How Horemheb Placed Loyal Officials in Egypt’s Temples

Recruiting Priests from the Army under Horemheb

𓋹 The Scribe

Loading...

Copy Link

Save Study

Report

The restoration of Egypt’s temples under Horemheb required more than repairing buildings and renewing offerings. Temples needed trained personnel capable of conducting rituals, administering estates, supervising workshops, and protecting sacred property. Horemheb therefore reorganised religious offices and appointed new temple personnel as part of his wider programme to restore royal control, institutional discipline, and traditional worship after the Amarna Period.

Historical accounts frequently state that Horemheb selected priests from the army and from officials loyal to him. This interpretation reflects his military background and the administrative character of his reign. It is broadly consistent with his effort to place dependable men in positions of authority, although the surviving evidence does not preserve a complete list identifying every priest’s former military rank.

Central Historical Point: Horemheb used royal appointment to rebuild temple personnel and strengthen the connection between the religious institutions and the central government. Men associated with the army and royal administration were valuable because their careers, income, and authority depended upon the king.

Why New Priests Were Required

Akhenaten’s religious policy had redirected royal support toward the Aten and attacked the names and images of traditional gods, especially Amun. Temple revenues, priestly careers, ritual schedules, and administrative networks were disrupted. The restoration initiated under Tutankhamun and continued under Horemheb therefore required the recruitment or reinstatement of priests, prophets, purification priests, scribes, storehouse officials, craftsmen, and estate administrators.

A reopened sanctuary could not function without these personnel. Daily ritual demanded purified priests who understood the correct speeches, movements, offerings, clothing, and treatment of the divine image. Temple estates also required officials who could account for grain, cattle, linen, oil, incense, land, labour, and transport.

The Meaning of “Prophet” in Egyptian Temples

The title commonly translated as “prophet” represents the Egyptian expression hem-netjer, literally “servant of the god.” It did not normally mean a person who predicted the future. A prophet was a priest authorised to serve a deity, participate in ritual, and sometimes administer part of the temple institution.

Major temples possessed a hierarchy of first, second, third, and fourth prophets. The First Prophet generally occupied the highest priestly position and could exercise substantial authority over personnel, property, offerings, and temple estates. Appointment to such an office therefore had political and economic consequences as well as religious significance.

Why Horemheb Favoured Military and Administrative Men

Horemheb had risen through the army before becoming king. His most dependable political network consisted of officers, military scribes, royal administrators, and men whose careers had developed within the institutions he understood and controlled. These officials possessed experience in record-keeping, logistics, personnel management, taxation, transport, and the distribution of supplies.

Such abilities were directly useful in temple administration. A senior officer accustomed to managing soldiers, provisions, equipment, and government correspondence could also supervise temple labour, agricultural deliveries, storehouses, and institutional accounts. The appointment of royal servants therefore did not simply reward loyalty; it introduced men with practical administrative skills into restored religious establishments.

Royal Appointment and Political Loyalty

Egyptian priests did not form a constitutionally independent religious organisation separate from the state. The pharaoh was theoretically the chief officiant of every temple, while priests conducted the rituals as his representatives. The king could influence senior appointments, grant temple property, authorise construction, confirm privileges, and regulate institutional personnel.

By appointing trusted men, Horemheb reduced the possibility that powerful temple offices would become controlled by opponents or independent provincial families. A priest promoted through royal favour owed his position to the crown and had a strong interest in preserving the political order established by Horemheb.

Loyalty was particularly important because temples controlled considerable economic resources. Their estates could include farmland, herds, workshops, ships, storehouses, and dependent labour. Control of senior priestly offices therefore provided access to wealth, employment, local influence, and the public rituals through which royal legitimacy was communicated.

The Great Edict and the Reorganisation of Personnel

The principal administrative source for Horemheb’s reign is the Great Edict of Horemheb, carved on a sandstone monument near the Tenth Pylon at Karnak. The damaged inscription describes measures against abuses by officials, soldiers, tax collectors, and judges. It also records the king’s concern with selecting trustworthy men for responsible offices.

The Edict demonstrates Horemheb’s general method: royal institutions were to be strengthened by appointing competent men, supervising their conduct, and punishing corruption. Priests and temple representatives could also participate in judicial councils, showing that religious and civil administration were closely connected rather than institutionally separated.

Because substantial portions of the monument are damaged, it cannot provide a complete national register of priestly appointments. Claims that every major priest was personally selected from the army must therefore be treated cautiously. The evidence supports a deliberate reorganisation of temple personnel under royal authority, but not a surviving biography for each appointee.

Priests as Administrators and Judges

New Kingdom priests could hold more than one office. A man might combine priestly service with responsibilities in the treasury, army, local government, royal estates, or judiciary. This accumulation of offices was not unusual because Egyptian administration depended upon trusted individuals performing interconnected duties.

Horemheb’s selection of priests and local officials for judicial responsibilities placed temple personnel within his programme of legal reform. Their religious status could give them community authority, while their royal appointment made them accountable to the central government. The objective was to create a disciplined provincial elite serving both temple and crown.

Did Military Appointees Become Ritual Specialists Immediately?

Appointment to a priestly office did not eliminate ritual requirements. Priests had to observe rules of purification, understand temple procedures, and perform the correct ceremonies. Senior appointees could also depend upon experienced subordinate clergy who preserved specialist knowledge of hymns, sacred texts, processions, offerings, and cult equipment.

Horemheb was therefore unlikely to have replaced all traditional temple expertise with untrained soldiers. A more realistic reconstruction is that trusted military and administrative men were placed in influential offices while experienced priests continued many specialised ritual duties. This arrangement combined political loyalty at the highest levels with technical continuity inside the temple.

Control of Temple Wealth

The restoration of traditional worship returned land, labour, offerings, and supplies to the temples. Without reliable supervision, these resources could be diverted by local officials or absorbed by powerful families. Loyal appointees helped the crown monitor how temple income was collected and distributed.

This policy did not necessarily weaken the temples. Horemheb provided the institutional support required for them to function, while ensuring that their renewed wealth did not develop entirely outside royal control. It was a calculated balance between religious restoration and political supervision.

