A rebirth for the pharaoh: reflections on the classification of the new kingdom divine birth cycle as a ritual
The interpretation of rituals enacted, or represented, in the temples of Egypt is limited by the often sparse survival of evidence; most of our knowledge of the Egyptian temple cult comes from the temples of the Graeco-Roman period. This paper deals with an aspect of ancient Egyptian divine kingship, the divine birth cycle, and the question of its rituality. The focus is on the well-known but somewhat enigmatic event of engendering the divine child (i.e. the king), as depicted during the New Kingdom period. Following the various types of ritual classification, one might be tempted to interpret the divine birth cycle as a political ritual designed to legitimize the pharaoh's rule. At the same time, it coequals with various aspects of religious renewal, such as the annual re-creation, and rebirth of the pharaonic state through its socio-ideological self, represented by the king. In this respect, one might categorize divine birth as a festival or calendrical rite. The purpose of this paper is to explore various ways of interpreting the divine birth cycle as a ritual, or as a religious representation of a different type.
Perspectives and dimensions
Examen du cadre historique et des developpements legislatifs qui ont mene aux problemes actuels que rencontrent les services sociaux s'occupant du bien-etre des enfants et des familles
The Delta Residence of the Ramessides
loved-of-Amun," which, from the frequency of the Egyptian king's presence there as well as from other indications, has to be recognized as the royal Residence in the Delta through­ out that period. It would have been strange if the early Egyptologists, always on the alert to catch at any straw of evidence bearing upon the problems of the Exodus, had failed to identify this town with the store-city of Raamses built for-Pharaoh, together with Pithom, by the oppressed and enslaved Israelites (Exod. i, 11). In point of fact the temptation proved too strong; and the consequent fusion into one of the two possibly distinct places denoted respectively by the Hebrew and Egyptian names has ever since gravely complicated the topographical and historical questions arising with regard to each. Quite apart from the question as to whether the identification is correct, it was unjustifiable, from the standpoint of right method, to start with such an assumption: so far as the data permitted, the position of the two towns ought to have been determined separately; the results thus obtained might then have been combined, if it still seemed likely that PiRamesse and Raamses were identical. The adoption of a different course has involved the entire subject in such obscurity and diversity of opinion that we must now perforce retrace our steps and traverse the old ground anew from the very beginning.