Afterlives of Ancient Egypt with Kara Cooney

Part three of our ongoing series on the anatomy of the ancient Egyptian soul. Previously: the Ba and the Ka. Next up: the Akh, the Ib, the Shut, and the Khat.
In turbulent times, let Egyptology be your resistance. That’s the spirit in which we (Kara and Amber) sat down for this episode — and if that sounds like an unusual rallying cry, well, you’ve come to the right place.
Today’s topic is the Ren: the name. And before you go, I know what a name is, you don’t. Because the ancient Egyptians understood something about names that we’ve spent the last several thousand years forgetting (and that the modern American government is actively exploiting right now; yes, I know, we make everything political and history is now and all that…).
What Is the Ren?
In Faulkner’s Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, the entry for rn (ren as we would say it in an Egyptian reading class) is almost insultingly short. Two phonetic characters, the mouth hieroglyph (r) and a single water sign (n). No dramatic determinative. No elaborate sign to illustrate it. Compare this to the Ba — the human-headed bird that flutters, moves and exists visually in the world — or the Ka, with its famous outstretched arms, intimate and embodied, ready to embrace. The Ren just sits there with no explanatory symbolism whatsoever. The writing of the word betrays the secrecy surrounding the name itself.
But that spareness is the point. The Ren’s power is its abstraction. It is not a thing you can see or touch. It is a sound, an utterance, a vibration shaped by lips and tongue and the specific quality of a human mind. And this is where things get interesting: the hieroglyphic word rn begins with the mouth sign, because of course it does. The name lives in speech. It is born from the human body in the most literal sense possible. The name is utterance incarnate, which takes us to the Egyptian understanding of creation.
In the Beginning Was the Name
The Memphite Theology is an inscription said to be copied from an ancient, worm-eaten papyrus, even though this particular version comes to us as the so-called Shabaka Stone of the 25th Dynasty Kushite kings, and it describes the god Ptah creating the world through utterance. Ptah conceives (sia, abstract thought) of things with his heart (ib) and then brings them into material existence through his mouth (r) using the force of heka (magic). He speaks the name of something, and it becomes real by passing through the lips, tongue, and teeth.
In the beginning was the word, as we know from the Bible. The idea that spoken language is a creative force, that naming something is a form of making it, runs through ancient Egyptian creation theology, including the Memphite Theology, through the Hebrew Bible, through Neoplatonic philosophy, and straight into the digital age, where the naming of things (brands, identities) still confers power. The ancient Egyptians were not doing something primitive or naive when they enshrined this idea. They were identifying something true. A name captures the essence of something.
And crucially, in this theology, the name is not just descriptive. It doesn’t label something that already exists. It creates the thing. Which means that whoever speaks the name first, whoever utters it properly, with the right cadence and pronunciation, has a claim on the essence of the thing named. They hold a piece of it. And this is where the Ren gets genuinely dangerous.
Isis and the Secret Name of the Sun God
The most famous story about the power of the Ren comes from Papyrus Turin 1993, a 20th Dynasty text currently in the Egyptian Museum in Turin. It tells the story of Isis and Re.
Re, the sun god, is old. He is aging and drooling—both poignant and humanizing for the head of the Egyptian pantheon—and Isis, the Mistress of Magic, decides to use the moment to her advantage. She collects his spittle and uses it to fashion a clay snake, which she places in his path. Re is bitten by this snake made from his own essence. He cannot heal himself: you cannot cure a wound that comes from within your own body, apparently. And so he has to call upon Isis.
She shows up, calm and helpful, and says: I can heal you. But first, I need to know your secret name. She doesn’t want the name that priests chant in temples, or the name carved onto obelisks. She wants his other name, the real name, the one that encapsulates his true essence, the name that, if you knew it, would give you power over the sun god himself.
Re, who is dying, tells it to her. She heals him. And the text informs us he passes the name to her with the stipulation that she share it only with her son Horus, who can use it only for healing.
