Grzegorz First

Jagiellonian University

Polymorphic or pantheistic deities? – Some

Problems with Identification and Interpretation.
Contribution to the Manifestation of God
in Late Egyptian Religion and Magic.
Intoductory remarks
Among the different objects connected with the piety of ancient Egyptians from the Late
Period to Roman times, a special focus should be on representations of deities with composite
iconography, comprising elements of diverse gods and goddesses, sacred animals and various
magical symbols. This group of deities is commonly described in the Egyptological tradition
as pantheistic.1 In 2006 J.F. Quack proposed new definition of this iconographical category
– polymorphic deities, which does not force one of the possible areas of interpretation,
but refers to only one, definite, visual aspect of the motif.2 His voice is not the only one in
the discussion that articulates an unclear interpretation of this representation. O. Kaper
presented the history of thinking about pantheistic figures in his monograph devoted to
the god Tutu.3 His opinion was based on an overview of pantheistic depictions of gods,
especially in the context of the Tutu image. In his work, he pointed out that there is no
integrated view on the problem of pantheistic figures.4 Publications of individual objects
or re-interpretations of known depictions open possibilities for further studies based on
iconographical, symbolic and textual sources, treated as a whole, with knowledge of the
differences between these depictions. However, the starting position should be delimited

1
L. Kákosy, Mischgestalt, [in:] LÄ II (hereinafter referred to as: Kákosy, Mischgestalt), cols 145-
148; idem, Bemerkungen zur Ikonographie der magischen Heilstatuen, [in:] Ch. Uehlinger
(ed.), Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern
Mediterranean, OBO 175, Göttingen 2000 (hereinafter referred to as: Kákosy, Bemerkungen
zur Ikonographie der magischen Heilstatuen), pp. 45-49; E. Hornung, Komposite Gottheiten
in der ägyptischen Ikonographie, [in:] Ch. Uehlinger (ed.), Images as Media: Sources for the
Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, OBO 175, Göttingen 2000
(hereinafter referred to as: Hornung, Komposite Gottheiten), pp. 1-20; O. Kaper, The Egyptian
God Tutu. A study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments,
OLA 119, Leuven 2003 (hereinafter referred to as: Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu), pp. 91-99;
C.M. Cooney, Androgynous Bronze Figurines in Storage at the Los Angeles County Museum of
Art, [in:] S.H. D’Auria (ed.), Servant of Mut. Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini, Probleme
der Ägyptologie 28, Leiden – Boston 2008 (hereinafter referred to as: Cooney, Androgynous
Bronze Figurines), pp. 63-72.
2
J.F. Quack, The so-called Pantheos. On Polymorphic Deities in Late-Egyptian Religion,
[in:] H. Győri (ed.), Aegyptus et Pannonia III, Acta Symposii Anno 2004, Budapest 2006
(hereinafter referred to as: Quack, The so-called Pantheos), pp. 175-190. Cf. also R.H. Wilkinson,
Anthropomorphic Deities, [in:] J. Dieleman, W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of
Egyptology, Los Angeles 2009 (hereinafter referred to as: Wilkinson, Anthropomorphic Deities),
pp. 2-3.
3
Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, pp. 85-104, cf. also F. Coppens, (rev.), O.E. Kaper, The Egyptian
God Tutu. A study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments, CdE
LXXXII fasc. 163-164 (2007), pp. 181-184 and A. von Lieven, (rev.), O.E. Kaper, The Egyptian
God Tutu, OLA 119, Leuven 2003, OLZ 100 (2005), cols 30-33.
4
Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, p. 97.

53
 Grzegorz First

by awareness of the problem of identification visible in the nomenclature of pantheistic

representations, and also with interpretation of polymorphic deities.
A new approach to understanding polymorphic deities may contribute to an understanding
of the manifestations of god in the late Egyptian religion and its influence on later religious
notions.

Towards an identification of polymorphic deities

The term pantheistic deity traditionally refers to a depiction of god, concentrated on
an anthropoid base with a series of animal attributes. These “hybrid” forms comprise an
amalgam of human and animal elements, mainly heads of different animals, i.e. not the
same species, and other animal parts like wings, tails etc.5 The concentration of elements
can be built around the face of the main god, who traditionally gives the name to the whole
representation (Bes Pantheos, Amun Pantheos, Tutu Pantheos etc) (fig. 10). This draft
definition is not complete. It is a result of diversity of pantheistic iconography, the lack of
a canonical form of this representation and fact that there are no two identical depictions of
a pantheistic deity. On the other hand, even a cursory overview of pantheistic deities provides
a basic framework to distinguish these representations from the class of composite deities,
defined by elements of several deities in anthropomorphic and zoomorphic combinations of
multiple attributes, which are often represented in Egyptian iconography.6 We can describe
the common features of the sub-category of objects that make them a separate class in
composite representations of deities in Egyptian iconography. As mentioned above, the
common feature of these images is a series of attributes associated with representations of
other deities (additional animal heads, other parts of animal bodies) and multiple magical
elements such as wings, hands, eyes, phallic or androgynous elements. There are also other
typical apotropaic and magical components: ouroboros, knives, flames, and also frontal
“en face” representation.7 The solar aspect is visible in the dwarf composition.8 The most
distinctive feature of the images here is a mixture of elements, an impression of overloading,
which sometimes gives a “hybrid” composition, where human features give way to animal
and magical parts. The deities employed in pantheistic iconography by means of their

5
Quack, The so-called Pantheos, p. 175; Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, p. 97 proposed that
minimum four small animal heads or addition of other body parts let designate depiction as
pantheistic. Due to this explanation he excluded from this class figures of Tutu with one additional
head. Critical view – cf. von Lieven, OLZ 100 (2005), p. 32.
6
Hornung, Komposite Gottheiten, pp. 17-20. Cf. also M. Müller, Studies in Ancient Egyptian
Iconography, URL=http://www.rf01.org/, accessed 2009, “hybrid (human and animal parts
mixed)”. There is also in use term “bimorphic deities” with amalgam of human and one-type
animal elements (half-human and half-animal, sometimes specified as hybrid) – Wilkinson,
Anthropomorphic Deities, pp. 2-3; H. Fischer, The ancient Egyptian attitude towards the
monstrous, [in:] A. Farkas, P. Harper, E. Harrison (eds), Monsters and demons in the ancient
and medieval worlds: Papers presented in honor of Edith Porada, Mainz am Rhein, 1987,
pp. 13-26.
7
Y. Volokhine, Dieux, Masques et Hommes: À Propos de la formation de l’iconographie de Bès,
BSEG 18 (1994), pp. 92-95; J. Romano, The origin of the Bes-image, BES 2 (1980), pp. 39-56;
Y. Volokhine, La Frontalitè dans l’iconographie de l’Egypte Ancienne, Cahiers de la Société
d’Égyptologie 6, Geneve 2000, pp. 69-83.
8
V. Dasen, Dwarfism in Egypt and Classical Antiquity: Iconography and Medical History,
Medical History 32 (1988), p. 264; eadem, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Oxford 1993
(hereinafter referred to as: Dasen, Dwarfs), p. 67; eadem, Pataikos, [in:] J. Eggler, C. Uehlinger
(eds), Iconography of Deities and Demons, electronic pre-publication URL=http://www.
religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/index.php, accessed 2008 (hereinafter referred to as: Dasen,
Pataikos), pp. 1-6.

