Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Religion work group

Ankh, and it's representation is possibly out of date
Egyptian texts talk of the 10th planet at the crossing in the heavens- thus symbolically represented as a cross, NASA talks of new planet X discoveries, no reference has been made to the interpretation of the circle of the ankh representing the planet, and the cross for where the planet can be found in the heavens.

There is also references to the holders of ankhs being divinely special, genetically unique and different, hence only a few were privileged to carry the symbolism, which would have indicated they were of the source planet Nibiru (planet X). The special symbolism of ankh's only made in gold is also consistent with the writings of the 10th planet requiring, or in search of the metal substance, gold.

24.42.235.95 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

About the god pages
I've noticed that the pages on the Egyptian deities seem to follow no real pattern, rather having an actual format. As such, Ra and Ptah have completely different organization.

I would recommend a layout like this:

(Introduction)
 * History (This should be clear, not vague. Don't say "early" deity and "over time", say "first mentioned in x dynasty" and "by the y dynasty")
 * Attributes and Role (self-explanatory, include information on appearance and symbols)
 * Mythology (Myths involving said god- this can have subsections detailing different stories)
 * Temples and worship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.67.130 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In Popular Culture (if this is actually needed)
 * See also
 * References
 * External Links --75.181.67.130 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster about the need to be more systematic when it comes to the individual god pages. But it is a mammoth task to edit what has become a large collection which vary in quality from good to disastrously bad. Egyptian religion attracts interest from a number of quarters many of which are not Egyptological but based on personal belief or New Age fantasy - also there are many speculative writers out there with their own unproven pet theories. Because wikipedia has accumulated all this material over a period of time there are many articles which are just a collection of unreferenced stuff which does not necessarily hang together. My feeling is that all unreferenced material should be deleted (along with all the popular culture rubbish - which could be dumped into a new page I suppose) so that we can begin again. We could also take out things like the long lists of alternate spellings and then try to put all pages in an agreed order liek the one suggested above. But I don't know if doing this is against Wiki-philosophy and also I don't have the time or all the skills needed to do this. I wonder if a group working together could agree a division of responsibilities and do this piece of work. I would be happy to contribute.Apepch7 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could certainly add a citation needed tag anywhere you see something that isn't referenced, and then maybe notify the group here about which you've templated and when. Then, if after a reasonable length of time, the uncited material could be removed. I wish I had more time to devote to the subject myself, but I would be willing to do what time permits me to do to help. Maybe we could ask for some help from the main Ancient Egypt project as well. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There isn't much more activity on the Ancient Egypt project than there is here, so I don't know that that will help. I suppose I should pitch in more to clear out the garbage; so far I've focused on collecting sources and trying to write or rewrite articles from scratch.


 * There are a couple of things I can suggest for improving the god articles. First, there's a lot of inaccurate material about the syncretisms between Egyptian gods that was apparently added years ago by User:-Ril-. It tends to overemphasize political reasons for the merging of different gods, and apparently springs from -Ril-'s belief that "there were initially 3 different religions - one with Ra as the chief god, one with Ptah as the head, and one with Atum", and that these three religions and their deities merged. Any modern Egyptologist would say that this is a thoroughly outdated view, which overlooks the theological reasons for syncretism and grossly oversimplifies the religious situation in early Egyptian history. An example of this kind of material is at Osiris, where it says: "When the Ennead and Ogdoad cosmogenies became merged, with the identification of Ra as Atum (Atum-Ra), gradually Anubis (Ogdoad system) was replaced by Osiris, whose cult had become more significant." I'll work to clear this stuff out over the next several days, but I thought other people should know about it.


 * I've also thought about how these articles might be organized once there's decent content to put in them. I was thinking about sections for: "Name", dealing with the god's original name and the various ways it's rendered in English; "Origins", at least in the case of gods like Osiris whose origin is frequently debated; "Roles" (perhaps "Mythological roles"), covering the gods' mythology and their roles in nature; "Relationships with other gods", which is important for most of the major gods with all their syncretisms and mythological couplings; "Iconography"; and "Worship". Not all of these would be needed in every article, and obviously subsections could be added when necessary, but something like this would at least provide consistency. It isn't too different from what 75.181.67.130 suggested above, but note that I don't think "History" is necessary; changes in the god's mythology, worship, and relationships can be covered in the appropriate sections.


