Race in Egypt

Religion and Conscience in Egypt
copyrite 1898

And that
we have in Egypt to deal with at least four
distinguishable races in the earliest history,
and a dozen subsequent mixtures of race
during recorded history, again makes our
difficulties the greater, but gives a fuller
example of such a history of a religion than
can be found elsewhere.
What the results are of a fusion of
races upon their beliefs have to be noticed
before we can deal with the construction of
the Egyptian religion. In considering this
the modern fusions of race are unfortunately
not examples to the point ; nearly all
modern fusions that we can examine being
between monotheism and polytheism, and
in such the exclusive claims of monotheism
leave but scanty ground for the previous
polytheism in any form.
But turning to the ancient world, there
are some good examples for study. The
Greek settlers in Egypt, we find, largely
adopted Egyptian gods ; for instance, Aristoneikos
appears on his stele as a mummy
introduced by Anubis to the presence of
Osiris and Isis ; and the mummy-case of
Artemidoros is covered with figures of
Anubis, Osiris, Isis, Nebhat, &c. As a
whole, the Greek settlers in their day
appear to have readily adopted both
Egyptian customs and Egyptian gods. On
the other hand, Greek gods were freely
worshipped in Egypt wherever Greek population
was in force. There seems to have
been no obstacle to the free acceptance of
each other's mythology, after the initial
question of fusion of the races was settled.
The Greeks adopted as their great local god
for the new city of Alexandria the deified
Hapi, which had been worshipped as a bull
at Memphis ; and they recognized him as a
god that died and was renewed by calling
him the Osirian, Osir-hapi, or Serapis. The
human form that was given him made him
practically a Greek Zeus, and so ensured his
acceptance by the Greek world.
Looking at earlier times in Egypt, we see
the same process. After the fusion of the
Egyptian and Syrian races in the XVIIIth
Dynasty, Syrian gods, Baal, Ashteroth,
Anaitis, and others, were freely worshipped
in Egypt, probably by the mixed descendants
of the two races.
Again, in the West we can trace similar
results. In Gaul and Britain we find side
by side altars to Keltic and to Latin deities ;
neither of them excluded the other, and the
mixed descendants of legionaries and natives
worshipped the gods of either side.
When we turn to the fusions in which
monotheism takes one part, we find considerable
signs of the same results, in spite of its
exclusiveness. In ancient Judaism so long
as any fusion of race was allowed the worship
of the gods of both sides was freely followed ;
and we find Manasseh building altars to all
the host of heaven in the temple of Yahveh
at Jerusalem. (2 Kings xxi. 5.) It is only
by the most rigid racial separation (Ezra x.
11, &c.) that a fusion of religion was prevented
in later times. The same thing is
obvious in the history of Christianity ; the
polytheism of the ancestors of the mixed
races has never been eradicated ; the Keltic
fairies were quite as real to the men of past
generations as any of the saints, and many a
man would sooner brave the terrors of the
church than insult the local spirits of the
impaired by
only receiving a partial support. Also that
in a fusion of race there is a complete
mixture of religion ; and in a change of
civilization an adoption of much of the new
beliefs. And that the question of which
shall be predominant depends on the general
predominance of the race or civilization at
any point in question. But Intolerance
assures us that a mixture of race and a
mixture of religion will always accompany
each other, excepting, perhaps, in a few
cases of an overwhelming influence of a
great civilization.
When we look to the evidences of the
various races which together formed the
population of Egypt at the earliest historical
age, we are able to glean some valuable
hints, mainly from the portraiture. Three
distinct types are met with on the sculptures
of the IVth Dynasty. The ruling race is
akin to the type of the people of Punt, the
"divine land"; and it seems most probable
that the dynastic Egyptians entered the
Nile valley at Koptos from the Red Sea.
Another type found in high position is akin
to the early Mesopotamian heads from Tell
Lo ; and it is generally recognized that there
are so many traces of influence from that
region that an immigration thence is a
probable factor. Thirdly, there is a coarse
type of a mulatto appearance ; and as it is
certain anatomically that there is much
negro blood in the oldest Egyptians, we
have one element of the mulatto in evidence.