54
 Polymorphic or pantheistic deities? – Some Problems with Identification and Interpretation...

attributes are mainly Bes (Bes Pantheos), Tutu, forms of Horus, gods of the solar circle
(Atum, Amun-Re), and other gods9 (fig. 11).
Their occurrences are confirmed from the Late Period to Roman times.10 The popular and
personal character of these depictions is visible in the dominant small-sized objects of piety
such as statuettes and figures, images on the magical stelae (cippi, healing statues) and
amulets. Separate categories are formed by illustrations of papyri and gems. The unique
ones are representations of a votive and cultic character: reliefs and temple statues.11 The
main materials used in the production of these object are bronze and Egyptian faïence
and of course stone.12 The next feature has rather limited textual evidence, referring to
the pantheistic deity. Apart from magical spells and names, the written sources directly
connected with Bes Pantheos – the god most often employed in the pantheistic aspect – are:
Papyrus of Brooklyn (47.218156) and Papyrus Carlsberg 475.13 The first one provides textual
evidence of Bas of Amun-Re, which could probably be identified with the Pharaoh, and thus
emphasising its role as a protector of the King; the second one locates the multi-headed
Bes at the textual level without iconographical representation in official, not in popular
theology.14 In the written context it is necessary to mention the magical threefold words
from other magical documents, referring to the hidden name of universal God.15

9
B. Hornemann, Types of Ancient Egyptian Statuary VI-VII, Munksgaard 1969, pp. 1501-
1515; G. Roeder, Ägyptischen Bronzefiguren, Berlin 1956 (hereinafter referred to as: Roeder,
Ägyptischen Bronzefiguren), pp. 30-31, 87-104; T. Tinh, Bes [in:] LIMC III/1, pp. 98-99, 103;
III/2, p. 82. Cf. also below about interpretation of polymorphic deities.
10
About religious background in these periods – cf. H.I. Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman
Egypt, Liverpool 1953, pp. 1-24; J. Quaegebeur, Cultes égyptiens et grecs en Égypte Hellénistique.
L’exploitation des sources, [in:] E. van T Dack, P. van Dessel, W. van Gucht (eds), Egypt and
the hellenistic world. Proceedings of the International Collioquium, Leuven 1983, pp. 303-
324; R. Merkelbach, Isis regina – Zeus Serapis. Die griechisch – ägyptische Religion nach den
Quellen dargestellt, Leipzig 1995, passim; L. Kákosy, Probleme der Religion im römerzeitlichen
Ägypten, [in:] Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 18.5, ??? 1995, pp. 2895-3048,
and referring to non-official piety – A.I. Sadek, Popular religion in Egypt during the New
Kingdom, HÄB 27 (1987), pp. 269-291. The first confirmed polymorphic depiction of Bes with
animal heads, multitude hands and wings is bronze statue with cartouche of Psammetich from
Twenty-sixth Dynasty in Louvre (inv. E 11554) – cf. L. Kákosy, A propos des statues guerisseuses
et d’une statues de Bes au musee du Louvre, [in:] Y. Koenig (ed.), La magie en Égypte, actes du
colloque organisé par le Musée du Louvre les 29 et 30 septembre 2000, Louvre, conférences et
colloques, Paris 2002, pp. 276-279.
11
Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, p. 103; J. Quaegebeur, Tithoes, [in:] LÄ VI, pp. 602-606.
12
Bronze material, used to produce polymorphic figures suggested that they were in use by select,
good-situated and educated parts of Egyptian society. It could mean that an idea was not
popular and understood by wide levels of society – cf. Cooney, Androgynous Bronze Figurines,
pp. 64, 69.
13
S. Sauneron, Le papyrus magique illustré de Brooklyn (Brooklyn Museum 47.218.156), Brooklyn
1970 (hereinafter referred to as: Sauneron, Le papyrus magique), passim and J.F. Quack, Ein
Neuer Zeuge für den Text zum Neunköpfigen Bes (P. Carlsberg 475), [in:] K. Ryholt (ed.), The
Carlsberg Papyri 7. Hieratic Texts from the Collection, Copenhagen 2006 (hereinafter referred
to as: Quack, Ein Neuer Zeuge), pp. 53-64. Cf also E.A.E. Reymond, (rev.), Serge Sauneron, Le
Le papyrus magique illustré de Brooklyn (Brooklyn Museum 47.218.156), Brooklyn 1970, CdE
XLVII 93 (1972), pp. 122-124 and L. Kákosy, (rev.), S. Sauneron, Le Le papyrus magique illustré
de Brooklyn (Brooklyn Museum 47.218.156), New York, The Brooklyn Museum 1970, BiOr XXIX
no. 1/2 (1972), pp. 28-29.
14
J.F. Quack, Kontinuität und Wandel in der spätägyptischen Magie, SEL 15 (1998), p. 87; idem,
The so-called Pantheos, pp. 178-186.
15
M.L. Ryhiner, A propos de Trigrammes Panthéistes, RdE 29 (1977), pp. 125-137 and Y. Koenig,
Les Patéques inscrits du Louvre, RdE 43 (1992), pp. 123-132; idem, Des „trigrammes panthéistes“
ramessides aux gemmes magiques de l’Antiquité tardive: le cas d’Abrasax, continuité et rupture,
BIFAO 109 (2009), pp. 311-325.

