quali il dio Ptah sembra ricoprire un ruolo preponderante; molti nomi di persona risultano poi composti con il nome di dèi minori: la prosopografia diviene poi ulteriormente significativa nei casi in cui le divinità siano attestate solamente nei nomi teofori. Ancora, i nomi dei domini funerari possono essere creati con il nome di una specifica divinità. Questi domini, proprietà o fondazioni, erano appezzamenti di terreno recintato (templi) concessi dal re con lo scopo di mantenere i culti reali nei complessi piramidali. Di tanto in tanto le donazioni erano di carattere privato e destinate al mantenimento del culto funerario per alti funzionari: la nostra conoscenza di questi domini o proprietà deriva da iscrizioni nei templi funerari regali e nelle mastabe dei privati. Ci si propone dunque di analizzare in particolare la prosopografia e i nomi dei domini funerari dell’Antico Regno così da mettere in luce questo particolare processo per cui i nomi di divinità divengono essi stessi “nomi”. Questi ultimi, mostrando la diffusione di un culto e di una pietà popolare, offrono delle testimonianze chiare per l’individuazione e lo studio di divinità poco note, evidenziando al tempo stesso le diverse sfaccettature del politeismo egiziano riflesso nelle divinità minori che in essi si celano.

"Despite the traditional opposition between the 'Egyptian' to the 'Other', Egypt always maintaine... more "Despite the traditional opposition between the 'Egyptian' to the 'Other', Egypt always maintained contact with its neighbors (Nubia, the deserts, the oasis and Near East) and these interconnections also affected religion: foreign deities were imported into the Egyptian pantheon, but there were also deities of Egyptian origin that were worshipped in these external and marginal regions (for example Hathor or Seth, the principal 'border crosser' god). During the Old Kingdom evidence for foreign deities, (i.e. deities which were imported into Egypt from the outside at a specific time) are extremely rare. However, some deities have been associated with Egypt’s frontier zones, such as: Ash, attested from Protodynastic times; Dedun, mentioned only in the Pyramid Texts; Ha, the “god of desert”; Sopdu, sometimes depicted as a man of Asiatic origin, and Igai, apparently bound to the oasis. Yet their foreign origin is doubtful, despite the presence of determinate epithets and iconographies. The same happens also in the case of minor deities such as Seret, Khensut (?) and Anuket. The aim of this contribution is to analyze the evidence regarding these deities during the Old Kingdom in order to shed light on the question of their 'probable' foreign origin."

Power and Identity At the Margins of the Ancient Near East, edited by Sara Mohr & Shane M. Thompson, University Press of Colorado, Mar 2023

STUDI E MATERIALI DI STORIA DELLE RELIGIONI, 2018

“Atti del XVI Convegno di Egittologia e Papirologia, Siracusa 29 settembre – 2 ottobre 2016”, Quaderni del Museo del Papiro XV (2018), a cura di Anna Di Natale e Corrado Basile., 2018

Current Research in Egyptology 2013 - Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge 2013, Apr 4, 2014

Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress for Young Egyptologists: Cult and Belief in Ancient Egypt. 25-27 September 2012, Sofia., 2014

Aegyptus 93 (2013)

In the Egyptian mind, there was a clear division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, bet... more In the Egyptian mind, there was a clear division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, between the Egyptians and the ‘others’, namely the Nubians, the Libyans and the Asians, who existed outside the borders of the country, inhabitants of deserts and foreign countries, and for this reason were potential enemies (Zivie-Coche, 1994). Despite the looseness of Egypt’s real boundaries, the marking of the borders of Egypt as a whole is recalled in much more mythical and religious ways. The frontiers of Egypt were extended in every direction, towards the four cardinal points, and remarked in a symbolic way by the presence of deities who served themselves as geographical points: Iahes, Dedun, Ha and Sopedu appear in references both in the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts. Already in the Old Kingdom, most of these deities also served as controllers of the same borders/frontiers against the outside world. The religious geography of Egypt, particularly in regard to these liminal deities, is quite complex both in the features and functions of each deity and in the aims of their actions. When the Egyptians started to have access to areas frequented by populations of other cultures, these territories, and their more-or-less defined limits and frontiers, became populated by hybrid divine beings, mostly frontier deities disguised as foreigners in order to assure domination over a territory, or to act as points of reference for the Egyptians within a dangerous area or a border. The aim of this contribution is to face the issue of the Egyptian versus the Other at the very borders of the country: from the Egyptian vision of the world, the boundaries and their mythical setting up to the role played by the liminal gods, analyzing their features, their function and the use of iconography and specific epithets in order to shed a light on the concept of liminality in the Egyptian divine world.

The Egyptian vision of the world is clearly expressed in a division between the outside and the i... more The Egyptian vision of the world is clearly expressed in a division between the outside and the inside of Egypt, between the Egyptians and the peoples existing beyond the borders of the country. Despite the looseness of their concrete definition, the boundaries of Egypt are marked through a mythical and religious setting. This latter involves dedicated celebrations, specific divine epithets and a symbolic system of delimiting the country. A celebration known as the “day of delimiting the borders” (hrw.w wp tASw) is recalled in some religious texts at Edfu. Some deities like Wadjet, Horus and Thoth acquire the epithet wp tAwy “he who delimits the Double Country”, while other minor gods were referred to as geographical points. Divine struggles and encounters eventually occur at the margins of Egypt, where specific divine figures have the role of controllers of the same borders/frontiers against the outside world.