Administrative Logic: Horemheb needed strong temples to restore traditional religion, but strong temples required dependable leaders. Appointing men connected with the army and royal administration allowed him to rebuild religious institutions without surrendering control over their personnel and wealth.

Questions and Answers

Question: Did Horemheb appoint new priests after the Amarna Period?
Answer: Yes. The restoration of temple worship required renewed priestly and administrative personnel. Historical evidence associates his reign with the reorganisation and staffing of traditional temples.

Question: Were the new priests selected exclusively from the army?
Answer: No surviving evidence proves that every priest came from the military. Trusted officers and royal officials were probably important sources of senior appointees, while experienced clergy remained necessary for specialised rituals.

Question: Why would a soldier be suitable for temple administration?
Answer: Senior soldiers possessed experience in logistics, accounting, personnel supervision, transport, supply distribution, and institutional discipline. These skills were valuable in managing large temple estates.

Question: Was an Egyptian prophet a predictor of future events?
Answer: Usually not. “Prophet” is the conventional translation of hem-netjer, meaning servant of the god. It referred to a priestly office within the temple hierarchy.

Question: Did Horemheb’s appointments make the priesthood politically loyal?
Answer: They were intended to strengthen loyalty because appointees depended upon royal favour for office, income, status, and authority. Complete obedience by every priest, however, cannot be demonstrated.

Question: Did the policy give Horemheb control over temple wealth?
Answer: It increased royal supervision over the officials managing temple estates, offerings, workshops, labour, and storehouses, although temples retained their own institutional structures.

Question: Did military appointments destroy traditional priestly knowledge?
Answer: There is no evidence of a complete replacement of trained clergy. Senior loyalists could supervise institutions while experienced ritual specialists continued daily temple service.

Scientific Conclusion

Horemheb’s appointment of new temple personnel belonged to a broader reconstruction of the Egyptian state. Restored sanctuaries required priests to conduct rituals and administrators to manage their substantial economic resources. Men from military and governmental backgrounds offered the king a dependable source of discipline, administrative experience, and personal loyalty.

The evidence should not be exaggerated into a claim that Horemheb replaced every Egyptian priest with a soldier. The more defensible conclusion is that he used royal appointments to place trusted servants in influential religious and administrative positions. This policy enabled him to restore the temples while keeping their revived authority connected to the monarchy.

Religion and government were not separate spheres in Horemheb’s Egypt. Priestly service, temple finance, local justice, and royal administration overlapped. By controlling senior personnel, Horemheb transformed religious restoration into an instrument of political stability and ensured that the renewed temple system supported rather than challenged his rule.

Source Basis for Further Study

• Primary administrative source: The Great Edict of Horemheb at Karnak.
• Archaeological source: Horemheb’s monuments and reused Aten blocks in the Karnak Temple complex.
• Institutional evidence: New Kingdom priestly titles, temple accounts, estates, and administrative offices.
• Political context: Horemheb’s military career and his reconstruction of royal government after the Amarna Period.
• Historical limitation: No complete surviving register identifies the previous career of every priest appointed during Horemheb’s reign.

Horemheb’s Alliance with the Priesthood of Amun

July 29, 2026 By Editorial Team Ancient Egyptian Religion and Royal Power 10 min read

Horemheb’s accession occurred after the political and religious disruption of the Amarna Period. He had risen through the military and administrative hierarchy without being born into the immediate royal family. His authority rested upon his position as commander of the army, royal deputy, senior administrator, and guardian of the state. Military power, however, was not sufficient by itself. A king also required divine legitimacy, and no Egyptian religious institution possessed greater prestige in this period than the Temple of Amun-Re at Karnak.

It is tempting to describe the relationship as an unwritten bargain: Horemheb restored the wealth and influence of Amun’s institution, while its priests supported his right to rule. This interpretation is politically plausible, but it must be stated carefully. No surviving inscription records a secret agreement, negotiated contract, or explicit exchange between Horemheb and the High Priest of Amun. The evidence instead reveals a mutually beneficial alignment between royal power and the restored cult of Amun.

Central Historical Point: Horemheb needed religious legitimacy because he lacked a direct hereditary claim to the throne. The Theban cult of Amun benefited from royal restoration after the Amarna crisis. Their interests converged, but the existence of a formal political bargain cannot be proved.

Why Horemheb Required Religious Legitimacy

Horemheb was not presented as the biological son of the preceding king. Before becoming pharaoh, he accumulated exceptional titles that identified him as the king’s deputy and the man responsible for government when the monarch was absent or unable to act. His military command provided control over organised force, while his administrative offices connected him with the palace, treasury, foreign affairs, and provincial government.

Egyptian kingship nevertheless required more than administrative competence. Accession had to be interpreted as the fulfilment of divine will. Horemheb’s monuments therefore transformed his career into a sacred biography. He was not portrayed as a general who had merely seized power, but as a man selected, prepared, and crowned through the will of the gods.

The Turin Coronation Inscription

The principal source for Horemheb’s official account of his accession is the inscription carved upon the back of a granite statue group preserved in Turin. The monument represents Horemheb with his queen, Mutnodjmet. Its text explains that Horus, lord of Horemheb’s home region, had favoured him from an early stage and advanced him through increasingly powerful offices.

According to the royal narrative, the god protected Horemheb and prepared him for kingship. Horemheb was eventually brought south to Thebes during a major festival, where his royal status was publicly recognised. The inscription connects his accession with divine election, temple ceremony, and public royal appearance, rather than with a documented agreement among political officials.

The text is ideological and cannot be read as a neutral record of private negotiations. Its purpose was to explain why a man without an obvious royal father possessed a legitimate right to the throne. Divine selection supplied the sacred ancestry that ordinary genealogy could not provide.

The Importance of Amun’s Institution

The Temple of Amun at Karnak was not simply a place of prayer. It controlled agricultural estates, workshops, herds, storerooms, ships, personnel, and supplies. Its priesthood supervised daily ritual, festivals, sacred property, and the presentation of divine authority to society. Support from this institution could give a new monarch ceremonial recognition, theological legitimacy, and influence throughout Upper Egypt.