There is so much to unpack here. Isis is conniving—she engineers the crisis herself, lest we forget—and yet she is also the indispensable linchpin of the entire solar cycle, the one who heals the sun and ensures that he can rise again. She is the mother of god. She has to be duplicitous to get what she needs, because that’s what women in patriarchal systems have to do: they work around the system, not through it. And her workaround gives her—and by extension Horus—genuine, permanent power over the most important force in the cosmos. (Just note that she has to use her son as the formal mechanism to take that power. She can’t wield that power herself within patriarchy.)
It’s also worth noting that this story has a very familiar ring. Isis creates a crisis so that a god can be healed and reborn, and that power is then passed to her son. The pattern is ancient. Judas. Jesus. Mary knowing her son was doomed to die for the sins of all humankind. It did not begin in Galilee.
The Name Is a Tool of Power (And Someone Else Usually Wields It)
Here’s what the ancient Egyptians knew, and what we mostly pretend not to know: we do not name ourselves.
We are named by others. By parents, by institutions, by the state. And when someone in society decides to choose their own name—through transition, through divorce, through reclaiming ancestry—it is, as I put it, “rather an F you to society at large, and people don’t take it well.”
Enslaved people in America were stripped of their names and given the names of their enslavers. This is not a metaphor. It was a deliberate act of erasure—an understanding, conscious or not, that to take someone’s name is to take their identity, their lineage, their claim on their own essence, to make them legible in the system of power. Formerly enslaved people who took new names after emancipation were not just making an administrative change. They were performing an act of profound self-creation.
Women who change their names at marriage, and then change them back, sometimes can’t produce the right documents to satisfy a bureaucracy. This is also not a metaphor. The SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act), just recently killed by Congress, would have required voters to produce documentary proof of citizenship that matches their current legal name. Since approximately 69 million American women have changed their surnames at marriage—with their birth certificates unchanged, of course—this provision creates an enormous paperwork burden that falls almost entirely on women. The name you were given, the name you choose, the name on your passport, the name on your birth certificate: suddenly, these mismatches become mechanisms of legal disenfranchisement.
The ancient Egyptians would have recognized this—the name as a tool of ownership—immediately. My own name is a good illustration of the principle: my formal given name is Kathlyn Mary Cooney. That’s on my passport and driver’s license. My mother preemptively nicknamed me Kara to prevent anyone from calling me Kathy (!), and it’s been Kara ever since — appearing on no official document anywhere. When someone calls and asks for Kathleen (because who knows how to pronounce the Anglican Irish Kathlyn?), I know immediately: they don’t know me. They don’t have my secret name.
(My publisher, American University Press, later asked me to use Kara Cooney on my Recycling for Death book cover — which crossed the streams rather dramatically and left my actual secret name thoroughly scrambled. Very Isis. Very Re.)
Names in the Pyramid Texts: 45 Ways to Protect, Weaponize, and Transform
For this podcast, I did a search of the Pyramid Texts of Unas—the oldest religious corpus in the world, inscribed on the walls of his burial chamber at Saqqara—and found 45 mentions of rn, for “name.” And, of course, a quick glance at the text shows Unas’ name in cartouche visible everywhere on the walls. The magical spells had to name him repeatedly to have any effect.
In Utterance 137, there is a curse against anyone who “shall speak evil against the name of Unas.” Slander. Gossip. Misusing a name in speech. The ancient Egyptians understood that once a name is out in the world—written on a wall, spoken aloud—it can be turned against you. You can be libeled. You can be slandered. You can have your reputation destroyed through the same medium that keeps you alive. The name is vulnerability as much as it is power.
Utterance 143 is wild. Unas takes on the name of Horus: “You are born, O Horus, as the one whose name is he before whom the earth quakes,“ and then we read Seth’s epithet: he before whom the sky shakes. These are primeval names, Ur-names, that predate even the physical world. By speaking them, by claiming them, Unas is not just identifying himself as divine. He is reshaping the form of that divinity. The name does that: it transforms. It is not merely descriptive. It is constitutive.
Utterance 147 goes further still: lift yourself up, so said they, in your name: God. The king is given a new name in the afterlife. He is addressed as God—netjer—and this address is not flattery. It is installation. The name confers the identity it declares.