 * There's also the "In popular culture" problem. Certainly we shouldn't have these lists of ridiculous trivia like this. I very much agree with this essay on how to approach the problem. There's also the issue of Kemetism: is it significant enough that we should cover the Kemetist view of particular deities? Kemetic Orthodoxy is the only variety that I know is still viable? Maybe we should ask User:IanCheesman, who is a member. A. Parrot (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All good points. A few suggestions.  We could create a new page called 'Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture' and dump all that stuff in there.  This is probably better than just deleting because presumably some one is interested in it (though why I don't know).  We agree a framework template - I suggest one for major deities and a simpler one for minor deities and then just slowly impose it on existing articles as time goes on.
 * I agree about the User:-Ril- ideas (I note he has been banned by the way) - I had thought of removing them because they do suggest that this is somehow accepted while of course it is not. I will delete them from now on if they are not referenced.
 * Kemeticism - I would respect their right to belief but I think where the interpretation of a deity is based on personal experience or a particular 'orthodoxy' this is not really appropriate for a general page on a deity which I think should be based on current Egyptology.
 * Also I am not a fan of the sometimes long list of alternative transliterations of names - they are usually from Budge and really not current. Is it not enough to stick to the most commonly used forms and just mention other forms where it is needed e.g. Horus is ok we don't need Heru, or Aset for Isis and so on.  Can we also agree about not using bold for names or italics - its all very inconsistent and confusing.Apepch7 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the problem with names, and hate how the reconstructions clog lead sentences. We should use the name or names that is most common in English, but there were, and may still be, some Ancient Egypt editors arguing for "real" Egyptian names, so that's how the "reconstructed" names proliferated. I do believe that in every article possible we should have the transliteration of a god's name. In proposing a separate section for gods' names, I was mainly thinking of for gods like Osiris, for whom the significance of the name is debated nearly as much as the god's origin. Where the name's meaning is certain, and relevant to the god's mythological role, it can be covered in the "Roles" section.


 * Regarding Kemetism, I'm just wondering whether the Kemetist viewpoint is significant enough, and different enough from the original ancient viewpoint, to be described as the Kemetist viewpoint. The article on Samhain covers Samhain's significance in neopagan religions as well as in ancient Celtic belief. A properly written article on Isis would include a lot of information on the Greco-Roman cult of Isis, and how it in turn has influenced esoteric traditions down to modern times; the same goes for Thoth and Hermeticism. I'm not arguing that Kemetism is as significant as any of those things, and in fact it would be more convenient for me if I could ignore it altogether. I just want to be certain how significant it is, and decide how much (if any) coverage it should get based on that. A. Parrot (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that where the name of the deity must be discussed especially where it has a significant literal meaning e.g. Nebt-hwt. So no problem there.
 * The Kemetic Orthodoxy page says that they believe in Netjer = supreme being, so we already have a problem as I would suggest that should be plural given 'henotheism' and I am not sure there is n Egyptian concept equivalent to 'supreme being' anyway. But I'm not sure this is the main problem anyway, so I intend to ignore it for now.  Lets get the articles up to a reasonable level of consistency using the heading you suggested first and worry about nuances later.
 * Later today I am going to attempt to create the 'Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture' page and start dumping stuff into it. I am no great expert at Wiki so I hope I can remember how! Apepch7 (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Created Ancient Egyptian Deities in popular culture page and moved Set and Thoth sections.Apepch7 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Phooey, I should have mentioned: Egyptian influence in popular culture already exists as a dumping ground for that stuff. Maybe we should merge the two? A. Parrot (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but do you really care where this stuff ends up as long as it is dumped??LOL How do you merge pages???Apepch7 (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be a way to write such articles properly so they don't have to be treated as dumping grounds. Obviously it's not a problem I want to tackle, but I'd rather not have more of those things than necessary. Anyway, information on merging is at Help:Merging. I've merged articles before, so I suppose I could do it if you really want. A. Parrot (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Have placed merger tags on articles.Apepch7 (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok will merge those pages in due course. I am also going to attempt (slowly) to use a template based on the heading suggested by you (A. Parrot) on existing articles as follows -


 * "Name" - to include transliteration (and hieroglyph illustration where possible) of name and also literal meaning or etymology where there is one.