During Akhenaten’s reign, the name and images of Amun had been attacked, and royal resources were redirected toward the Aten. The restoration initiated after Akhenaten therefore returned personnel, property, offerings, and public importance to the traditional temples. Horemheb continued this process and made the restored religious order a central foundation of his kingship.

The Role of Thebes and the Opet Festival

Thebes provided an ideal setting for Horemheb’s royal presentation. During the Opet Festival, the sacred image of Amun travelled in procession from Karnak to Luxor Temple, accompanied by the divine barks of Mut and Khonsu. The festival renewed the king’s divine power and publicly displayed the relationship between Amun and the monarchy.

Horemheb’s association with a Theban festival allowed his accession to be placed within one of Egypt’s most authoritative religious ceremonies. Priests carried the sacred barks, performed the rituals, maintained access to the sanctuaries, and communicated the god’s will. Their participation made them essential agents in the public presentation of divinely approved kingship.

This does not prove that the priests independently chose Horemheb or possessed a constitutional right to appoint the pharaoh. The inscription presents the gods as the source of kingship. The priesthood performed and communicated that divine approval within a ceremony controlled jointly by temple and crown.

What Horemheb Gave the Cult of Amun

Horemheb supported Amun’s renewed supremacy through construction, restoration, endowment, and official representation. At Karnak, he added monumental gateways and reused blocks taken from dismantled Aten buildings. The removal of the Aten temples simultaneously erased Akhenaten’s religious legacy and supplied stone for structures serving the restored cult.

Temple activity also required land, agricultural income, craftsmen, priests, scribes, and offerings. Horemheb’s policy strengthened this institutional system and restored its relationship with the central government. Such support may reasonably be described as economic and administrative patronage, although the surviving evidence does not provide a complete financial account of everything transferred to Amun’s temple during his reign.

What the Priesthood Provided

The priesthood provided the ritual framework through which Horemheb could be represented as the legitimate ruler selected by the gods. Priests maintained the cult image, conducted festivals, recited sacred formulas, and operated the institutions in which divine approval became publicly visible.

Their support was especially valuable because Horemheb’s claim depended upon office and divine election rather than direct royal descent. Religious ceremonies transformed his political accession into the restoration of ma’at. Obedience to Horemheb could therefore be presented not merely as submission to military power, but as acceptance of the cosmic order authorised by the gods.

Was There an Unwritten Political Deal?

The expression “unwritten deal” is useful only as a modern interpretation. Horemheb and the institution of Amun clearly possessed compatible interests. He required sacred legitimacy, and the temple required continued royal protection after the Amarna persecution. Each side benefited from the restoration of the traditional relationship between crown and cult.

However, historians must distinguish political probability from documented fact. No surviving papyrus, stela, temple inscription, or administrative account states that the priests promised to mobilise support in exchange for money and influence. The evidence demonstrates cooperation and mutual benefit, not the precise terms of a secret agreement.

Scientific Caution: Horemheb’s alliance with Amun’s institution is historically credible as a relationship of shared interests. Describing it as a negotiated bargain is an analytical model, not a direct quotation from an ancient source.

Questions and Answers

Question: Did the High Priest of Amun personally place Horemheb on the throne?
Answer: The surviving evidence does not establish this. Horemheb’s official inscription attributes his elevation to divine favour and presents his royal appearance within a Theban religious setting.

Question: Why was the support of Amun’s temple important?
Answer: Karnak possessed enormous religious prestige and substantial economic resources. Its ceremonies could present Horemheb’s accession as legitimate, sacred, and necessary for the restoration of Egypt.

Question: Did Horemheb give financial support to Amun’s institution?
Answer: His construction, restoration, cultic patronage, and support for temple operations indicate royal investment. The evidence does not preserve the complete value or terms of a specific payment agreement.

Question: Was the alliance directed against Atenism?
Answer: Yes, in institutional and ideological terms. Horemheb dismantled Aten monuments, reused their blocks, restored traditional cults, and promoted Amun as a central deity of legitimate kingship.

Question: Did the priests control Horemheb?
Answer: There is no evidence that they controlled his government. The priesthood remained dependent upon royal appointments and protection, while the king benefited from its ceremonial authority.

Question: What is the most accurate description of their relationship?
Answer: It was a reciprocal alliance of royal patronage and religious legitimation, reconstructed from monuments and political circumstances rather than documented in a surviving treaty.

Scientific Conclusion

Horemheb’s relationship with the priesthood of Amun was fundamental to the religious presentation of his kingship. His military and administrative career gave him practical power, but temple ceremony supplied the divine legitimacy required by Egyptian royal ideology. In return, his reign strengthened the traditional cults and continued the restoration of Amun’s institutional position after the Amarna Period.

The evidence supports a powerful convergence of interests, but not a literal secret contract. The historically responsible conclusion is that Horemheb supported Amun’s temple, while its religious machinery helped represent his accession as the decision of the gods. Their cooperation joined military authority, temple wealth, public ritual, and sacred ideology in the reconstruction of the Egyptian monarchy.

Source Basis for Further Study

• Primary royal source: Horemheb’s Turin Coronation Inscription.
• Archaeological setting: Horemheb’s construction and reused Aten blocks at Karnak.
• Religious context: The Opet Festival and the renewal of royal power at Thebes.
• Institutional context: The estates, personnel, workshops, and ritual authority of Amun’s temple.
• Historical limitation: No surviving document records a formal bargain between Horemheb and the Amun priesthood.

Horemheb’s Reopening of Egypt’s Closed Temples

Reopening and Reconsecrating Egypt’s Temples under Horemheb

July 29, 2026 By Editorial Team Ancient Egyptian Religion and Archaeology 13 min read

The reopening and reconsecration of Egyptian temples formed part of the religious restoration that followed the Amarna Period. Under Akhenaten, royal resources had been concentrated upon the Aten, while many traditional cults lost income, personnel, offerings, and official protection. By the reign of Horemheb, restoring the temples had become an essential instrument for rebuilding royal authority and re-establishing ma’at, the divinely ordered condition of Egypt.

Central Historical Point: Horemheb continued, expanded, and politically appropriated the post-Amarna restoration of traditional worship. Temples were repaired, divine images and offerings were restored, priestly institutions were supported, and regular cult service was presented as evidence that legitimate kingship had returned.