55
 Grzegorz First

It has been proposed to make a distinction between the composite depiction focused
on one god and images focused on a multitude of gods in debates about the identification
problem with pantheistic deities in terms of iconography. The former was called “paniconic,”
the term pantheistic left to the latter category.16
Putting aside a discussion about the pantheistic aspects of religious iconography,
J.F. Quack proposed a new definition of these kinds of depiction – referring only to their
visual side. In his opinion the term polymorphic does not bear contemporary notifications
of the term pantheistic, which could only be one of the possible vehicles for interpretating
them.17 The main feature of polymorphic deities are additional animal elements attached
to the basic corpse.18 These elements are first of all heads, wings and other parts of animal
body; also polymorphic depictions are defined by ithyphallic or sometimes androgynous
elements, which however are interpreted not with sexual connotations, but in the context of
aggression and power. The following elements could be added and pointed out as features of

16
D. Meeks, Zoomorphie et image des dieux dans l’Égypte ancienne, [in:] Ch. Malamoud, J.-P.
Vernant (eds), Corps des dieux, Le temps de la réflexion 7, Paris 1986, p. 184 (re-edited as Corps
des dieux, Folio-histoire, ??? 2003, pp. 229-257).
17
The most distinctive view on pantheism in European meaning was given by B. Spinoza in
his “Ethica” – cf. M. Levine, Pantheism, [in:] E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition), URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/
pantheism/, accessed ???, and M. Ciszewski, Panteizm, [in:] A. Maryniarczyk (ed.) Powszechna
Historia Filozofii, Lublin, in print (access 2010 via URL http://ptta.pl/pef/pdf/p/panteizm.
pdf). On the other hand the term polymorphic is less connotated with religious aspects, more
with biological or physical. However term is used with reference to some religious systems as
Hinduism for example. In context of terminology in Egyptian religious iconography there is
necessary to mention about term “polymorphic monotheism”, referring to Twenty-first Dynasty
and conception of multi-way representations, images and names of God, “who is in everything
and everything is in the God” – cf. A. Niwiński, Iconography of the 21st dynasty: its main features,
levels of attestation, the media a their diffusion, [in:] Ch. Uehlinger (ed.), Images as Media:
Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, OBO 175,
Göttingen 2000, p. 28; idem, The Solar-Osirian unity as principle of the theology of the “State of
Amun” in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap
(Ex Oriente Lux) 30 (1987-1988), pp. 89-106, and in funeral context – idem, Studies on the
illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri of the 11th and 10th centuries B.C., OBO 86, ??? 1989,
pp. 38-42.
18
J.F. Quack made significant distinction between deities with animal heads of the different types,
and deities with heads (most often 4) of one type of animal, what it clear manifestation of Sun
God and in consequence the latter are not subject of the study – cf. Quack, The so-called Pantheos,
p. 175; K. Myśliwiec, Studien zum Gott Atum I, HÄS 5, Hildesheim 1978 (hereinafter referred to
as: Myśliwiec, Studien zum Gott Atum), pp. 51-62. One of the examples of this depiction is four-
headed god on the centre of hypocephali – cf. J. Gee, Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali,
[in:] Le lotus qui sort du terre: Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga, Bulletin du Musée Hongrois
des Beaux-Arts Supplément, ??? 2001, pp. 325–334 and E. Varga, Napkorong a fej alatt (Disque
solaire sous la tête), Budapest 1998, passim. Cf. also “Lord of many faces”, “Lord of many forms”
and other forms of Great God from early Twenty-first Dynasty iconographical sources, who may
be interpreted as later versions of figures from Litany of Re – Niwiński, Jaarbericht van het
Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap (Ex Oriente Lux) 30 (1987-1988), pp. 33-35; A. Piankoff,
The Litany of Re, Egyptian Religious Texts and Representations, Bollingen Series XL, vol.
4, ??? 1964, pp. 10-12, 19, and depiction of “pantheistic” Amun-Rasonther – with eight ram
heads, multiple wings and hands, crocodile tail and ithyphallic Scarab–corpse from Louvre
healing statue – R.V. Lanzone, Dizionario di Mitologia Egizia, Torino 1881-1886 (hereinafter
referred to as: Lanzone, Dizionario), pl. XXIV. Additionally O. Kaper has pointed out that the
presence of theriomorphic attribute does not converse depiction into pantheistic one. The core
is “pluriformity” what can be collated with “polymorphity” – cf. Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu,
p. 87.

56
 Polymorphic or pantheistic deities? – Some Problems with Identification and Interpretation...

polymorphic iconography: a mixture of symbolic and magical elements of different origin,

multiplications of elements and amalgams of animal components, although retaining their
separateness (fig. 12).
The difficulties with description of polymorphic representations appeared because each
category of objects has its own repertoire of motifs; bronze figures, images on stone stelae
(cippi or healing statues) and gems, in particular amulets. They of course belong to different
periods and have varied magical and religious functions. But the reason for this could be the
result of the type materials used, their dimensions (especially in frame 2- or 3-dimensional)
and other technical possibilities. An open question is of course the concept that influenced
the choice of selected elements.19
It is a difficult task to trace the development of these depictions. Due to their diversity,
wide meaning and lack of “classical” form, this attempt can only be made without any clear
answer. The most cited “pre-polymorphic” representations are: magical wands (curved
stuffs) from the Middle Kingdom, ithyphallic figures with wings and knives from the Saft
el-Henna shrine, New Kingdom evidence of winged Bes-image.20 A separate class is formed
by hybrid figures from the temple in Hibis and at the same time dated Punic and Phoenician
metal amulets.21 For further discussion is also the problem of visual concurrence of the
iconographical “polymorhic” elements, appearing in solar representations of thGreat God
from the late New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period.22 However they have
a clearly eschatological and funeral context.
Also worth mentioning are the iconographical, not always symbolic, similarities on the
intercultural map of Egypt and the Near East.23 The first observation was introduced for
the hybrid Mesopotamian (Assyrian) demon Pazuzu, depicted with anthropomorphic and
theriomorphic elements with characteristic wings and tails and ithyphallic features.24 Images
with a demon were very popular outside Mesopotamia, in Palestine and also in Egypt. One of
them was probably found in Tanis; its iconographical similarity to Bes Pantheos suggesting
maybe a conscious affinity.25 In debating the iconographical similarities of Tutu Pantheos

19
L. Kákosy, Egyptian Healing Statues in three Museums in Italy (Turin, Florence, Naples), ???
1999 (hereinafter referred to as: Kákosy, Egyptian Healing Statues), pp. 9-34. Cf. also below
about interpretation of depictions.
20
A. Stevens, Domestic Religious Practices, [in:] W. Wendrich, J. Dieleman (eds), UCLA
Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles 2009, pp. 7-11; G. Steindorff, The Magical Knives
of Ancient Egypt, The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery IX (1946), pp. 41-53; P. Hubai, Der
zerbrochene Zauberstab. Vom Nutzen der Magie oder das Apotropaion za Budapest, SAK
37 (2008), pp. 169-198; Quack, The so-called Pantheos, p. 176; L. Kákosy, A New Source of
Egyptian Mythology and Iconography, [in:] C.J. Eyre (ed.), Seventh International Congress of
Egyptologists Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, OLA 82, Leuven 1998 (hereinafter referred to
as: Kákosy, A New Source), p. 623; T.M. Davis, The Tomb of Iouiya and Touiyou, London 1907,
pp. 36-37, pl. XXXVII.