 * "Origins" - to include the history of god and how this may have developed over time.


 * "Roles" - understanding of the function of the god/discussion.


 * "Relationships with other gods" - familial relationships and inclusion in groups Enneads etc. (although I have some reservations about father/son/sister)


 * "Iconography" - self explanatory


 * "Worship" - cult centres festival and so on.


 * I hope this in itself (the presence of the headings will help keep the articles structured and discourage the inclusion of odd and tangential comments.Apepch7 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian Religion articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Egyptian Religion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles tagged for cleanup include Amarna, Bastet, Geb, Nefertiti, Nephthys, and Taweret. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion
There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Photography
Can someone please keep an eye on the willy nilly replacement of photos, the one of Hatshepsuts temple in subject mortuary temple has something akin to the size of a postage stamp. Merlin-UK (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology afd
Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology has been nominated for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

GAR
Akhenaten, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

name of the sun and of the year in ancient Egyptian
Could somebody here help me with this problem?

I have found an entry in a dictionary which reads: "Lykabas: name of the year on medals, among the Egyptians, who gave the name of Lykos, wolf, to the sun." Since the author does not cite any source it is impossible to know whether this is based on a Greek interpretation of the Egyptian word lykabas or really the Egyptians thought of the sun as a wolf. The etymology of the Greek word too is disputed: it has been interpreted as meaning day, year, new moon, period of time etc. At any rate the near-homophony between lykos wolf anf leuk light is proper to Greek and Italic and I suppose probably is not present in Egyptian in the same form. If in Egyptian the term lykabas exists, then it would be very odd that lykos meant wolf in that language too. Moreover there are no wolves in Egypt, but jackals, ienas etc. so it would be difficult to think that those people had identified the sun with such an animal.

Thank you very much for the attention!Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The sun was represented by a lot of animals (falcons, serpents, lions, scarabs, rams), but except for the most tangential connections (e.g., jackals were shown pulling the sun god's barque through the underworld), it was not to my knowledge depicted in canine form. My knowledge of the Egyptian language is very limited, but the only terms for "sun" and "year" that I know of are re and ren, respectively. These words could have mutated in spoken Demotic Egyptian into words starting with an L sound, but "lykabas" seems like a stretch. The map at grey wolf indicates that wolves did once live along Egypt's Mediterranean coast, and the Greeks interpreted the Egyptian god Wepwawet as a wolf—hence the Greek name for his city, Lycopolis. From what I understand, the Egyptians didn't draw a distinction between jackals and other canines when depicting their gods. So Wepwawet and Anubis both look like what you might call "composite canines", with some features of jackals and some features of dogs, and the Greeks could certainly interpret these Egyptian canines as wolves.