The Historical Evidence and Its Necessary Qualification

A famous description of temples lying abandoned from the southern region around Elephantine to the Delta marshes appears in the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun. It states that sanctuaries had become ruins, sacred places were overgrown, and the gods no longer answered because their cults had been neglected. Tutankhamun ordered divine images, priesthoods, offerings, and temple possessions to be restored.

This evidence must not be attributed uncritically to Horemheb. The restoration programme formally began before his accession, especially under Tutankhamun. However, Horemheb later usurped monuments and inscriptions of Tutankhamun, replacing the earlier king’s names with his own. He thereby presented himself as the ruler responsible for completing the restoration and deliberately excluded his Amarna-period predecessors from official royal memory.

Consequently, the statement that Horemheb issued one surviving order to open every closed temple from the Delta to Nubia is stronger than the archaeological evidence permits. The defensible conclusion is that his reign continued a kingdom-wide policy of reopening, refurnishing, reconsecrating, and maintaining traditional sanctuaries.

What Reopening a Temple Actually Required

An Egyptian temple could not be restored merely by unlocking its entrance. Reopening required the physical repair of walls, roofs, gateways, storerooms, sacred chambers, and processional routes. Damaged or erased representations of traditional gods had to be recarved, while cult statues, ritual vessels, linen, incense, oils, food, and precious materials had to be supplied.

Reconsecration also restored the temple’s ritual identity. The sanctuary was purified, sacred space was ritually protected, and the divine image was returned to active service. Priests, purification specialists, scribes, craftsmen, farmers, herdsmen, and storehouse officials were necessary because the daily cult depended upon an extensive economic institution, not upon religious ceremony alone.

The Restoration of Daily Ritual

The central act of temple worship was the daily service performed before the cult image. At dawn, an authorised priest entered the sanctuary after ritual purification. The sealed shrine was opened, incense was burned, and hymns awakened the deity. The divine statue was unveiled, cleansed, anointed, clothed in fresh linen, adorned, and presented with food, drink, flowers, incense, and other offerings.

After the service, the shrine was closed and sealed again. Although the king was represented on temple walls as the principal officiant, the work was normally performed by priests acting in his name. Restoring these ceremonies therefore renewed the relationship between the king, the gods, the temples, and the wider population.

Daily ritual required dependable supplies. Agricultural estates produced grain, vegetables, wine, cattle, poultry, linen, and oil. Workshops manufactured ritual equipment, while scribes recorded deliveries. Horemheb’s restoration consequently involved administrative control, temple revenue, organised labour, and royal patronage as well as theological policy.

From the Delta to Nubia

The traditional cult network extended throughout the Nile Valley. The Delta contained major centres of gods such as Ptah, Atum, and local forms of Horus, while Memphis remained a crucial administrative and religious capital. In Upper Egypt, Abydos, Thebes, Edfu, and other sacred centres linked local cults to royal ideology. Elephantine marked Egypt’s southern religious frontier, beyond which Egyptian temples in Nubia supported both worship and imperial administration.

Horemheb’s monuments demonstrate activity across this landscape. At Karnak, he restored the predominance of Amun-Re, constructed major pylons, and reused blocks taken from dismantled Aten buildings. At Gebel el-Silsila, his rock-cut temple honoured Amun-Re, Mut, Khonsu, Sobek, Taweret, and Thoth. Evidence bearing his name is also known from Nubia, although this does not prove that every provincial temple received identical treatment.

Erasing Atenism and Reusing Its Monuments

Horemheb’s restoration included the physical dismantling of Aten temples. Their sandstone blocks were reused as building material inside later constructions, particularly at Karnak. This practice removed visible Aten monuments while supplying stone for new works associated with the traditional gods and Horemheb’s kingship.

The policy was therefore both constructive and destructive. Traditional sanctuaries were repaired, but the architectural memory of Akhenaten’s religious revolution was systematically suppressed. Horemheb presented the restored cults as a return to the proper order of creation rather than as a new political settlement.

Archaeological Interpretation: Reused Aten blocks, restored images of Amun, Horemheb’s additions at Karnak, and his inscriptions collectively reveal an official programme designed to make traditional worship visible, economically functional, and politically dominant again.

Why Temple Restoration Strengthened the State

Temples were major landholders and centres of storage, employment, craft production, and redistribution. Reopening them restored organised networks that supported priests, labourers, administrators, and surrounding communities. Religious restoration therefore assisted the recovery of provincial government after the concentration of royal attention at Akhetaten.

The programme also legitimised Horemheb, who was not born into the immediate royal family. By restoring temples and daily offerings, he portrayed himself as the chosen defender of the gods. His kingship was defined through the restoration of ma’at and the suppression of disorder.

Questions and Answers

Question: Did Horemheb personally begin the reopening of Egypt’s temples?
Answer: No. The documented post-Amarna restoration began under Tutankhamun. Horemheb continued it, enlarged its political significance, and appropriated some earlier restoration monuments by replacing Tutankhamun’s names with his own.

Question: Is there a surviving decree ordering Horemheb to open every temple from the Delta to Nubia?
Answer: No complete decree with that exact wording survives. The geographical description of ruined temples from the southern regions to the Delta belongs principally to Tutankhamun’s Restoration Stela. Horemheb’s monuments nevertheless demonstrate a broad continuation of temple restoration.

Question: What was meant by reconsecrating a temple?
Answer: It meant ritually purifying sacred space, restoring divine images and equipment, reorganising priestly service, renewing offerings, and returning the sanctuary to regular cultic operation.

Question: What happened during the daily temple ritual?
Answer: Priests purified themselves, opened the divine shrine, burned incense, cleansed and clothed the cult statue, presented offerings, recited sacred formulas, and finally closed and sealed the sanctuary.

Question: Why did Horemheb dismantle Aten temples?
Answer: Their removal suppressed the visible legacy of Akhenaten’s religious policy. Their blocks were reused in constructions associated with Amun and restored royal orthodoxy.