A Brief Taxonomy: Name vs. Title vs. Epithet
Before we go further, it’s worth distinguishing between three things that are often lumped together:
The name (rn) is your personal, individual designation. It belongs to you alone; or rather, it is you alone. Other people share your title. No one else has your specific name in full, with the monikers of your parents.
The titulary is a rank. It tells you where someone sits in the social and cosmic hierarchy. Scribe of the mat is different from king’s scribe. Every woman could be a nebet per (Mistress of the House) in theory — but no two people had the same personal name attached to it. The titulary situates you. The name individualizes you.
The epithet is affiliation and protection. Beloved of Amun. Daughter of Thutmose. Epithets connect you to your tribe, your protectors, your people. They are the shields that surround a name. When Nefertiti receives the epithet meret Nefer-kheperu-Re—beloved of Akhenaten—it does not describe her. It marks her as his protected wife.
Put them all together on a coffin, as Egyptians regularly did: Osiris-Scribe-Amenemhat-beloved of his father, and you become ranked. You are loved. You are protected. You can even be divinized. Your name sits at the center of all of it.
Akhenaten and the Obsessive Naming of God
No discussion of names in ancient Egypt can avoid Akhenaten’s relationship with the name of the Aten. It is, in many ways, the theological center of his entire religious experiment.
The early name of the Aten—Ra-Horakhty who rejoices in the horizon, in his name Shu who is Aten—is complex, syncretic, a nest of allusions and connections to older solar traditions. Akhenaten, characteristically, found this unsatisfying. He revised the name later in his reign. He excised the Horakhty element because it was connected to an actual god. He created something cleaner, more abstract, more fully intellectualized.
For Akhenaten, the name was his theology, and he was the one who formulated the name. The way you named the god determined what kind of god you had. And a sun that is pure light, pure warmth, pure creative energy, without the old hawk-headed body, without the accumulated mythology, required a name that held none of those ancillary things. The Aten’s name was Akhenaten’s project. It was also, as scholar James Hoffmeier has argued, the most concise expression of Atenist philosophy available to us.
What’s equally interesting is what Akhenaten withheld. KV35’s so-called Younger Lady mummy has been genetically confirmed as a sister of Akhenaten, but in the texts of his reign, no woman is ever called king’s sister. That title disappears during his reign. Daughters were named because that title controlled, keeping them hierarchically below the king, their father. A sister implies a peer. A peer implies a claim. So the title was simply removed from the monumental record. Royal women were present. Their bodies were needed for procreation and succession. But their names and titles were selectively granted, withheld, or redefined according to what was politically useful.
Book of the Dead: The Name as Passport, Password, and Prayer
The Book of the Dead is, in many ways, was a manual for navigating the afterlife using names.
Chapter 43 is a spell to retain your head—a real concern, apparently, for the recently deceased. The declarant announces: I am the great one, son of the great one, the fiery one, son of the fiery one, to whom his head was given after having been cut off. I am Osiris. No one is calling themselves by their birth name here. They are claiming divine names as armor, as transformation, as protection. If your name is now Osiris, your head cannot be taken. The name is not a label; it is a force field.
The Litany of Ra, a New Kingdom royal funerary text, lists 75 names of the sun god, 75 attempts by initiated priests to map the full complexity of solar divinity, some of the names masculine, some feminine, all of them strange, many of them untranslatable. It is one of the most extraordinary intellectual exercises in the ancient world: an effort to comprehend infinity by cataloguing its identities.
And then there is the Declaration to the 42 Gods, the negative confession of Chapter 125, which we’ve discussed in a previous episode. What I point out this time around is something slightly different: it’s not just that you declare your innocence before these gods. You name them first. Oh, Wide-of-Stride, who comes from Iunu, I have not done evil. Oh Flame-Grasper, who comes from Kheraha, I have not robbed. You have to know who you’re talking to first. And knowing their names gives you a form of power over them; you can face them without flinching. The anxiety of ancient Egyptians about this moment was so real that they wrote the whole thing down and put it into papyrus form, so the dead could, essentially, cheat by reading off their notes. The magic still works. The name spoken is the name spoken, regardless of whether you memorized it or looked it up.