21
Hornung, Komposite Gottheiten, p. 19; Quack, The so-called Pantheos, p. 177; E. Cruz-Uribe,
Hibis Temple Project I. Transliteration, commentary, discussion and sign-list, San Antionio,
Texas 1988, p. 147; E. Cruz-Uribe, Hibis Temple Project II. The Demotic Graffiti od Gebel Teir,
San Antionio, Texas 1995, p. 19.
22
Cf. footnotes 17 and 18 in the present paper.
23
Cf. A. Alföldi, Der iranische Weltriese auf archäologischen Denkmälern, Separatabdruck
aus dem 40. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 1944/1950, ???, pp.
17-34.
24
Kákosy, Bemerkungen zur Ikonographie der magischen Heilstatuen, pp. 47-48; N.P. Heessel,
Pazuzu, [in:] J. Eggler, C. Uehlinger (eds), Iconography of Deities and Demons. Electronic Pre-
Publication (URL=http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/index.php), accessed 2007,
pp. 1-5.
25
P.R.S. Moorey, A Bronze “Pazuzu” Statuette from Egypt, Iraq 27 (1965), pp. 33-41; N.P. Heessel,
Pazuzu. Archäologische und philologische Studien zu einem altorientalischen Dämon, Ancient

57
 Grzegorz First

one notices a correspondence between the “pantheistic” sphinx and the Asiatic (Hittite)
multi-head prototypes.26
A much clearer picture is possible to outline in the heritage and traditions of the motif
in antiquity. The most separate and significant class is gems, due to their obvious magical
character and common technical features.27 Gems are still one of the best sources to trace the
iconographical aspect of Pantheos, in spite of the relatively small number of objects with this
image.28 Due to the multicultural character of the times when gems were produced, not only
Egyptian but also Oriental, Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian elements influenced them.
The syncretic motif of Pantheos received a new context but left a lot of symbols, enriched
with the addition of magical words and spells, in Greek particularly. Iconographical variants
of pantheistic depiction contain representations of winged, ithyphallic multi-headed beings
on the cartouche, as Horus Pantheos, Bes Pantheos, on the lion, on the ouroboros, with heads
of a jackal, ibis or other birds, also as a scarab or a mummy.29 The process of syncretism
entailed a wide range of divine or personal protectors incorporated in the Pantheos image
from Amun, Nine-Shaped One (-Bes), Tutu to Aion, Pschai-Agathos-Daimon and Helios.
The deity is the creator, protective, solar, oracle god, protector of fate, time and eternity.30
The gems are strictly bound with textual sources from Greek magical papyri, where the
presence of the idea of Pantheos is confirmed in spells.31 The figure of the Nine-Shaped One
gained a Greek name (έννεάμορφος) and had a depiction of Egyptian influence: a creature
encircled by a snake, with animal head and crocodile below. This could be referred to the
(known from the gems) Pschai-Agathos-Daimon – the god of good destiny, identified with

Magic and Divination IV, Leiden – Boston – Köln 2002, pp. 35-39. Moreover the functions of
both figures: Pazuzu and Bes were connected with protection against evil. Cf. also G. Vittmann,
Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchrislichen Jahrtausend, Mainz am Rhein 2003, p. 115,
pl. 14a – statue with Aramaic inscription.
26
H. Seyrig, Tithoës, Totoës et le sphinx panthèe, ASAE 35 (1935), pp. 197-202.
27
S. Michel, Seele der Finsternis, Schutzgottheit und Schicksalsmacht: der Pantheos auf
Magischen Gemmen, [in:] W. Kemp, G. Mattenklott, M. Wagner, M. Warnke (eds), Vorträge
aus dem Warburg Haus 6, ??? 2002 (hereinafter referred to as: Michel, Seele der Finsternis,
Schutzgottheit und Schicksalsmacht), pp. 1-40, esp. footnotes 1,2,8 – there further older
bibliography including Pantheos. Cf. also eadem, (Re)interpreting Magical Gems, Ancient and
Modern, [in:] S. Shaked (ed.), Officina Magica. Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity,
Leiden 2005, pp. 141-170.
28
G. Bąkowska, Bes Pantheos. Some Remarks Concerning his Representation on Magical Gems,
[in:] J. Popielska-Grzybowska (ed.), Proceedings of the First Central European Conference
of Young Egyptologists. Egypt 1999: Perspectives of Research Warsaw 7-9 June 1999,
Światowit Supplement Series E: Egyptology, vol. I, Warsaw 2001, pp. 11-14; J. Śliwa, Gemma
z przedstawieniem “Pantheosa” z kolekcji Konstantego Schmidta-Ciążyńskiego, Eos LXXVIII
(1990), pp. 163-167; R. Merkelbach, Astrologie, Mechanik, Alchimie und Magie im griechisch-
römischen Ägypten, [in:] Begegnung von Heidentum und Christentum im spätantiken Ägypten,
Riggisberger Berichte 1, ??? 1993, pp. 49-62.
29
S. Michel, Die Magischen Gemmen: zu Bildern und Zauberformeln auf geschnittenen Steinen
der Antike und Neuzeit, Berlin 2004, pp. 64-84, 316-321.

30
Michel, Seele der Finsternis, Schutzgottheit und Schicksalsmacht, pp. 27-28.

31
W.B. Brashear, The Greek Magical Papyri, [in:] Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II
18.5, ??? 1995, pp. 3380–3730 – with older bibliography. Cf. also Y. Koeing, Magie et magiciens
dans l’Egypte ancienne, Paris 1994, pp. 127-129; H.D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in
translation including the Demotic spells, Chicago – London 1992 (Second edition), passim; and
language contribution – H.J. Thissen, Ägyptologische Beiträge zu den griechischen magischen
Papyri, [in:] U. Verhoeven, E. Graefe (eds), Religion und Philosophie im alten Ägypten:
Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24 Juli 1991, OLA, 39, Leuven
1991, pp. 293-302. About standing out figure of Acephalos – cf. J. Berlandini, L’”Acéphale” et le
rituel de rivirilisation, OMRO 73 (1993), pp. 29-41.