Question: Did reopening the temples have an economic purpose?
Answer: Yes. Temples controlled estates, workshops, herds, storerooms, and labour. Their restoration reactivated important systems of production, employment, record-keeping, and redistribution.

Scientific Conclusion

Horemheb’s temple policy should be understood as the completion and political appropriation of a restoration initiated before his reign. Archaeological and inscriptional evidence shows the repair of traditional divine images, the dismantling of Aten monuments, renewed support for established cults, and major building activity at Karnak and other sites.

It is historically inaccurate to assign every statement of Tutankhamun’s Restoration Stela directly to Horemheb. It is equally inaccurate to separate Horemheb from the wider recovery of Egyptian temples. His reign transformed restoration into a powerful statement that the gods had returned to their sanctuaries, daily ritual had resumed, and legitimate royal order had been re-established.

Source Basis for Further Study

• Primary inscription: The Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun, later usurped in surviving examples by Horemheb.
• Royal monument: Horemheb’s coronation inscription, preserved on a statue group in Turin.
• Archaeological evidence: Horemheb’s pylons and reused Aten blocks at Karnak.
• Provincial monument: The rock-cut temple of Horemheb at Gebel el-Silsila.
• Historical context: The post-Amarna restoration of Amun and the traditional Egyptian cults.

Horemheb’s Revival of the Egyptian Pantheon

Horemheb and the Restoration of Egypt's Pantheon

July 29, 2026 By Editorial Team Ancient Egyptian Religion and Archaeology 13 min read

Horemheb made the traditional divine order central to kingship. His reign completed the rejection of Akhenaten's Aten-centered programme. Yet the reversal began under Tutankhamun, who restored temples, priesthoods, offerings, and Amun. Horemheb consolidated that recovery and removed Amarna institutions officially permanently.

Central Historical Point: Horemheb did not invent the restoration, but he transformed it into a durable state settlement by rebuilding traditional cult institutions and dismantling the material presence of Atenism.

What Akhenaten Had Changed

Akhenaten's religious policy concentrated royal worship upon the Aten and made the king and royal family the privileged intermediaries between the solar god and humanity. The names and images of Amun were attacked, temple resources were redirected, and the court moved to Akhetaten, modern Amarna. Scholars debate whether this system should be called strict monotheism, monolatry, or exclusive royal solar worship. Therefore, the phrase “one and only god” is useful only with caution. The archaeological record demonstrates exceptional exclusion of competing cults, especially Amun, but Egyptian religious ideas did not suddenly become identical to later philosophical monotheism.

The Restoration Before Horemheb

The decisive public reversal appears in the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun, erected at Karnak. Its inscription describes temples as neglected, sanctuaries as ruined, and divine offerings as interrupted; it then credits the king with rebuilding cult images, restoring revenues, appointing priests, and renewing ritual service. The stela shows Tutankhamun before Amun-Re and Mut. Horemheb later appropriated the monument by replacing royal names in parts of its text. This usurpation is important evidence: he claimed personal ownership of a restoration policy that had begun under his predecessor.

Horemheb's Material Actions

Horemheb's strongest archaeological statement was architectural. At Karnak, he dismantled temples built for the Aten and reused thousands of their small sandstone talatat blocks as internal filling in major pylons, especially the Ninth and Tenth Pylons, with additional material associated with the Second Pylon. This act simultaneously erased functioning Aten monuments and supplied stone for the monumental precinct of Amun-Re. Because the blocks were hidden inside later masonry, modern archaeologists recovered extensive fragments of Amarna reliefs from structures intended to proclaim the restored order.

The policy extended beyond Amun alone. Egyptian religion operated through a plural pantheon whose local and national cults were linked by ritual, mythology, temple estates, festivals, and royal patronage. Horemheb appears with Amun, Horus, Hathor, Atum, Ptah, and other deities in monuments and inscriptions. Restoring the pantheon therefore meant reactivating a network: temples received personnel and resources; divine images again occupied sanctuaries; daily offerings resumed; and the king once more represented himself as servant of many gods rather than exclusive earthly partner of the Aten.

Religion, Kingship, and Ma'at

For Horemheb, religious restoration was not merely theological preference. Temples were economic and administrative institutions controlling land, workshops, storage, livestock, and labour. Reestablishing them repaired channels through which the crown governed society. It also restored ma'at, the principle of truth, balance, justice, and correct cosmic order. Traditional kingship required the pharaoh to satisfy the gods through offerings so that they would preserve Egypt. Atenism's suppression could consequently be represented as disorder, while the revived pantheon legitimized Horemheb's rule despite his lack of royal ancestry.

Erasing the Amarna Interlude

Horemheb also reshaped historical memory. He appropriated monuments of Tutankhamun and Ay, omitted the Amarna rulers from official succession, and linked himself symbolically with the pre-Amarna monarchy. However, systematic erasure developed over time and continued under the early Nineteenth Dynasty. It is therefore inaccurate to attribute every destroyed Amarna name to Horemheb personally. The secure conclusion is that his reign began an official programme of delegitimization, dismantling, reuse, and chronological exclusion that made the Atenist episode appear an unlawful interruption rather than a valid royal tradition.

Questions and Answers

Question: Did Horemheb personally abolish Atenism?
Answer: He completed and hardened its rejection, but Tutankhamun had already officially restored the traditional cults. Horemheb dismantled Aten temples and removed Amarna legitimacy more aggressively.

Question: Did the Aten disappear completely?
Answer: No. The sun disk remained an Egyptian religious symbol. What ended was the exclusive state system created by Akhenaten, not every traditional solar reference to the Aten.

Question: Was Atenism certainly monotheistic?
Answer: Its exclusivity strongly resembles monotheism, but scholars use several classifications. The surviving evidence is safest described as exclusive Aten-centered royal religion that suppressed major rival cults.

Question: What proves Horemheb's policy archaeologically?
Answer: The reused Restoration Stela, inscriptions and statues associating him with traditional gods, and Aten talatat sealed inside Karnak's pylons provide direct material evidence.

Question: Why restore many gods instead of Amun alone?
Answer: Amun was politically preeminent at Thebes, but Egyptian order depended upon interconnected local and national deities. Restoring the state required the broader pantheon, its temples, priesthoods, estates, festivals, and offerings.