There is also a wonderful interrogation sequence in the Book of the Dead in which the deceased is asked: Who are you? What is your name? And the answer is not a name as we’d recognize it. It is something like: I am the stock of the papyrus. He who is in the moringa tree is my name. A mythological riddle. Your secret name in the afterlife is not Amenhotep or Nefertari, but rather a description of your place in the universe, something that encodes your essence in a way that only the initiated can decode.
The Dead Can Forget Their Own Names
At the Getty Villa, there is a mummy from the late Roman period—Heraclides, son of Thermuthis—wrapped in a red shroud and dated to around the 2nd century CE. His name is written on his linen wrappings, near his feet, in Greek. If you imagine Heraclides standing upright, the inscription is oriented correctly for him to read. It is written so that the dead man can look down and see his own name, because the dead might forget.
Death scrambles the circuits, apparently, and the Egyptians, even in the Roman period, even with Greek names on their mummies, retained this deep anxiety: what if you get to the other side and can’t remember who you are? The name written on the body is a reminder, a tether to identity across the most disorienting transition imaginable. It is, as Amber put it, like a phone number to yourself.
And if the name is written on the linen, and you bring it with you through death, and the coffin text spells reunite you with your family members whose names you’ve memorized and included with your burial goods, then the name is how you find the people you love in whatever comes next.
That’s not primitive belief but profound human connection.
What We Know, What We Don’t
The Ren is the most human of the soul’s components. A bull has a Ka. A sacred bull has a Ba. But only a named being—named by language, by society, by the specific human act of utterance—truly has a Ren. It is what separates us from the rest of the created world: not consciousness, not feeling, but the ability to speak names and be spoken of. To be called into existence by a word, and to persist in existence as long as that word is uttered.
Which is why erasing a name is so devastating and why the damnatio memoriae of the ancient world—chiseling out names, defacing inscriptions, removing someone from every monument—was understood as a kind of killing. This is why enslaved people were renamed. This is why women are still expected to give up their surnames in patriarchy, why their children carry their father’s name only. This is why transgender people choosing their own names are met with such hostility.
The Ren, the ancient Egyptians believed, lives as long as it is spoken. Causing his name to live — sankh rn.f — was the highest act of memorial, the deepest form of love. It shows us to whom we belong.
Next time on the Anatomy of the Ancient Egyptian Soul: the Akh — the transfigured, luminous dead, the superhero ancestor spirit, and how the living called on them for help.
Show Notes & Further Reading
Primary Texts & Online Resources
* Pyramid Texts Online — searchable translations of the Pyramid Texts of Unas and others. Highly recommended for the curious.
* The Isis and Re story: Papyrus Turin 1993 (Museo Egizio, Turin), 20th Dynasty.
* The Great Hymn to the Aten: Tomb of Ay, Amarna. Translation discussed in this episode from Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. II: The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), p. 93.
* Book of the Dead Chapter 43 (retaining one’s head), Chapter 125 (Declaration to the 42 Gods) — standard translations in R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, revised edition (British Museum Press).
* The Litany of Ra — see Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, trans. David Lorton (Cornell University Press, 1999).
The Shabaka Stone / Memphite Theology
* British Museum, EA 498. 25th Dynasty copy of a text claiming to derive from an Old Kingdom original. The standard scholarly discussion is in Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).
On the Egyptian Soul and the Concept of the Person
* Jan Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, trans. David Lorton (Cornell University Press, 2005). Essential reading on the Ba, Ka, Ren, and Akh.
The Herakleides Mummy
* Getty Villa, Malibu, California. Accession no. 83.AP.42. Roman period, Egypt, c. 100–150 CE.
The SAVE Act
* The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (H.R. 22), currently being debated in the U.S. Senate. For a nonpartisan overview of its provisions and their impact on women who have changed their names, see the Brennan Center for Justice and Vote.org’s SAVE Act explainer.
Kara’s Work
* For more on sex, economics, and social organization in ancient Egypt, see Kara Cooney, Ancient Egyptian Society: Challenging Assumptions, Exploring Approaches (Routledge, 2021).
* The Woman Who Would Be King: Hatshepsut’s Rise to Power in Ancient Egypt (Crown, 2014).