58
 Polymorphic or pantheistic deities? – Some Problems with Identification and Interpretation...

Horus-Harpokrates.32 In debating the antique heritage of the Pantheos motif it is worth

mentioning the syncretic deities of Hellenistic and Roman tradition, such as Isis Panthea,
which, however, seems to be a further transformation of the image with the transfer of new
cosmogonic ideas.33
The tradition of the polymorphic figure brought Bes Pantheos to a motif of the Pantheos on
magical gems and papyri; in the case of Tutu it evolved into Greek and Roman henotheism
and to a representation of the solar universal god in the temples of late Ptolemaic and the
Roman periods.34 This heritage indicates multi-level ways of developing the image and the
idea – between the personal, magical dimension and official, solar ideology.

An approach to the interpretation of polymorphic deities

The starting point in discussion devoted to the role of polymorphic/pantheistic depictions
is the definition proposed by J. Assmann, who argued for a strong religious basics for modern
reception of Ancient Egyptian beliefs.35 He located pantheistic thought in the heritage of
the Ramesside Period with a perceptible connection with personal piety and the search
for a universal “supergod.” Pictorial representation of “one and all” in the Late Period is
a depiction of Bes Pantheos from, for example, Papyrus of Brooklyn, in which it is as the
Bas of god – “a manifestation of power of the hidden god.”36 The opposite opinion could
be derived from E. Hornung’s view on the problem of the conception of God in Egyptian
religion. In his opinion, the term pantheism cannot be identified in Egyptian theology; God

32
R. Merkelbach, Abrasax: ausgewählte Papyri religiösen und magischen Inhalts, Bd. 3 Abh.
Rhein.-Westf. Akad. Wiss. Papyrologica Coloniensia XVII. 3, Opladen 1992, pp. 59-68.
33
T. Tinh, Isis, [in:] LIMC V/1, pp. 786-787, 795; O. Kaper, Synkretistische Götterbilder in
hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Kat. 188-199), [in:] H. Beck, P.C. Bol, M. Bückling (eds),
Ägypten Griechenland Rom. Abwehr und Berührung, Frankfurt 2005, pp. 305-309, 611-619.
34
Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, pp. 103-104.
35
J. Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, London 2001 (translated from German by
D. Lorton, German edition: Ägypten. Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur, ???
1984) (hereinafter referred to as: Assmann, The Search for God), pp. 240-244; idem, Moses the
Egyptian. The memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Cambridge 1997 (hereinafter referred
to as: Assmann, Moses the Egyptian), pp. 168-207; idem, Primat und Transzendenz. Struktur
und Genese der ägyptischen Vorstellung eines „Höchsten Wesens“, [in:] W. Westendorff
(ed.), Aspekte der spätägyptischen Religion, Wiesbaden 1979, pp. 7-42; idem, Monotheismus
und Kosmotheismus. Ägyptische Formen eines „Denkens des Einen“ und ihre europäische
Rezeptionsgeschichte, Heidelberg 1993, passim and J.F. Quack, Perspektiven zur Theologie im
Alten Ägypten: Antwort auf Jan Assmann, [in:] M. Oeming, K. Schmid, A. Schüle (eds), Theologie
in Israel und in den Nachbarkulturen, Altes Testament und Moderne 9, Münster 2004, pp. 63-
74. Cf. also K. Koch, Das Wesen altägyptischer Religion im Spiegel ägyptologischer Forschung,
Vorgelegt in der Sitzung vom 1. Juli 1988, Hamburg, Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften, Göttingen 1989, ch. 5.
36
Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, pp. 168-207; idem, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom
– Re, Amun and the crisis of polytheism, ??? 1995 (translated from German by A. Alcock,
German edition: Re und Amun. Die Krise des polytheistischen Weltbilds im Ägypten der 18.-20.
Dynastie, OBO 51, Fribourg – Göttingen 1983) (hereinafter referred to as: Assmann, Egyptian
Solar Religion), pp. 140-155, 190-197. One of the first examples of pantheistic approach in
Egyptian personal religion – cf. W.M.F. Petrie, Personal Religion in Egypt before Christianity,
??? 1909, pp. 49, 53, 87-88, 97, 104, 124. The first pantheistic interpretation of solar text – cf.
E. Naville, La litanie du soleil, Leipzig 1876, pp. 6, 122; idem, La religion des anciens Egyptiens,
Paris 1906, pp. 115-116, 124; J.H. Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient
Egypt, ??? 1912, pp. 312, 357, 360. About Papyrus of Brooklyn cf. Sauneron, Le papyrus magique,
pp. 3-5 and R.S. Bianchi, Neferut Net Kemit. Egyptian Art from the Brooklyn Museum, ???
1983-1984, no. 66.

59
 Grzegorz First

– the creator – manifests himself in its creation but the latter does not absorb its creator.37
O. Kaper tried to join both views, situating them in a chronological line: Hornung’s view
applies for the pre-Amarnian times and Assmann’s ideas to Rammesside times and later.
The interaction between the two approaches resulted in a pantheistic depiction in the Late
Period onwards.38 A more practical contribution was made by G. Pinch, who argued that
pantheistic beings with various heads accompanying various symbols of power can be used
as defensive magic.39 However, she wonders whether pantheistic deities are the product of
theological development or an advanced magical technique. A similar point of view from this
“magical” perspective was presented by R.K. Ritner.40 Depictions of Bes Pantheos on magical
stelae – cippi were used for protective purposes and their main aim was to strengthen the
whole magical object with this representation. The most visible aspect of this role could be
evidenced in magical stelae – the so-called Horus cippi, especially from the high phase of
their distribution, dated from the Thirtieth Dynasty to the end of Ptolemaic Period.41 The
selection of polymorphic motifs suggests an abundance of magical thoughts, used probably
for very practical reasons.42
Further interpretations of pantheistic depictions can be divided into two principal groups.
The first identify representations with god, whose features were dominant in the image.
They were not regarded as a form of god, although there were such interpretations, but the
depiction represented an idea of a composite character of deity or simply a universal God.43
The term “paniconic” could refer to deities with a well-defined aspect of one god. The full
list of deities appearing in polymorphic aspects includes various gods from the Egyptian
pantheon. They can be divided into three principal groups; the first and the most widely
represented comprises gods like Bes and Tutu, however there are objections about placing
Tutu in a pantheistic dimension; the second group contained gods of the solar circle: Amun
(-Re), Atum, (Ptah-) pataikos, with an obvious comment connected with the solar aspect of
Bes; and the third one including the rest of the gods with single objects assigned to them:
forms of Horus: Hormerti (of Pharbaitos), Haroeris, Harsiesie (Horus son of Isis), and also
Sopdu, Rescheph, Nefertem, Anubis, from which some could manifest also sun aspects.44