Scientific Conclusion

Horemheb's achievement was the institutional consolidation of Egypt's post-Amarna religious settlement. He rejected the Aten's exclusive supremacy, restored royal service to the traditional gods, reopened the economic and ritual structures supporting their cults, and physically absorbed Aten monuments into buildings dedicated to the older order. The evidence does not support a simplistic story in which he alone suddenly restored polytheism. It supports a sequence: Tutankhamun initiated official repair; Horemheb appropriated, expanded, and enforced it. Through architecture, inscription, ritual patronage, and historical editing, Horemheb made the renewed pantheon a foundation for Egyptian kingship and prepared the ideological landscape inherited by the Ramesside rulers.

Horemheb’s Devotion to Thoth

July 29, 2026 By Editorial Team Ancient Egyptian Religion and Archaeology 16 min read

cultivated an unusually strong public association with Thoth, god of writing, knowledge, calculation, and lawful judgment. This connection was not merely decorative. Archaeological monuments created before and during his reign employed Thoth’s intellectual authority to present Horemheb as a disciplined administrator, accomplished scribe, impartial judge, and legitimate restorer of order after the Amarna Period.

The Archaeological Evidence

The clearest evidence is the life-sized granodiorite scribal statue of Horemheb now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was produced before his accession, probably during the reign of Tutankhamun or Ay. Horemheb sits with a papyrus across his knees, an ink container beside him, and scribal equipment over his shoulder. The papyrus bears a hymn addressed directly to Thoth.

This composition identifies Horemheb with the small literate elite that managed royal government. More importantly, the hymn portrays Thoth as the effective and conscientious official of the sun god Re. The comparison had political meaning: as Thoth served Re through knowledge, records, and correct decisions, Horemheb claimed to serve Egypt’s king through administration, military command, and trustworthy counsel.

Central Historical Point: Horemheb’s devotion to Thoth transformed the image of a military commander into that of a learned statesman whose authority rested upon literacy, wisdom, discipline, and correct judgment.

Thoth and Horemheb’s Regional Association

Thoth’s principal cult centre was Hermopolis, ancient Khemenu, in Middle Egypt. A surviving fragment from a royal statue of Horemheb describes him as “beloved of Thoth, Lord of Hermopolis,” and refers to the god within the Hare Nome. The fragment probably belonged to a monument erected in Thoth’s Hermopolitan temple.

This object demonstrates a significant connection between Horemheb and Thoth’s province. However, scientific caution is necessary. The surviving evidence does not securely prove the precise place of Horemheb’s birth. Statements that he was certainly born or raised at Hermopolis exceed what the inscriptions establish. His known association with Middle Egypt may reflect regional origin, official patronage, temple devotion, or deliberate royal policy.

Why Thoth Suited Horemheb

Thoth possessed functions directly relevant to Horemheb’s career. He was patron of scribes, master of sacred speech, recorder of divine decisions, calculator of time, and participant in judgment. Egyptian intellectual tradition connected accurate writing with administrative control because taxation, estates, military supplies, labour, and legal decisions all required reliable records.

Horemheb had risen through the army and royal administration without being born a king. Presenting himself under Thoth’s protection supplied a prestigious model of authority independent of royal ancestry. The scribal pose declared that advancement resulted from competence and learning, while the hymn suggested personal reverence toward the divine source of those qualities.

Thoth, Ma’at, and Justice

Thoth was not simply a god of abstract intelligence. He recorded judgments and helped maintain ma’at: truth, justice, balance, and legitimate order. This made him especially valuable to Horemheb’s royal programme. Horemheb later represented his reign as a restoration of institutions weakened by administrative abuse and religious disruption.

The Great Edict at Karnak attacked unlawful seizures, corrupt officials, manipulated taxation, and misconduct toward ordinary subjects. Thoth is not the exclusive deity behind that decree, but Horemheb’s earlier Thothian identity complements its ideology. A ruler associated with the divine scribe could appear capable of examining records, hearing complaints, distinguishing truth from falsehood, and enforcing correct procedure.

Political Meaning: Horemheb’s relationship with Thoth joined religious devotion to a calculated statement of fitness for government. Wisdom legitimised command, while justice converted military power into acceptable kingship.

A Personal Cult or Political Symbol?

The evidence supports both religious and political interpretations. A hymn written prominently across Horemheb’s lap indicates more than a passing reference. The Hermopolis statue fragment also confirms continued royal favour toward Thoth. Nevertheless, Egyptian elite devotion was inseparable from public office. A monument placed in a temple expressed sincere piety while simultaneously communicating status and political identity.

Horemheb’s preferred image was therefore carefully integrated. He remained commander, courtier, royal deputy, and eventual pharaoh, yet he chose to be immortalised as a thoughtful scribe composing praise to Thoth. The contrast was powerful: Egypt’s leading soldier presented intellectual mastery, not violence, as the foundation of responsible authority.

Questions and Answers

Question: What is the strongest evidence for Horemheb’s devotion to Thoth?
Answer: The strongest evidence is his pre-royal scribal statue, whose papyrus contains a hymn to Thoth, supported by a royal statue fragment naming Horemheb as beloved of Thoth, Lord of Hermopolis.

Question: Was Horemheb certainly born in Hermopolis?
Answer: No surviving inscription proves this with certainty. His monuments establish a special association with Thoth and the Hermopolitan region, but his exact birthplace remains historically uncertain.

Question: Why did a general portray himself as a scribe?
Answer: Scribal imagery represented literacy, wisdom, elite education, administrative competence, and access to royal knowledge. It demonstrated that Horemheb possessed qualifications extending beyond military command.

Question: How did Thoth strengthen Horemheb’s claim to just rule?
Answer: Thoth embodied accurate recording, wise counsel, lawful judgment, and the preservation of ma’at. Association with him allowed Horemheb to appear as a ruler capable of correcting disorder through informed decisions.

Question: Was this association purely propaganda?
Answer: It cannot be reduced to propaganda alone. Temple monuments routinely combined genuine religious devotion with political communication. Horemheb’s monuments reveal both personal reverence and deliberate construction of a learned public identity.