* When Women Ruled the World: Six Queens of Egypt (National Geographic, 2018).
* The Good Kings: Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern World (National Geographic, 2021).
* Nefertiti — forthcoming, National Geographic.



Get full access to Ancient/Now at ancientnow.substack.com/subscribe

Summary:
Kara and Jordan welcome Griffith Institute staff Daniela Rosenow and Lara Bampfield to discuss the new Tutankhamun Spatial Archive, a searchable, metadata-driven platform that reconnects Carter’s excavation records to the tomb spaces, seasons, people, and objects. We learn about the trials and tribulations behind such an endevour, future plans for the project, and some of the fabulous stories behind lesser-known pieces in Tut’s tomb.
Tutankhamun Spatial Archive
Guest Bios:
Lara Bampfield has recently submitted her DPhil in Assyriology at the University of Oxford. Her research investigates change and continuity in the motifs of Old Babylonian and Kassite cylinder seals, applying advanced digital methods such as 2D and 3D modelling, image-annotation software, and machine learning to analyse these transformations. In 2025 Lara joined the Griffith team as research assistant for the Tutankhamun Spatial Archive project focusing on the digital and metadata components.
Daniela Rosenow studied Egyptology and Classics at the Humboldt University Berlin where she obtained her PhD on Late Period sacred architecture. She has worked at UCL’s Institute of Archaeology, the British Museum, the University of Munich and the German Archaeological Institute Cairo. In February 2021 Daniela joined the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford, where she co-curated the exhibition “Tutankhamun – Excavating the Archive“, and she is now the Manager of the Griffith Institute.
Show Notes:
Griffith Institute Main Website
Tutankhamun Spatial Archive
The latest story on the Egyptian Workforce
Cast of Characters
* Francis Llewellyn Griffith
* Kate Bradbury
* Nora MacDonald
* Howard Carter
* Harry Burton
* Phyllis Carter
OEB- Online Egyptological Bibliography
TOB- Topographical Bibliography
Middle Coffin (Compare)
* Tutankhamun’s Floral Wreath
* Hamza, N. M. (2020) Study and Investigations of Archaeobotanical Remains From Tutankhamun Tomb. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
* For more information about the Egyptian workers – Quirke, S. (2010) Hidden hands : Egyptian workforces in Petrie excavation archives 1880-1924 / Stephen Quirke. London: Duckworth.
* Smithsonian Magazine, “Remembering the Unsung Egyptians Who Helped Discover King Tut’s Tomb”
* 1939 BBC Radio: playing of Tut’s trumpet with modern mouthpiece

* Minnie Burton’s Diary

Ancient/Now is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



Get full access to Ancient/Now at ancientnow.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you paid subscribers, KinchStalker, Phoenix, Tomas Johansson, and many others for tuning into this live video with Jordan Galczynski and Amber Myers! You filled the chat with such sharp and interesting questions. This is exactly the kind of conversation we love — primary sources, spirited disagreement, duck genitalia, and the occasional new moon. We’ll be back soon.
CW— mature themes; sex; sexuality; sexual assault
What does it mean to look for queer lives in the ancient world? We don’t want to impose today’s freedoms onto a patriarchal past, but we also don’t want to erase the biological reality that queer people have always existed in the world. That tension—generative, unresolved, and genuinely fun to argue about—animated our latest live conversation, and we’re thrilled so many of you joined us for it.
Two Women, Arms Entwined
We kicked things off with a pair statue currently held at the Museo Egizio in Turin. Amber had shared it earlier in the week and it immediately sparked debate among the three of us. Dating to the Thutmosid period and likely from a tomb in the Theban necropolis, it shows two women — Idu and Rui — seated side by side in white linen shifts and elegant bipartite wigs, arms wrapped around each other in precisely the embrace you’d expect to see between a husband and wife. The museum’s own description calls the relationship between them “unclear.”
Which is, of course, the perennial problem.