37
E. Hornung, Jeden czy wielu? Koncepcja Boga w starożytnym Egipcie, Warszawa 1991
(translated from German by A. Niwiński, German edition: Der Eine und die Vielen. Ägyptische
Gottervorstellungen, Darmstadt 1973), pp. 109-112. The first critical approach to the pantheistic
nature of Egyptian gods – cf. A. Wiedemann, Die Religion der alten Ägypter, Münster 1890, p. 139
and also 76, 166. A similar objections were raised by S. Mercer in statement that pantheism has
not a cultic character i.e. it is not-Egyptian – cf. S.A.B. Mercer, The Religion of Ancient Egypt,
London 1949, p. 308. Cf. also D. Lorton, God: Transcendent, Dead, or Everything?, GM 140
(1994), pp. 53-67.
38
Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, pp. 85-86.
39
G. Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, London 2006, pp. 36-38, il.17.
40
R.K. Ritner, Horus on the Crocodiles: A Juncture of Religion and Magic in Late Dynastic
Egypt, [in:] J.P. Allen, J. Assmann, A.B. Lloyd, R.K. Ritner, D.P. Silverman (eds), Religion and
Philosophy in Ancient Egypt, YES 3, ??? 1989 (hereinafter referred to as: Ritner, Horus on the
Crocodiles), pp. 111-112.

41
H. Sternberg el-Hotabi, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Horusstelen. Ein
Beitrag zur Religionsgeschichte Ägyptens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Teil I: Textband, ÄA 62,
Wiesbaden 1999, pp. 105-162.
42
Kákosy, Egyptian Healing Statues, pp. 15-17; cf. also D. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt.
Assimilation and resistance, Princeton – New Jersey 1998, pp. 46-52, 124-131.
43
Cf. Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, pp. 91-99.
44
H. Altenmüller, Bes, [in:] LÄ I, cols 720-724; Kákosy, Mischgestalt, cols 145-148; G. Daressy,
Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Nos. 38001-39384. Statues
de Divinités, Le Caire 1905, p. 210; idem, Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée
du Caire. Nos. 9401-9449. Textes et Dessins Magiques, Le Caire 1903, pp. 36-37; H.Ch. Puech,

60
 Polymorphic or pantheistic deities? – Some Problems with Identification and Interpretation...

Some of them have scarce evidence of a polymorphic aspect; sometimes it is the result of the
accompanying text or characteristic attribute, defining god. This author has considerable
reservations about interpretation of the whole deity based on a single source. The depiction
of a polymorphic deity is not nevertheless restricted to the one god.45 The most distinctive
subgroup is solar deities, which is obvious when we regard Bes, especially in the dwarf
figure, as a solar deity.46 Moreover, mutual relationships between Bes and deities employed
in polymorphic aspects are visible in the connections of Bes with gods treated as hyposthases
of Horus, such as Sopdu, Nefertum, Horus-Min and Hormerty.47
The second group of interpretations contains identifying a pantheistic/polymorphic
depiction with a universal idea too difficult to be represented in one simple form. Depictions
are treated as vehicles for hidden, complicated thought, compressed in one image.48 The
so-called Pantheos is not a separate god, because the message carried in one image is too
significant to be equated with one divinity.49 The separate subgroup identifies depictions
or its elements with demons, messengers; the image is a representation of various helpers

Le Dieu Bésa et le magie hellénistique, Documents 2 (1930), pp. 415-425; F.W. von Bissing, Zur
Deutung der „pantheistischen Besfiguren“, ZÄS 75 (1939), pp. 130-132; B.H. Stricker, W.D. van
Wijngaarden, Magische stèles, OMRO 22 (1941), pp. 6-38; B.H. Stricker, Magische Gemmen,
OMRO 24 (1943), pp. 25-30; Ph. Derchain, Le démiurge et la balance, [in:] Religions en Égypte,
hellénistique et romaine. Colloque de Strasbourg, 16-18 mai 1967, Paris 1969 (hereinafter
referred to as: Derchain, Le démiurge et la balance), pp. 31-34; Kákosy, BiOr XXIX no. 1/2 (1972),
pp. 28-29; Ryhiner, RdE 29 (1977), pp. 125-137; Koenig, RdE 43 (1992), pp. 123-132; D. Meeks,
Le nom du dieu Bès et ses implications mythologiques, [in:] Intellectual Heritage of Egypt.
Studies Presented to László Kákosy by Friends and Colleagues on the Occasion of His 60th
Birthday, Studia Aegyptiaca 14, Budapest 1992 (hereinafter referred to as: Meeks, Le nom du
dieu Bès), p. 434; Roeder, Ägyptischen Bronzefiguren, pp. 30-31, 87-104; Lanzone, Dizionario
I, pp. 202-221, 552-557, 561-594, 1186-1188, 1190-1191; J.F. Aubert, L. Aubert, Bronzes et or
egyptiens, Contribution à l’Egyptologie 11 (2001), pp. 254-259, 309, 328-335; F. Doyen, ???,
[in:] E. Warmenbol (ed.), Ombres d’Egypte: le peuple de Pharaon, Catalogue de l’exposition
créée au Musée du Malgré-Tout à Treignes (Belgique), CEDARC, Treignes 1999, pp. 102-103;
M. Weber, Harmerti, [in:] LÄ II, cols 996-997; D. Kurth, Haroëris, [in:], LÄ II, cols 999-1003;
There can be made some objections, connected with “polymorphic” Pataikos – cf. Dasen, Pataikos,
pp. 1-6. Cf. also I. Matzker, Gruppierung von Patäken anhand von Merkmalsvergleichen, [in:]
A. Eggebrecht (ed.), Festschrift Jürgen von Beckerath zum 70. Geburstag, HÄB 30, Hildesheim
1990, pp. 199-207, Ch. Herrmann, Die ägyptischen Amulette der Sammlungen BIBEL+ORIENT
der Universität Freiburg Schweiz. Anthropomorphe Gestalten und Tiere, OBO 22, Freiburg
– Göttingen 2003, pp. 19-21, 102-109. Concerning Sopdu – there are indications of relations to
Horus and Bes, also he appears as helper of Pharaoh.
45
A. Delatte, Ph. Derchain, Les Intailles Magiques Gréco-Égyptiennes, Paris 1964, p. 130;
Derchain, Le démiurge et la balance, pp. 31-34.
46
M. Malaise, Bes et les croyances solaires, [in:] S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Studies in Egyptology
presented to Miriam Lichtheim II, Jerusalem 1990, pp. 717-722; Dasen, Medical History 32
(1988), p. 264; eadem, Dwarfs, p. 67; F.V. Brieva, El Dios Bes de Egipto a Ibiza, Eivissa 2007,
pp. 23-42; G. Michaildis, Bès aux divers aspects, BIE XLV Session 1963-1964 (1968), pp. 53-93,
esp. 61-62.
47
M. Malaise, Bes, [in:] D.B. Redford (ed.) Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt I, ??? 2001
(hereinafter referred to as: Malaise, Bes), pp. 180-181; cf. also idem, Bès et la famille isiaque, CdE
157 (2004), pp. 266-292; I.W. Schumacher, Der Gott Sopdu der Herr der Fremländer, OBO 79,
??? 1988, pp. 14-21, 140-159, 241-243, 245-247; J. Ogdon, Some notes on the Iconography of the
God Min, BES 7 (1985/1986), pp. 29-41.
48
Kákosy, A New Source, p. 623.
49
Idem, Der Gott Bes in einer koptischen Legende, Acta Antiqua 14 (1966), pp. 185-196. Cf. also
knowing of secret name of god – D. Meeks, CH. Favard Meeks, Daily Life of the Egyptian Gods,
London 1996 (translated from French by ???, French edition: La vie quotidienne des dieux
égyptiens, Paris 1993), pp. 97-100.

