1
Kingship, Pharaonic
Egypt
PETER NADIG
Egyptian kingship originated in the fourth
millennium BCE through the emergence of
two separate kingdoms in Upper and Lower
Egypt. With the unification of these two lands
under one ruler, around 3200 BCE, kingship
started to evolve until it took its final form in
the early Old Kingdom. The king consequently
became the symbol of a state, which was always
perceived as a conjunction of two separate
geographic halves, but now held together
by his power. This dualism is expressed in the
royal title “Lord of the Two Lands” and
the Egyptian term for the king, nesut-bity
(literally: “he of the sedge and the bee,” con-
ventionally translated as “King of Upper and
Lower Egypt,” but more appropriately as “Dual
King” (Baines 1995: 9; Wilkinson 2001:
205–6)). Nesut-bity was also part of the throne
name, one of the five canonical royal names
(see TITULARY, PHARAONIC EGYPT). The concept of
dual kingship was regarded as the pivotal ideal,
and its titles were maintained even when the
country was temporarily divided and without
central government, or when Egypt was ruled
by non-native kings from the Third Interme-
diate Period. There was no female equivalent
for nesut-bity until Ptolemaic times; the
“queen” was usually titled “king’s wife” (see
QUEENS, PHARAONIC EGYPT). In modern parlance,
the word pharaoh (from pr-aa, “great house,”
for the king’s palace) is anachronistically used
for all rulers of ancient Egypt. During the 18th
Dynasty, it was synonymous for the king as
an institution, but it did not become a title
before the monarch’s personal name until
the Third Intermediate Period (1069–664 BCE)
(see PHARAOH).
With varying impact, Pharaonic kingship
was the most dominant component in Egyp-
tian society, since everything was centered on
the king. Outwardly, the iconography of Egyp-
tian kingship remained largely the same for
The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,
and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 3764–3765.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah[xxxxx]
over three thousand years until Late Antiquity,
while the office of kingship and the attitude
toward it underwent various changes (Baines
1995: 9–42). Most royal names, titles, symbols,
and insignia developed in the Predynastic and
Early Dynastic Periods. Foremost is the Horus
name as the oldest royal name: it epitomizes
the concept of the reigning king as the incar-
nation of the Falcon God Horus. Another sig-
nificant metaphor of the powers of nature,
imbued in the monarch, was the bull: the
term “Strong Bull” became part of the Horus
name from the New Kingdom onward. The
strength and power of this animal was con-
veyed by the insignia of the bull’s tail, which
was fastened to the king’s kilt.
The Red Crown (deshret) and the White
Crown (hedjet) were the most quintessential
royal regalia. The Red Crown was already
known during the Naqada/Nagada I Period
(ca. 4000 until 3500 BCE), but after the unifica-
tion was always attributed to Lower Egypt. On
the other hand, the White Crown, which dates
to a little later, symbolized Upper Egypt. Both
crowns were combined into the double-crown
(sechemtj ¼ “The two Mighty Ones”) during
the 1st Dynasty to symbolize the kingship over
the two lands of Egypt. The striped nemes head
cloth became the best-known feature of the
king’s regalia as early as the reign of Djoser
(r. 2667–2648), and was reserved for the king
only (Wilkinson 2001: 192–6). A further ele-
ment was the uraeus, the sculptured image of
an upright, poised, spitting cobra affixed to the
king’s forehead, usually on the head cloth and
on all crowns. It had the apotropaic function of
protecting the king from his enemies and the
forces of chaos. Two of the most typical scep-
ters, the crook and the flail, derived from the
sphere of livestock husbandry. The crook, or
Heqa-scepter (from heqa, “ruler”), symbolized
the shepherd’s crook, while its counterpart, the
flail, stood for the king’s coercive power.
Both scepters represented the dualism of
the ruler, encouraging and restraining his peo-
ple (Wilkinson 2001: 188–90). Figuratively, the
king was regarded as the herdsman of his
2
people, since mankind (i.e., the Egyptians) was
“the noble flock” (Papyrus Westcar 8.17). The
instruction of Merikare even states: “Mankind
is cared for – the flock of god” (P 130; see
Parkinson 1997: 226). Further insignia were
the ceremonial beard and the sandals.
The king’s main duty was the preservation
of the Egyptian world order (MAAT) and the
prevention of disorder (Isfet). This included
the dispensation of justice, the destruction of
Egypt’s enemies, and the ritual fight against
evil. One of the most longstanding features of
royal iconography for over 3,500 years was the
king smiting his enemies with a mace. During
the New Kingdom, it was supplemented with
the image of the king fighting his enemies
while riding in a chariot. By then, the canonical
enemies of Egypt were depicted on the royal
sandals or on special steps, to be ritually sub-
dued by being trodden upon.
The king was also the intermediary between
his people and the gods. His office made him
divine, but he was less than a god (Silverman
1995). His person was sacrosanct and untouch-
able. As the highest representative of the gods
and chief priest, he was obliged to perform
the temple cult or delegate it to the priests,
build new temples, and to establish new cults.
The most important royal festival was the Heb-
Sed, which was originally meant to be celebrated
at the thirtieth throne jubilee and then repeated
later at shorter intervals. It was supposed to
rejuvenate the ruler. One of its main ceremonies
was a run by the king between symbolic bound-
ary markers representing his rule over both
Upper and Lower Egypt.
Unlike royal imagery, royal burial under-
went drastic changes in the course of Egyptian
history. The early burial complexes of rectan-
gular mud-brick constructions since Pre-
dynastic times were developed into stone
pyramids by the end of the 3rd Dynasty. Yet
during the Old Kingdom, the cult of the late
king became an important and groundbreak-
ing aspect of Egyptian religion. The pyramid
burial was abandoned after the Middle King-
dom with the emergence of rock-cut tombs in
the Theban necropolis, while in the Late
Period, the king was often interred in temples
(see BURIAL, PHARAONIC EGYPT).
SEE ALSO: Amarna; Early Dynastic Period,
Egypt; Festivals, Pharaonic Egypt; Naqada
(Nagada); Predynastic Period, Egypt; Ruler
cult, Pharaonic Egypt; Third Intermediate
Period, Egypt.
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Baines, J. (1995) “Kingship: definition of culture,
and legitimation.” In D. O’Connor and
D. P. Silverman, eds., Ancient Egyptian kingship:
3–47. Leiden.
Blumenthal, E. (1970) Untersuchungen zum
ägyptischen Königtum des Mittleren Reiches I. Die
Phraseologie. Berlin.
Frankfort, H. (1948) Kingship and the gods: a study
of Near Eastern religion as the integration of society
and nature. Chicago.
O’Connor, D. and Silverman, D. P., eds. (1995)
Ancient Egyptian kingship. Leiden.
Parkinson, R. B. (1997) The tale of Sinuhe and
other ancient Egyptian poems: 1940–1640 BC.
Oxford.
Redford, D. B. (1995) “The concept of kingship
during the Eighteenth Dynasty.” In D. O’Connor
and D. P. Silverman, eds., Ancient Egyptian
kingship: 157–84. Leiden.
Silverman, D. P. (1995) “The nature of Egyptian
kingship.” In D. O’Connor and D. P. Silverman,
eds., Ancient Egyptian kingship: 49–156.
Leiden.
Wilkinson, T. A. H. (2001) Early Dynastic Egypt.
London.