Are they friends? Sisters? Mother and daughter? Could they be something more? Kara was the self-described cynical voice in the room, skeptical that ancient Egyptian society would have allowed a formally commemorated queer female relationship — while also being completely open to the possibility that a very real relationship could have existed behind the scenes, just one that could and would never be named outright. Jordan pointed out something quietly fascinating: Idu holds the title nebet per — Mistress of the House — while Rui carries no title at all, no indication of kinship or any named social role. That asymmetry suggests a dependent relationship, but of what kind, we simply can’t say. They seem to have wanted to show themselves as the core of their household.
What we can say is that someone commissioned this statue, paid for it, and had it placed in a tomb context so that both women would receive offerings in the afterlife. That’s not nothing. Whatever Idu and Rui were to each other, there was care—plus money, and intention—and a desire to keep this person in one’s eternal company.
The group also floated an intriguing hypothesis: what if Idu had outlived her husband, inherited his property, and then got to live exactly as she chose? Two women, a shared household, just friends, obviously. Roommates even. The ancient world’s version of companions traveling down the Nile together — who, as Jordan noted, everyone quietly understood were probably lovers, but who would never in a thousand years have said so in a formal inscription.
The Notorious Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep
From there we moved to the far more famous case of the two manicurists of the Old Kingdom royal court: Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, buried together at Saqqara in a shared tomb decorated with images of the two men nose-to-nose, embracing in ways typically reserved for married couples. Scholars have argued they were brothers, conjoined twins, or colleagues — with Kara noting, drily, that “conjoined twins” seems like a remarkable amount of effort just to avoid the word gay. But who knows? This scene is unique and perplexing. We should not try to flatten the complexity of the image: we can acknowledge that queer people existed in the ancient world without pretending they enjoyed anything like modern queer freedom or visibility in society.
What the Texts Actually Say (or Don’t)
So what does the written record give us? Rather less than you might hope, and rather more ambiguous than anyone would like.
Jordan pulled up Book of the Dead 125—the famous Negative Confession—the list of sins the deceased declares they have not committed before the scales of Ma’at. One entry reads something like: I have not copulated with a catamite — or, depending on your translation, I have not copulated with a boy, or I have not laid with a man. The Egyptian word in question, Kara noted, is a hapax legomenon: it appears nowhere else in the corpus, which makes translation genuinely treacherous. The word catamite, the group agreed, implies pederasty — a prohibition against the sexual exploitation of a prepubescent boy — which is something categorically different from a prohibition against adult same-sex desire. The distinction matters. More investigation (after the podcast!) revealed the phrase to translate into something like “I did not fuck a fucker of fuckers,” which implies a refusal to have slept with someone who is already sleeping with others. But who knows? You decide; see the Egyptian below!
* “I have not penetrated the penetrater of a penetrater (Variant: “I have not copulated with a boy”); I have not masturbated” (n nk.i nkk nkk n dAdA.i)
* nkk [nkk] = 𓈖𓎡𓎡𓂺𓀀 (Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae); lit. the one who fucks; male sex worker; homosexual?
* We presume they are attaching the male gender to this noun because of the presence of a penis in the word, but Book of the Dead 125 is the only use of this word!
* Also see Betwixt the Sheets, “History of Homophobia”
Contending of Horus and Seth gave us rather more vivid primary source material. The story is, to put it mildly, a lot: Seth attempts to assault Horus in their sleep; Horus outsmarts him by catching the semen in his hand; his mother Isis disposes of the evidence—by cutting Horus’s hand off and growing him a new one as one does—and fashions a trap, placing Horus’s semen into the lettuce Seth habitually eats; and when Seth boasts of his conquest before the gods, the divine tribunal calls the semen forth — whereupon it emerges from Seth’s own head like a crown, to the hilarity of everyone assembled. The story is funny, and also pointed: what makes Seth’s act monstrous is not same-sex desire per se, but domination, humiliation, and the horror of being placed in the feminized, receptive position. As Kara observed, the ancient Egyptian antipathy here is not really about queerness. It’s about misogyny. To be penetrated is to be made a woman, and being made a woman is, within this patriarchal framework, a degradation. The female body’s hiddenness, Jordan added, made female queerness simultaneously the most subversive and the most invisible form of desire—something that likely happened constantly and simply never showed up in the legal or mortuary record because it threatened no man’s property and produced no illegitimate heirs.