61
 Grzegorz First

of the sun.50 In this context Tutu Pantheos could be named the master of demons, and Bes
Pantheos hides Bas of god personified as a group of messengers or demons, numbering
seven or nine.51 Although the most capacious message of the polymorphic depiction is
a solar interpretation, in which Pantheos, especially Bes Pantheos, represents Bas of Amun-
Re, in its universal, supreme aspect.52 It appears in invisible manifestation of the god or
a multitude of gods, which can be referred to the (discussed by O. Kaper) term BAw, known
for example from magical texts and textual sources of personal piety.53 This term could mean
in particular the powers of god, might, appearing in their influence on humans, particularly
in disasters, illness or other misfortunes of everyday activities. From this attitude there is
a simple way to explain the magical and also the practical aspects of polymorphic figures,
used as a tool for influencing gods to protect humans in daily life.54 It must be stressed that
there was no dichotomy between religion and magic in ancient Egypt; the popularity of
amulets, images of differential deities in a magical context in Late Egyptian activities could
be reflections of the “democratisation” of religious practices. Images could be projections
of the “one god who made himself into millions.”55 In this approach animals are images of
gods and demons, and whole depictions are regarded as animated images of deities. It was
noticed that the name Bes could be derived from the noun bs – “secret image,” what can
be an additional argument for treating Bes – an image of a vehicle depicting a universal,
hidden idea.56
In analysing the significance of polymorphic depictions one needs to mention that the
distinguished feature of the polymorphic deity, and also its commonest attribute, is the
presence of additional animal heads (fig. 13). The repertoire of animal heads is wide but
the most employed are those with strong solar symbols. The catalogue of heads comprises
heads of a bull, lion, dog, falcon, ape, cat, crocodile and ram. Other animals in different
orientation depending on the side of the main head may also occur. They seem to be located
in a symbolic aspect of religious iconography, where animal symbols are significantly
developed. Additional animal heads can be regarded as symbols of minor gods or demons,

50
Y.J.-L. Gourlay, Les seigneurs et les baou vivants à Chedenou, [in:] Hommages à la mèmoire
de Serge Sauneron 1927-1976 I, BdE 81, Le Caire 1979, p. 378; J.C. Goyon, Les dieux-gardiens
et la genèse des temples (d’après les textes ègyptiens de l’èpoque grèco-romaine) I, Le Caire
1985, pp. 184-188; Ch. Leitz, Tagewählerei: Das Buch HAt nHH pH.wy Dt und verwandte Texte,
ÄA Wiesbaden 1994, pp. 244-255; S. Cauville, À propos des 77 Génies de Pharbaïtos, BIFAO
90 (1990), pp. 115-133; D. Meeks, Demons, [in:] D.B. Redford (ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of
Ancient Egypt I, ??? 2001, pp. 375-378.

51
S. Sauneron, Le nouveau sphinx composite du Brooklyn Museum et le role du dieu Toutou-
Tithoes, JNES 19/4 (1960), pp. 284-285; idem, Le papyrus magique, pp. 6-17.
52
As mentioned above it could be identified protective function for the King – cf. Quack, SEL 15
(1998), p. 87; idem, The so-called Pantheos, pp. 178-182; idem, Ein Neuer Zeuge, passim. About
solar interpretation – Assmann, The Search for God, pp. 240-244; cf. also Myśliwiec, Studien
zum Gott Atum I, p. 100.
53
Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu, pp. 99-101. J. Assmann defines this term as “manifestation of
divine will, display of power, punishing force, wrath, intervention” – cf. Assmann, The Search for
God, p. 231.
54
Cf. J. Baines, Society, Morality and Religious Practice, [in:] B.E. Shafer (ed.), Religion in Ancient
Egypt. Gods, myths, and personal practice, London 1991, pp. 164-172.
55
R.K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54, Chicago 1997,
pp. 236-249; idem, Egyptian Magical Practice under the Roman Empire: the Demotic Spells and
thier Religious Context, [in:] Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 18.5, ??? 1995,
pp. 3355-3358; Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion, p. 152.
56
Kákosy, Acta Antiqua 14 (1966), pp. 185-196; further epithets cf. Ch. Leitz, Lexikon der
ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnung III, OLA 111, Leuven 2002, pp. 822-835. There are
also other language connotations – cf. Malaise, Bes, pp. 179-181; Meeks, Le nom du dieu Bès, pp.
423-436.

62
 Polymorphic or pantheistic deities? – Some Problems with Identification and Interpretation...

which was proposed in Tutu case, or what seems to be more appropriate, as a manifestation
of animal powers.57 Additional heads can be concentrated on the main head in the shape of
a mask of Bes (en face) or Bes as a dwarf (en profile), sometimes with a crown composed of
horns, solar disc, plumes, uraeus. The common feature is also multiple wings and hands,
holding scepters, flagellum, magical amulets, knives, flames (fig. 14). The figure may have
a crocodile and/or bird’s tail, animal elements (snake and pig heads protruding from knees
and foots). The depiction may be encircled by flames and may be used as a motif of ouroboros
(or cartouche) with images of animals. Sometimes the figure stands on a crocodile or lion.
The role of animals portrayed in ouroboros, such as the lion, hippopotamus, crocodile, snake,
dog, scorpion and turtle is also unclear. On the one hand they can be treated as enemies of
the God, on the other hand as helpers, or, in an attempt to reconcile both opinions, as former
enemies, in the role of supporters.58 The body of the main figure may be covered with animal
skin, multiple symbols of eyes, feathers and may have an ithyphallic character.59 This is of
course the most canonical depiction of the polymorphic deity (however this term does not
exist), based on Bes elements. It must be emphasised that the amount of iconographical
variants of polymorphic deities are so multiple that their description exceeds the framework
of this paper. In particular, the core figure differs from the human or animal, Bes, Tutu
sphinx, scarab or even without isolated main corpse with a conglomerate of heads.60