Scientific Conclusion

Horemheb’s association with Thoth was among the most intellectually sophisticated elements of his public image. Archaeological evidence presents him as a worshipper who deliberately linked himself to writing, wisdom, administrative precision, and justice. His scribal statue and Hermopolitan dedication show that this relationship existed before or alongside his kingship rather than being invented solely after accession.

The evidence does not permit historians to state confidently that Horemheb was born at Hermopolis. It does, however, demonstrate his special preference for its god. Through Thoth, Horemheb converted the accomplishments of a non-royal official into the virtues of a legitimate monarch: the soldier became a scholar, the administrator became a judge, and the king became a restorer of ma’at.

Divine Legitimacy under Horemheb

July 29, 2026 By Editorial Team Ancient Egyptian Kingship and Archaeology 21 min read

Horemheb, did not possess a demonstrable direct blood relationship with the royal house that had produced Akhenaten, Tutankhamun, and Ay. His known career began within the military and administrative elite rather than inside the royal family. This problem was answered through a carefully constructed doctrine of divine selection: Horemheb presented his kingship as the result of a decision made by the gods rather than an inheritance transmitted through royal blood.

This was not simply religious decoration. In Egyptian political thought, legitimate kingship required more than physical control of the palace. The ruler had to appear as the earthly representative of the gods and the defender of ma'at, divine and social order. Horemheb therefore transformed an apparent dynastic weakness into a religious advantage. He was not merely a successful general who seized power; according to his official narrative, he had been prepared, protected, and finally installed by the gods themselves.

Central Historical Point: Horemheb compensated for the absence of a secure hereditary claim by presenting divine choice as a superior source of legitimacy. His authority rested publicly upon the will of Horus, Amun, and Ra rather than upon a documented line of royal descent.

The Archaeological Foundation of the Claim

The principal evidence is the inscription carved on the back of a granite double statue of Horemheb and his Great Royal Wife, Mutnodjmet, now preserved in the Museo Egizio in Turin. Commonly called the Coronation Inscription of Horemheb, the text describes his rise from high official to king. Because it appears on a royal monument, it must be read as an official ideological account, not as a neutral biography.

The inscription identifies Horemheb's divine patron as Horus of Hut-nesut, a town generally associated with his place of origin. Horus is said to have desired that his son should occupy the throne and to have protected Horemheb during his advancement. This claim gave the future king a sacred identity before his accession: his career became evidence of divine preparation rather than ordinary political ambition.

From Royal Official to Predestined King

Before becoming pharaoh, Horemheb accumulated exceptional titles under Tutankhamun. His monuments present him as commander of the army, royal deputy, and a senior administrator capable of acting on behalf of the sovereign. These offices supplied the practical foundation of his authority, but they did not create royal ancestry. The coronation narrative therefore reinterpreted his administrative success as proof that the god had chosen him in advance.

The surviving text describes Horemheb as an effective official whose counsel satisfied the king and whose decisions pleased the population. Political competence and divine favour were deliberately joined. His achievements demonstrated that he possessed the qualities required for kingship, while the gods supplied the authority that human appointment alone could not provide.

The Festival of Opet and Public Recognition

The decisive event was associated with the Festival of Opet at Thebes. During this major celebration, the sacred image of Amun travelled from Karnak to Luxor Temple. The festival renewed the divine character of kingship and connected the reigning monarch with Amun's creative power. Horemheb's installation was therefore placed within one of Egypt's most authoritative religious settings.

According to the inscription, Horus brought Horemheb before Amun. The Theban god recognised him, embraced him, and approved his appearance as king. Priests, sacred images, ritual movement, and the assembled public converted an uncertain political succession into a visible act of divine confirmation. Opposition to Horemheb could consequently be represented not merely as political resistance but as resistance to the declared will of the gods.

Royal Names as Political Theology

Horemheb's royal titulary reinforced the same message. His throne name, Djeserkheperure Setepenre, may be translated approximately as “Sacred are the manifestations of Ra, chosen of Ra.” The expression “chosen of Ra” placed divine election inside the king's formal identity. Every official inscription using this name repeated the theological basis of his rule.

His titles also associated him with effective planning, the restoration of the Two Lands, and the maintenance of ma'at. These were calculated statements of policy after the religious and political disruption of the Amarna Period. Horemheb claimed legitimacy not through biological continuity with Akhenaten's family but through his ability to restore temples, administration, traditional worship, and the ordered relationship between gods, king, and society.

Did Marriage Supply Royal Blood?

Horemheb's wife Mutnodjmet held major royal and religious titles, and she appears beside him in the Turin statue. Earlier interpretations sometimes identified her with a sister of Nefertiti or connected her with Ay's family. Such identifications remain disputed and cannot establish that Horemheb acquired an unquestionable hereditary right through marriage.

The official coronation narrative itself does not depend primarily upon Mutnodjmet's ancestry. Its central argument is divine selection. The gods choose Horemheb because he is capable of restoring Egypt. Marriage may have strengthened courtly presentation, but divine approval remained the clearest publicly stated source of legitimacy.

Why the Strategy Succeeded

Divine election was effective because Egyptian kingship was already religious by definition. Royal blood was politically valuable, but it was not an independent constitutional rule capable of overriding divine will. If Amun and Horus selected a man, the temple establishment could present his accession as legitimate even when his parentage was unknown.

Horemheb also possessed the military authority and administrative experience needed to make the theology credible. Religion did not replace political power; it transformed power into lawful kingship. His programme joined military command, temple support, public ritual, royal titulary, and restoration ideology into a unified claim.

Scientific Qualification: The inscription proves that Horemheb's government promoted divine election as official ideology. It does not prove that the gods literally selected him, nor does it reveal every political negotiation behind his accession.

Questions and Answers

Question: Was Horemheb born into the royal family?
Answer: No surviving evidence identifies his parents as members of the ruling dynasty. His known background was military and administrative, and his birthplace was probably connected with Hut-nesut.

Question: Which monument records his divine selection?
Answer: The most important source is the inscription on the double statue of Horemheb and Mutnodjmet preserved in Turin. It presents Horus as Horemheb's protector and Amun as the god who recognised his kingship.