 * This dictionary entry could be based on some Greek interpretation of Egyptian beliefs, but I doubt it's a very accurate interpretation. There could be lots of details, complications, and errors in the chain of transmission from the Egyptian tradition to the Greek writer. The dictionary entry, being short, probably glosses over them all. I wouldn't treat its claims as accurate unless you can find out much more about that back-story. A. Parrot (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, I agree it is a Greek folk interpretation. But I found a coin representation (coin of emperor Maximinus I) and a reference to it in a note to Sallustius' treatise by Arthur Darby Nock as "an instance of triad Lykabas Sozon, Herakles, Hermes on a coin of Thermisonium... the oracula Chaldaica on the triad from the monad and give an arrangement of gods in four triads". But in the image he is represented with a radiant head holding a horse! What matters most is the concept of the year as a sun cycle and its connexion to the wolf: Artemidoros says the wolf means the year because it swims through a river in a stringe as do the seasons. This should have been the idea the Greeks attributed to the Egyptians. Compare also the story of Danaus.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I read carefully the article Wepwawet and indeed it looks it was not a Greek misinterpretation. The wolf was worshipped in Uppre Egypt as the opener of the way and god of war, being thence identified with the victorious pharaoh in war. Thence I suppose could also come the idea of the sun seen as a wolf. What is also compelling is the similarity to the figure of Anubi pulling the barge through the realm of night-death and to the cults of Lykosoura.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Mummification
I noticed that the Mummification article was tagged as top-importance by your group so I thought I would stop by and let you know about the overhaul I am conducting on that article. I recently rewrote and expanded the section on Egyptian mummification if you would like to take a look and tell me what you think. -- Saint Soren (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The section looks to me like a decent overview. Thanks for improving the article. A. Parrot (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just finished up the overhaul of the entire article and submitted it for GA review. Hopefully it'll get reinstated before the sun goes supernova or something. -- Saint Soren (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New editor adding an equivalent god, seems OR
This is User talk:Kangleingakpa, see for an example. The mythology and religion wikiprojects are dead, so posting here for want of a better place. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * These are definitely OR. There's no well-supported connection between any Egyptian god and a Hindu one, let alone a Manipuri one, and I think I can safely say that the Etruscan god Tinia never had a Manipuri equivalent. I think I've undone all the remaining edits of this type—even the equivalents between Manipuri and Hindu deities, because they're unsourced—and I'll keep an eye on that account. Pinging and, who also undid some of these edits. A. Parrot (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks muchly for the help. And of course Paul August and Khruner. Doug Weller  talk 18:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My only relevant area of expertise is Greek mythology. I can only speak (and evaluate sources) from that side of the fence. There are obviously well established "equivalents" between Greek and Roman gods (via the Interpretatio graeca). And there are certainly significant "connections" between the Greek gods and the gods of other cultures (e.g. Etruscan, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc.), but I don't think that these connections particularly extend to Hindu deities, or to Manipuri, and in any case, I doubt that such connections often rise to the level of being described, in reliable sources, as true equivalents. But, as always, we can let the sources speak for themselves. Paul August &#9742; 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Clearly OR. Will keep an eye on them too, and report in case they pretend to play deaf. If it were up to me, I would remove the "equivalent" entries from the infobox; if a certain equivalence do exists and is supported by reliable sources, then mentioning that into the article text should be enough. However, this is not the place to discuss that. Khruner (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I would also remove those entries from the infobox (among other things). Paul August &#9742; 20:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

,, Anyway, the religion Manipuri religion, also known as Sanamahism or Meitei religion is a growing religion, and it is of course, a polytheism. So, I, as a member of the religion, was trying to expand its knowledge by connection with other deities of other religion. Many edits might have been done by other users too. For example, you can see at the discussion page of the Sanamahism for references. By the way, I was adding equivalent because in Hindu-Manipuri equivalents of course exist very popularly like that of Greek Roman equivalents. So, please by you having any doubt, don't remove any parameter from the infobox deity as you have discussed before. Haoreima (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis GA Reassessment
Mysteries of Isis, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

SVG Drawings
For accessibility and standardization purposes, I have been attempting to add existing SVG images of deities (like the ones made by User:Jeff Dahl) to pages that don't have one. In the case of deities that don't have an SVG image at all, I propose that such images are drawn up for said deities by those capable of doing so. I have compiled a list of notable deities that lack such SVG drawings below:

(later edit: strikethroughs for deities I couldn't find painted images of)

Anat

Anput

Apep

Banebdjedet

Hatmehit

Heka

Heqet

Heryshaf

Hu (mythology)

Kek (mythology)

Maahes

Nehebkau

Nekhbet

Nu (mythology) (there's an SVG called "Heh as Chaos" that is on Nun's wikimedia category but I'm unsure if it depicts Heh or Nun)

Satet

Tatenen (the existing image is very low-resolution)

Wadjet

- Star11308 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Developing more Dahl-style images would be very helpful, but it has to be done carefully so as not to veer into WP:OR territory. We know the general iconographies of most of these deities, but we don't always know how they were colored, because the paint has worn off of most temple reliefs, and tombs, where the paint is generally better preserved, only depict deities that were at least somewhat relevant to the funerary sphere. Dahl's images were generally based on New Kingdom tomb art, especially the tombs of Horemheb and Nefertari, and he may actually have limited which deities he portrayed to those he could find in those sources. I once asked Dahl about modifying the images of goddesses to use a papyrus staff, which goddesses generally carried, instead of a was-sceptre. He held off on it because he wanted to find a color image of a papyrus staff so he could be sure it was accurate. (I eventually found one, but by then he was inactive and I ended up making the change myself with my just-adequate abilities with Inkscape.) It may not be possible to find color images of these deities, and in some cases we may not have good images at all.