The differentiation of iconography contributes to difficulties of interpretation. The

commonest opinion links polymorphic depiction as a tool or vehicle for solar, universal aspect
of deity. It is especially visible in Late Egyptian religion, when tendency to universalisation
and simplification are noticeable. The motif can be interpreted as a representation of
invisible presence of a divine power. Prevalent is also the view of these images as symbols
of the variety of gods in one picture, as a Bas of the Hidden One.61 The symbolic animal,
as deployed in the image, is the best confirmation of the divine aspect located both in the
individual and in the official, maybe even in royal beliefs. The attributes of particular gods
used to create the depiction are first of all of a solar message.62 An open issue is the role of
deities in the protection of the Pharaoh and practical/prophylactic aspect of images, which
is visible in magical elements, accompanying names, idea of BAw, and in magical gems
particularly.

57
Sauneron, JNES 19/4 (1960), pp. 284-286; Michel, Seele der Finsternis, Schutzgottheit und
Schicksalsmacht, pp. 11-12.
58
Quack, The so-called Pantheos, pp. 177-178; J. Quaegebeur, Divinités égyptiennes sur des animaux
dangereux, [in:] L’animal, l’homme, le dieu dans le Proche-Orient ancien, Actes du Colloque de
Cartigny, 1981, Les Cahiers du Centre d’ Etude du Proche-Orient Ancien, Université de Genève
2, Leuven 1985, pp. 131-143; Ritner, Horus on the crocodiles, p. 111. About ouroboros – cf.
L. Kákosy, Ouroboros on magical healing statues, [in:] T. DuQuesne (ed.), Hermes Aegyptiacus.
Egyptological studies for B. H. Stricker on his 85th birthday, ??? 1995, pp. 123-129.
59
Cf. God with 77 ears and 77 (or 777) eyes from magical papyri – L. Kákosy, Fragmente eines
unpublizierten magischen Textes in Budapest, ZÄS 117 (1990), pp. 140-157.
60
W. Pleyte, Chapitres supplementaires du Livre des Morts 162 a 174 I, Leiden 1881, pp. 132-133;
Lanzone, Dizionario I, pls LXXX, LXXXI, CLXVI/3, p. 106; Roeder, Ägyptischen Bronzefiguren,
pp. 30-31, 87-104; E. Jelínková-Reymond, Les inscriptions de la statue guérisseuse de
Djed-Her-La-Sauveur, IFAO XXIII, La Caire 1956, pp. 22, 37; H. Sternberg el-Hotabi, Die
Götterdarstellungen der Metternichstele. Ein Neuansatz zu ihrer Interpretation als Elemente
eines Kontinuitätsmodells, GM 97 (1987), pp. 25-68; L. Kákosy, A Syncretistic Amulet in
Budapest, BSEG 9 (1984), pp. 125-133; idem, A New Source, pp. 619-624; idem, Bemerkungen zur
Ikonographie der magischen Heilstatuen, pp. 45-49; Hornung, Komposite Gottheiten, pp. 17-19;
Cooney, Androgynous Bronze Figurines, pp. 63-72.

61
About conception of BA in textual evidence – cf. L.V. Žabkar, A study of the Ba concept in ancient
Egyptian Texts, SAOC 34, ??? 1968, pp. 7-15, and Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, p. 198.
62
S. Quirke, The cult of Ra. Sun – worship in Ancient Egypt, London 2001, pp. 25-27.

63
 Grzegorz First

Whatever one’s opinions about the meanings of depictions, one would have to accept
that the term polymorphic seems to be much more appropriate because it refers to the
strongest feature of the phenomenon – its iconography – and has no ideological, religious
or contemporary connotations. It does not refute a pantheistic interpretation, but makes
it one of the possible reasons for the significance of these depictions. Referring only to the
visual aspect of the depictions it is possible to classify polymorphic deities as a subclass in
composite deities, next to other hybrid compositions, bimorphic or obvious forms of solar
deities. Special forms in polymorphic deities can be recognised in the Pantheos on gems; the
name Pantheos seems to be appropriate in these coherent variants of the image. The term
polymorphic gives wide possibilities of interpreting ideas hidden in images, or in other words
does not close eventual new contributions to the understanding of motif or pantheism, or
– in a wider sense – iconographical aspects of religious thought in Egyptian beliefs.

64
 Władysław Duczko

Fig. 7. Iron amulet from Torvalla, Uppland, Sweden. Fig. 8. Picture stone from Hammars,
(after H. Jungner, Den gotländske runbildstenen Gotland (after E. Nylén, J.P. Lamm,
från Sanda. Om Valhallatro och hednisk Bildstenar, Visby 1987)
begravningsritual, Fornvännen 1930)

Fig. 9. “Odin from Lejre” Skalk

180
 Grzegorz First

Fig. 10. Pantheistic deity on papyrus from British Museum

(after W. Pleyte, Chapitres supplementaires du Livre des Morts 162 a 174 I, Leiden 1881, p. 129)

Fig. 11. Panthestic deities on healing statue of Djed – Hor in Egyptian Museum in Cairo
(after E. Jelínková-Reymond, Les inscriptions de la statue guérisseuse de Djed-Her-La-Sauveur,
IFAO XXIII, La Caire 1956, pp. 22, 37)

181
 Grzegorz First

Fig. 12. Pantheistic deity on healing statue from Naples Museum

(after L. Kákosy, A New Source of Egyptian Mythology and Iconography, [in:] C. J. Eyre (ed.),
Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, OLA 82,
Leuven 1998, p. 623)

Fig. 13. Additional heads of animal on Tutu’s head from relief in temple in Athribis
(after S.  Sauneron, Le nouveau sphinx composite du Brooklyn Museum et le role du dieu Toutou-
Tithoes, JNES 19/4 (1960), p. 271)

182
 Grzegorz First / Krzysztof Jakubiak

Fig. 14. Pantheistic deity on healing statue from Naples Museum

(after L. Kákosy, A New Source of Egyptian Mythology and Iconography, [in:] C. J. Eyre (ed.),
Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, OLA 82,
Leuven 1998, p. 622)

Fig. 15. The creature which accompanies the god Hutuini

(after O. Belli, The Anzaf Fortresses and the Gods of Urartu, Istanbul 1999, p. 48)

183