The light element is doubtless Libyan, be
cause throughout historic times invasions
from the West have occurred every few
centuries, and they are not likely to have
originated at the rise of Egyptian power :
also the negroes are most likely to have
mixed with the fair races which bounded
their region in the North. This has been
stated at length in the History (i. 12-15),
and need not, therefore, be more fully
entered on here.
We have thus to expect a first stratum
of negro and Libyan, then a Mesopotamian
influence, and lastly a Punite power, in the
religions as also in the races.



According to most Egyptologists the
variety of gods was determined by the
different beliefs of every petty capital of
every province of Egypt. Yet these authorities
avoid the conclusion that these gods
belong to different ancestries.


That great mixtures of race had taken
place in the prehistoric ages, probably oftener
than once in a thousand years, is practically
certain, when we view the known history.
And as such mixtures always produce local
diversity, we should expect to see differences
and incongruities between the beliefs of all
the principal, and even the minor, centres of
population. In one town the A tribe would
be strongest ; in the next the B tribe still
remained in power ; on the opposite side the
C tribe had later thrust themselves in. Such
is the view which is forced upon us by the
historic probabilities of the country. Hence,
local differences are only another name for
tribal differences and diversities of origin.
It may be said that we do not see such
new gods being introduced by the migrations
during historic times, and hence we should

not expect these changes to result from the
prehistoric migrations. This is a very partial
view. In the first place new gods were needless,
because almost every race that could
burst into Egypt had already come in and
planted their gods, hence reconquests by the
same race a second time merely brought
forward their already-present god. To take
an acknowledged instance, the Libyan conquest
by the XXI Ind and XXVIth Dynasties
forced Neith, the Libyan goddess, into prominence,
after she had almost disappeared in
Egypt. When a really fresh race came in
their gods then appear also as new gods
in Egypt, such as the Syrian gods and the
Greek gods. Then, moreover, when once
the religion had become fixed by written
formulae and types of worship on monuments,
the beliefs already figured on the
spot held their ground against the unwritten
faith of the moving immigrants.
While, therefore, fully recognizing that the
diversities of belief were local, and that the
prominence of a deity was largely due to the
political importance of his centre of worship,
yet we must logically see behind these local
differences the racial and tribal differences
by which they were caused ; and behind the
The union of Osiris to
Isis, and his adoption of Horus, was a
later modification. Hence there was no
incongruity in the earliest view of Horus
and Set being honoured side by side. But
when Horus became the step-son of Osiris,
later the full son of Osiris himself, he was
bound to be antagonistic to Set. That Set
belongs to the Libyans or Westerns is probable,
because he is considered to have red
hair and a white skin ; in fact, the Tahennu,
or clear-race complexion. And it is probable
that the Osiris- 1 sis group is also of Libyan
origin, as we shall see later on.
Hence we may picture to ourselves the
gods Isis, Osiris, and Set, as the three divinities
of different tribes of Libyans. So long
as the Isis worshippers and Set worshippers
were in fraternity and tribal union, Horus
and Set were coequal gods. But when the
Osiris worshippers, with whom the Setites
were at feud, united with the Isiac tribe, and
Osiris was married to Isis, it became the
duty of Horus to fight Set. Accordingly
we see the war of Horus and Set throughout
Egypt, and garrisons of the followers of
Horus were established by the side of the
principal centres of Set worship to keep
down the Setite tribe. (See Masp., Etudes
ii. 324.) This tribal view of the religious
discordances and changes seems to be the
only rational cause that can be assigned.
That tribal wars existed no one would
venture to dispute, and that religious changes
would ensue from political changes we see
exemplified all through the history of Egypt.
The cause existed for such divergences, and
it was capable of producing these divergences
: while no other reasonable cause can
be assigned, and the gods are expressly
represented as fighting and vanquishing each
other's followers. We need hardly say that
the Syrian god Sutekh, which comes in
about the XlXth Dynasty, has no connection
with the primitive Egyptian god Set.