A brief and gleeful tangent addressed the so-called “Hatshepsut graffito” at Deir el-Bahri — a piece of erotic wall art that scholars persistently attribute to the female pharaoh on no stronger grounds than that it’s located in a cliff above her mortuary temple at Deir el Bahari, a space that, Kara pointed out, was built up by approximately everyone. The figure is wearing something that might be a wig, might be a nemes headdress, but the group voted: no, It’s a wig. Moving on.
On Morality, Property, and Free Love
One of the conversation’s richest threads concerned why ancient Egyptian society seems, comparatively speaking, to have been rather relaxed about sexual transgression. No stoning for adultery. No virginity tests. Premarital sex left relatively unpoliced. Kara connected this to land ownership — or rather, the lack of it. In a society where the Nile flood periodically erased field boundaries and where the great institutions (the Temple of Amun, the royal palace) were the primary landowners, the tight relationship between sexual morality and property inheritance that drove so much ancient Mediterranean legislation simply didn’t apply in the same way. You couldn’t easily lose heritable land over a sexual scandal when most people didn’t own heritable land to begin with.
This also explains why female queerness, in particular, would have been almost entirely invisible to official record-keeping: no property changed hands, no paternity was threatened, no inheritance could be disputed. The patriarchal system cared deeply about women’s bodies as reproductive resources — but only insofar as those bodies produced legitimate heirs. What happened otherwise, behind closed doors or in a shared household, was simply not the law’s business.
The picture shifts, the group agreed, with the arrival of the Greeks. Ptolemaic Egypt imported stricter social structures around female bodies: veiling, endogamous marriage to keep property within families, the concept of illegitimacy as a barrier to succession. These were new ideas, and not Egyptian ones.
Priests, Priestesses, and the Gods’ Wives of Amun
A subscriber question about priestly celibacy sent us down another rewarding path. The short answer is: Egyptian priests were, for most of the pharaonic period, married members of elite society who served on a rotating schedule, and the prescriptions around ritual purity—no sex, no fish, no leather—applied only during their active service, much like a young man in Thailand entering a temple for a period of education and contemplation before returning to ordinary life. The longer and thornier answer involves the Divine Adoratrices of the Late Period, the so-called God’s Wives of Amun, who held extraordinary political and religious power, adopted their successors rather than bearing biological children, and named no husbands in their records. Were they celibate? Almost certainly not in any enforced sense. They were the most powerful women in Egypt. Whatever they did, they did as they chose. Lovers were not memorialized on stone monuments, after all, and we should not expect them to have been.
Closing with Psychedelics (As One Does)
We ended, naturally, on psychedelics. Kara had recently received word of a study on a Bes jar—those delightful vessels bearing the face of the apotropaic dwarf deity—owned by the Tampa Museum of Art, in which residue analysis revealed a cocktail of the blue lotus (Nymphaea caerulea), Syrian rue, and other psychoactive substances. The blue lotus, long associated with sensuality and altered states in Egyptian iconography, turns out to have been rather more than decorative. Whether mushrooms or other psychedelics made their way into the Egyptian ritual pharmacopeia remains an open question, one we’d love to dig into further.
Show Notes & Further Reading
* Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt — Wikipedia
* Pair statue of two women seated against a back slab — Museo Egizio
* Tomb of the Two Brothers Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep — Egyptian Monuments
* Evans & Woods 2016. Further evidence that Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were twins. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 102, 55–72.
* Reeder 2000. Same-sex desire, conjugal constructs, and the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. World Archaeology 32(2), 193–208.
* Reeder 2008. Queer Egyptologies of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep. In Graves-Brown (ed.), Sex and Gender in Ancient Egypt.
* Vasiljević 2008. Embracing his double. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 37, 363–372.
* Baines 1985. Egyptian twins. Orientalia 54(4), 461–482.