 * Another problem is that stylistic differences did exist in Egyptian art, and we don't want to mislead readers into thinking that two deities' iconographies differed simply because we're basing our SVGs on the works of different artists. For example, to my knowledge there is no portrayal of Khnum in the New Kingdom tombs, but Dahl drew an SVG that I suspect is instead based on the portrayal of the ram form of Ra in the tomb of Ramesses I; note the green face. I'm guessing that Dahl figured that if the early Nineteenth Dynasty tomb artists had portrayed Khnum, he would have looked like that, because ram-faced deities were portrayed the same (aside from Amun, whose ovine form was based on a different variety of sheep with a different horn shape). And our article on Banebdjedet shows a good tomb image on which an SVG could be based, but it's from the reign of Ramesses IX, nearly 200 years after the early Nineteenth Dynasty, and gives Banebdjedet a yellow face instead of green, for what I'm fairly sure are stylistic reasons. (Note that Banebdjedet's mummy wrappings in that image are also yellow, whereas in Nineteenth-Dynasty tomb images, such as the conjoined Ra-Osiris in Nefertari's tomb, the wrappings are white). If we made a Banebdjedet image with a yellow face, that would lead readers to assume the Egyptians distinguished them by giving Khnum a green face and Banebdjedet a yellow one. Such a problem already exists with Sekhmet and Tefnut. The Sekhmet image is by Dahl, but the Tefnut one was made later by somebody else, based on the Dahl pattern but with a different style of lioness face, whereas I don't think there was any real iconographic distinction between the two.


 * So, um, there are the pitfalls. But if you're willing to research and draw the SVGs with those problems in mind, you deserve high praise. Please let me know if I can help you with anything, as I have lots of resources for research. I know I've seen the tomb image on which "Heh as Chaos" is based; I'll see if I can hunt it down and determine which deity it is. A. Parrot (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The safest and simplest solution for Banebdjedet and similar SVGs would be to go with the route done with Amun; making recolors of the SVG portraying the deity's iconography at different times. I managed to find a painting of Satet from Kalabsha on Alamy, it took digging but most drawings online are at least somewhat accurate to the painting with the only major difference I can see being that her dress (or what's visible off it) is white instead of blue. I'll have to look further for depictions of Anat, Anput, Heryshaf, and Maahes but my efforts have been to no avail so far.


 * The image "Heh as Chaos" appears to be based off of a vignette from the Papyrus of Ani depicting Heh, but I'm not too certain such iconography was restricted to Heh because I'm sure I saw a similar depiction elsewhere but of course I don't want to add the image to Nun's page until I know for sure. Star11308 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

New deity vector images?
A Reddit user by the username of EternalSpace1977 has recently created a series of vector illustrations of deities similar in style to Jeff Dahl's illustrations. They have asked if they could be uploaded and used in place of the older images, as they're all based on paintings from sites (primarily QV66) directly with little change, and have more accurate color choice, being more desaturated like paintings of the time, and attributes, such as male deities having that sort of "feather tank top" and a few goddesses having patterns on their dresses. So far, EternalSpace1977 has created illustrations for Ra-Horakhty, Osiris (enthroned), Anubis, Hathor, Amun (enthroned), Isis (kneeling with wings), Sobek, Sekhmet, Set, Ma'at (kneeling with wings), Thoth (with scribal palette), Min, Babi (anthropomorphic form), Horus, Bastet, Khepri (enthroned), Khnum, Neith (with shield headdress), Bennu, and Anuket. Star11308 (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are the links to their posts
 * Post 1
 * Post 2 Star11308 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)