22. Another puzzling and discordant
element in the mythology is the goddess
Hathor. She is the most ubiquitous deity
of all. Yet she is seldom worshipped alone
and unmodified, and she is usually identified
with some other goddess or with a female
form of some god. Sekhet, Neit, lusaas, Best,
Uazit, Mut, Hekt, and Aset are all identified
with her at different places, and she
appears as female forms of Sopd, Behudt,
Anpu, and Tanen. She has no permanent
characteristics, no special attributes. The
uncouth human face with cow's ears and
modified cow's horns is the only typical form
of the goddess, and the cow and the sistrum
are her only emblems ; but these distinctions
are not constant. Worshipped in every
nome of Upper and Lower Egypt, she was
yet one of the most evasive deities, and most
easily modified and combined.
Let us reflect on what this indicates. That
the worship was thus general, equally diffused
over the country, points to the country having
been under a uniform condition of subjection
to her worshippers. While the fact that at
no centre is she solely worshipped, and at
very few places even prominently, points to
other deities having been already in possession
of the country when her devotees spread
her adoration. Where then are we to look
for her native land ? It has been shown that
Hathor was lady of Punt, and was thence
introduced into Egypt. And we may see
further confirmation of this. The only places
outside of Egypt with which she is connected
are Punt, Mafekt (Sinai) where the Punites
are very likely to have settled on the Red
Sea and Kapna. This last is usually
rendered as equal to the Gubla or Byblos,
but another Kapna was in the land of Punt,
and in the only place where Hathor is lady
of Kapna she is also lady of Wawat on the
Upper Nile. (Rec. II. 120.) Hence it is
more likely that the Kapna of Hathor is a
district of Punt. Further, of Isis, who is
identified at Dendera with Hathor, it is said,
"
Isis was born in the Iseum of Dendera of
Apt, the great one of the temple of Apt,
under the form of a woman black and red."
(M. Dend. text 30.) This points to a southern
origin. The Punites are coloured dark red,
and the neighbouring peoples black, while
the Asiatics are yellow, and the Libyans fair.
When we come to look to the nature of the
goddess we see further connection. That
Min was a Punite god is most likely, as his
position at Koptos on the Red Sea road
indicates, as well as his three colossal statues
there, apparently carved by a Red Sea people
in prehistoric time. And Min was the great
father-god. Hathor is the co-relative mothergod,
she in whom dwells the son Hor. Her
character as the universal mother is well
recognized, and is plainly on a par with the
idea of Min as the great father. Thus the
two gods whom we are led to connect with
the Punite race by their position, are similar
in nature and point to a worship of reproduction
apparently belonging to that people.
Another connection is seen in the position of
Hathor in the country. The only supreme
centre for her was at Dendera, which is
opposite to Koptos, the seat of Min, and
on the line of any invaders from the Red
Sea into the Nile valley.
That Hathor was brought in by a people
after the establishment of the other deities
we have already observed. And this exactly
agrees to her belonging to the Punite race
which founded the dynastic history. Their
great female divinity they identified with
every other goddess that they met throughout
Egypt, and established her worship also
as a local Hathor in every nome, calling her
the "
princess of the gods." The whole
phenomena of the diffusion of her worship
are thus accounted for by the historical
connection in which her origin leads us to
place her. Therefore, by her being stated
to come from Punt, by the foreign places to
which she is connected, by her colour, by
her being complementary to Min the other
Punite god, by the place of her main
sanctuary, and by the peculiar diffusion of
her worship, we are led to one conclusion
throughout that Hathor was the Punite
goddess introduced at the beginning of the
dynastic history.
23. Another prominent case of discordance
is in the worship of the crocodile god Sebek.
This was most prevalent in the Fayum,
" the lake of the crocodile"; and the marshy,
shallow margins of the wide lake as it then
was must have been very favourable to
such amphibia. Up the Nile other places
were also devoted to crocodile worship, such
as Silsileh, Ombos, and Nubt, while at
neighbouring towns the animal was detested
and attacked, as at Dendera, Apollinopolis,
and Heracleopolis.
Here such discordant beliefs could not
be supposed to spring up side by side
amongst a homogeneous people living
together ; on the contrary, they show a
difference of thought and of belief which
must have been developed at different places
and under different conditions. Sebek was
a creative god ; being the largest and most
intelligent animal of the water, the crocodile
was the emblem of the ruler of the primordial
ocean. And in later times Osiris was
identified with the crocodile, and appears
as the reptile with a human head in the
Fayum. As it is impossible for the crocodile
worship to have originated outside of Egypt,
we may look on it as one of the oldest
worships in the country, as the people who
adopted such a belief cannot have had any
other very fixed or developed worship
already adopted. That it originated in the
Fayum is possible from its permanence
there, from that being a great haunt of
crocodiles in early times, and from a
western goddess, Neith, being figured as
suckling two crocodiles. The seats of
Sebek-worship elsewhere in Egypt might,
if so, point to migrations of the tribe who
occupied the Fayum in the earliest times.