* The Contending of Horus and Seth — Wikipedia
* Book of the Dead 125, Negative Confession — UCL Digital Egypt
* Betwixt the Sheets: “A History of Homophobia”
* Tanasi et al. 2024. Multianalytical investigation reveals psychotropic substances in a Ptolemaic Egyptian vase. Scientific Reports 14. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-78721-8
* Greco, van Oppen, Samorini, Tanasi & Tykot 2024. A Bes mug in Tampa. In van Oppen de Ruiter & Bianchi (eds.), Under the Spell of Bes, 105–116. Abercromby Press.
* Tanasi, Davide, Branko F. van Oppen de Ruiter, Fiorella Florian, Radmila Pavlovic, Luca Maria Chiesa, Igor Fochi, Chiaramaria Stani, Lisa Vaccari, Dale Chaput, Giorgio Samorini, Alberto Pallavicini, Sabrina Semerano, Anastasia Serena Gaetano, Sabina Licen, Pierluigi Barbieri, and Enrico Greco 2024. Multianalytical investigation reveals psychotropic substances in a Ptolemaic Egyptian vase. Scientific Reports 14 (article no. 27891). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-78721-8.
* Greco, Enrico, Branko van Oppen, Giorgio Samorini, Davide Tanasi, and Robert H. Tykot 2024. A Bes mug in Tampa. In Oppen de Ruiter, Branko F. van and Robert Steven Bianchi (eds), Under the spell of Bes, 105-116. Wallasey: Abercromby Press.
Ancient/Now is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



Get full access to Ancient/Now at ancientnow.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode Kara and Amber continue their series on the ancient Egyptian anatomy of the self by exploring the ka—often translated as a “life force,” but an element far more complex than that simple phrase suggests. Drawing on textual evidence like the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts, art, architecture, and funerary practices, Kara and Amber examine how the ka functioned as a sustaining power tied to food offerings, lineage, divine capabilities, and the material world. Their discussion reveals how the ancient Egyptians understood the survival of the ka as something deeply materialistic: a system of bodies, images, offerings, and rituals designed to sustain the ka for eternity.
Show Notes

Allen, James P. 1988. Genesis in Egypt : The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts. Yale Egyptological Seminar, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Graduate School, Yale University.
Goebs, Katja. 2008. Crowns in Egyptian funerary literature: royalty, rebirth, and destruction. Griffith Institute Monographs. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum.
Lobban, Richard, “A Solution to the Mystery of Was Scepter of Ancient Egypt and Nubia,” KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt (10/3), 1999, 68–77.
Lobban, R. A. and M. Sprague, “Bulls and the W3s Sceptre in Ancient Egypt and Sudan,” Anthrozoös 10, 1997, 14-22.
Schwabe, Calvin W., Joyce Adams, and Carleton T. Hodge, “Egyptian Beliefs about the Bull’s Spine: An Anatomical Origin for Ankh,” Anthropological Linguistics 24, no. 4 (1982): 445–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30027646.


Get full access to Ancient/Now at ancientnow.substack.com/subscribe

What, exactly, makes a person a person? In this episode, Kara and Amber launch a new series exploring the anatomy of the ancient Egyptian soul. They begin with the ba—often translated as “soul,” but far stranger and more powerful than that simple word suggests. The ba is the part of you that moves, that transforms, that survives death. Drawing from art, funerary texts, and literary works like The Dialogue of a Man with His Ba, the Egyptians unpack how the ba functioned as a mobile, solar, and deeply dynamic aspect of the individual.
What emerges is an understanding that the ancient Egyptians did not view the self as singular. They saw it as layered and multifaceted—existing everywhere all at once: still and enduring, yet constantly in motion.
This episode begins a multipart exploration of the ancient Egyptian individual—from the ba to the ka, the name, the heart, and beyond—asking how this ancient civilization imagined identity, survival, and how the Egyptians sought eternal existence in a world where death is inevitable.
Notes
Allen, James P. 2011. The debate between a man and his soul: a masterpiece of ancient Egyptian literature. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 44. Leiden: Brill.
Janák, Jiří. 2016. Ba. In Jacco Dieleman, Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k7g85
Lichtheim, Miriam. 1973. Ancient Egyptian literature. A book of readings, volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.



Get full access to Ancient/Now at ancientnow.substack.com/subscribe