fu’s possible identity.
Khufu appears to have been worshipped throughout Egypt, not just at Giza. For instance, his cartouche is found on a relief in the pyramid of Amenemhat I, the first ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty. This period is known as the Middle Kingdom (2040 BC and 1640 BCE) and the cult of Khnum-Khufu dedicated its most famous sanctuary at Esna, built by the Romans in the first century AD! The question remains; why was a pharaoh whom Herodotus found to be loathed, venerated at all, let alone 2,000 years after his death?
Clearly, the custom of paying homage to the god who creates life and watches over young children was not unique to the Fourth Dynasty, and this is understandable, for naming a child after Khnum would have been a sensible precaution; an honour that parents bestow to the powerful deity in exchange for the child’s protection and well-being. So, why would this tradition cease or be short lived? On the contrary, one would expect it to endure, if not strengthen, over the years. In ancient Egypt, children were often named ‘Khnum-khufwy’, meaning ‘Khnum is my Protector’. Might Khufu have been an oath of protection bestowed by Sneferu on his favoured child, and, if so, has that child’s real name been obscured over time? And might Khufu’s poor standing with the people of Egypt, as recounted by Herodotus, be attributed to the deeds performed by the god Khnum, rather than a historical figure whose identity has, at best, blurred over time?
French physicist and mathematician, Andre Pochan, discusses the association of Khufu and Khnum Khufu in his 1968 book, ‘Chronology of Egypt’, and takes the notion further, adding that the Great Pyramid was the ‘Solar Temple of Khnum’, and that the re-occurrence of ‘Khufu’ alongside ‘Khnum-Khufu’ is reflective of a battle between rival religious factions, with ‘Khufu’ being the usurper and Khnum-Khufu being the choice of the traditionalists. The argument is interesting, and supports the notion that the cult of Khufu ‘the god’ is what is being honoured at Giza, and elsewhere, not an individual.
Where the name Khufu has been etched in the archaeological record, we often find Khnum-Khufu and this has given rise to considerable debate amongst scholars. A possible explanation is that the concept of a cartouche, or the oblong enclosure containing the hieroglyphic representation of a royal name, had only been introduced by Sneferu, at the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty. As far as I am aware, there are no earlier references to Khnum-Khufu and Khufu before the Fourth Dynasty. Might the practice of including a god’s name in a cartouche have been an early rendition of the evolving cartouche protocol?
Egyptologist, James P Allen, offers an intriguing and relevant insight in his book, ‘Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs’ (2000): “Of the five royal titularies it was the throne name, also referred to as prenomen, and the “Son of Re” titulary, the so-called nomen, i.e., the name given at birth, which were enclosed by a cartouche.” The ‘name given at birth’; in the early Fourth Dynasty, might that have included the name of the creator god, Khnum? This prompts the question, could the precursor to the cartouche – the ‘Horus Name’, or the incarnation of god on earth – shed further light on Khufu’s true identity?
Khufu in the Archaeological Record
For the pharaoh who constructed the most famous monument of the ancient world, few – if any – images remain. Conventional thinking suggests they were looted or removed out of reverence and then lost, or reused elsewhere; or, alternatively, they never existed in the first place. The most convincing evidence for their existence was found in Khufu’s Mortuary Temple. Here, Reisner discovered what appeared to be ruined statues of Khufu, albeit with only the feet remaining, while other damaged reliefs bearing Khufu’s name only serve to portray fragmented images of a faceless king. These tantalising, incomplete carvings do nothing to divulge the personality of the king, and while today we can stare into the eyes of Kh