We have now seen enough of these
examples of discordant beliefs to credit the
view that they are an evidence of the differences
of race, and of the various elements
of the religion having been introduced by
different tribes from various quarters, who
had successively forced their way into
Egypt.
24. Before going further it will be well
to note some of the instances of changes
in the religion, and of one belief altering
or superseding another, which are already
observed and acknowledged by the best
students. The following illustrations are
all taken from the studies published by
Maspero, who well recognizes that "a
religion always has a history, at whatever
time after its origin we may view it," and
that a study of isolated gods must always
precede the treatment of their combined
forms.
Of the creative gods there are three
Khnum, Sebek, and Ptah which do not
correspond to the same view of creation,
and reigned over different worshippers, at
least at first. They were completely
strangers, and sometimes enemies, with no
more connection than had the princes of
the very different districts of Egypt to
which they belonged. And even Ptah had
a long history, for Tatnen is the oldest
form of Ptah ; or rather as we should say,
a previous god of Memphis, who was
absorbed in the later god Ptah, and whose
memory was kept up by the compound
god Ptah-Tatnen. Ptah was alone at first,
and subsequently Sekhet was brought in
to the Memphite worship as the wife of
Ptah, although her previous position was
with Atmu of Heliopolis. Imhotep was
at first an epithet of Ptah, before being
made into a separate god as the son of
Ptah.
Turning to the Heliopolitan gods the
changes and growth are frequent. Shu,
who was at first space or air, was made
into a son of Atmu ; then later he became
identified with Atmu. In the later growth
of the Ra worship some kept to only a
human figure of Ra, and a hawk-headed
Horakhti ; others brought in new names
for the new conceptions Atmu for the past
sun, Khepra for the present sun, &c.
Then these again became compounded,
as Atmu-Harakhti- Khepra.
At Thebes alterations are also seen.
The whole Thebaid was originally subject
to Mentu ; Amen then came forward, and
Mentu was reduced to being a son of Amen.
The gods of the dead varied as much as
any. Sokar at Memphis and Mertseger
at Thebes were the earliest. The kingdom
of Sokar in the west was adopted into the
Book of Duat ; as also was the kingdom
of Osiris in the north, and in the stars.
And Sokar became identified with Osiris
of the Delta, they both being gods of the
dead. Then Osiris became also mingled
with Khentamenti of Abydos, another god
of the dead. And Osiris was also married
to I sis, and established the popular Osirian
cycle. After that came the combination
of the Osiride and Sokar myths in the
various ritual books of the future life, where
the increasing solarization can be traced as
late as the XXth Dynasty. As Maspero
says,
" The increasingly intimate connection
of Osiris and Ra, gradually mixed both
myths and dogmas which had been entirely
separate at first. The friends and enemies
of each became the friends and enemies
of the other, and lost their native character
in forming combined personages, in whom
the most contradictory elements were
mixed, often without succeeding in uniting
them."
Later than all these changes, and attempted
unification of gods, whose nature or whose
territories overlapped, came the great sorting
movement of forming triads and enneads in
highly artificial orders and combinations,
which in their turn led up to the idea of
the unity of all the gods, that is so prominent
in the later pantheistic views. These
latest ideas put forward in the elaborate
and lengthy inscriptions of Ptolemaic times
are what have led many scholars to lose sight
of the several earlier stages which we have
here been noticing.
We have now seen how important the
discordances and alterations of the Egyptian
religion are for throwing some light on
the history of its many modifications a
history which passed away before our
earliest records, and which can only be
recovered by the comparison of different
and contradictory views. In these we
have embalmed for study the only fragments
of the prehistoric age that we can
work on ; and it is this which gives such
study a value far beyond that belonging to
the religion alone. We gain a glimpse of
the perspective of the growth of mind.