Question: Did Horemheb simply invent a new religious doctrine?
Answer: No. Divine approval had long been fundamental to Egyptian kingship. Horemheb applied an established tradition with unusual emphasis because he lacked a secure direct hereditary claim.

Question: Was the Opet Festival politically important?
Answer: Yes. Opet renewed royal power through the cult of Amun. Associating Horemheb's installation with this festival gave his accession public, priestly, and theological authority.

Question: Did marriage to Mutnodjmet make him a hereditary king?
Answer: Her ancestry remains uncertain. The surviving evidence does not permit historians to treat the marriage as proof of a direct royal blood claim.

Question: Why was divine election politically successful?
Answer: It matched Egyptian beliefs about kingship and was supported by temples, royal ceremonies, formal titles, military authority, and Horemheb's promise to restore ma'at after the Amarna Period.

Historical Conclusion

Horemheb's accession demonstrates that royal legitimacy in ancient Egypt could be constructed without direct dynastic descent. His government did not conceal his established career as a soldier and official; it reinterpreted that career as a process directed by the gods. Horus prepared him, Amun recognised him, and Ra selected him.

This strategy was successful because it converted political achievement into sacred destiny. Horemheb's strongest claim was not that royal blood flowed through his body, but that the gods had judged him worthy to restore Egypt. Divine legitimacy thus became an effective substitute for hereditary legitimacy at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Horemheb’s Coronation Text at Karnak

July 28, 2026 By Editorial Team Ancient Egyptian History and Archaeology 14 min read

The Coronation Text of Horemheb is one of the most important Egyptian accounts of how a non-royal official represented his elevation to kingship. The inscription presents Horemheb’s accession not as a political seizure of power, but as the result of divine selection, ritual presentation, and confirmation by Amun. It was carved on the back of a monumental group statue originally erected in the Temple of Amun at Karnak.

Archaeological Correction: The statue bearing the coronation inscription is not in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is the granodiorite group statue of Horemheb and Queen Mutnedjmet, now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, inventory number Cat. 1379. The Metropolitan Museum possesses a different statue showing Horemheb as a royal scribe before he became king.

The Monument from Karnak

The coronation narrative occupies the back of a large granodiorite statue group representing Horemheb seated beside his queen, Mutnedjmet. The monument came from Karnak, the principal sanctuary of Amun at Thebes, and was probably installed where its inscription could associate the new ruler permanently with the authority of the Theban god.

Although parts of the sculpture remain unfinished, its composition is politically precise. Horemheb appears as a legitimate pharaoh, while Mutnedjmet embraces him in a protective gesture. Her role evokes divine queenship and the protective functions of Hathor and Isis. The inscription transforms the sculpture into a permanent record of the king’s divinely authorised accession.

Horemheb before Kingship

Before becoming pharaoh, Horemheb had risen through the military and administrative hierarchy during the period following Akhenaten. He served as commander of the army, royal official, and influential administrator, particularly under Tutankhamun. He was not presented as the biological son of the preceding king and therefore required a strong ideological explanation for his accession.

The coronation text answers this problem by describing Horemheb as a man whose advancement had been directed by a god from his youth. His authority was therefore represented as older than the immediate political circumstances that placed him on the throne. The narrative claims that his career formed part of a divine plan culminating in kingship.

Chosen by Horus of Hutnesu

The decisive deity at the beginning of the narrative is Horus, Lord of Hutnesu. Hutnesu, often identified with ancient Hnes and associated with the region later known as Herakleopolis, was presented as Horemheb’s place of origin. The local Horus was consequently described as the god who had recognised, protected, and advanced him.

According to the inscription, Horus established Horemheb’s destiny and caused him to prosper. As Horemheb’s status increased, people respected him and recognised his exceptional position. This part of the account does not describe a popular election or an ordinary administrative promotion. It expresses the Egyptian principle that legitimate kingship originated in the divine world.

Horus of Hutnesu thus performs two connected functions. He is Horemheb’s personal patron, linking the future king to his home region, and he is also a divine kingmaker. By selecting Horemheb, Horus identifies him as a suitable earthly bearer of royal authority.

The Journey to Thebes

The narrative reaches its central moment when Horus brings Horemheb to Thebes during a festival of Amun. Thebes was not merely the geographical location of the ceremony. It was Egypt’s leading religious centre, and Karnak was the institutional home of Amun-Re, king of the gods. Presentation before Amun therefore gave Horemheb national recognition beyond the authority of his local patron.

The inscription describes Horus proceeding with Horemheb toward the royal palace and presenting him before Amun. The sequence creates a carefully organised divine hierarchy: Horus chooses the candidate, conducts him to Thebes, and places him before Amun; Amun then confirms the selection and grants royal status.

Central Historical Meaning: Horemheb’s legitimacy is constructed through two levels of divine authority. Horus of Hutnesu identifies him personally, while Amun of Karnak transforms that selection into universally valid Egyptian kingship.

Amun’s Recognition of the King

When Horemheb appears before Amun, the god is represented as rejoicing at the sight of his chosen ruler. Amun embraces him and authorises his elevation. The text then associates Horemheb with the royal insignia and titles that marked his transformation from official into pharaoh.

This divine embrace was not a decorative detail. In Egyptian temple ideology, physical contact with a god communicated protection, acceptance, life, and legitimate authority. Amun’s recognition made Horemheb’s coronation appear to be the fulfilment of divine intention rather than the product of military influence alone.

Horemheb subsequently received his royal titulary and appeared as the ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt. His throne name, Djeserkheperure Setepenre, proclaimed the sacred character of his manifestations and identified him as chosen by Re. His personal royal name also linked him directly with Amun.

Festival, Oracle, and Political Theology

The text places the presentation within a festival context, when a divine image could leave its inner sanctuary in procession. Such occasions allowed the god’s will to be expressed publicly through ritual movement and priestly action. Scholars therefore interpret the episode as containing an oracular dimension, although the inscription remains a royal theological narrative rather than an independent eyewitness report.

The document should be read critically. It tells historians how Horemheb wished his accession to be remembered, but it does not provide a complete record of negotiations following the reign of Ay. Its value lies in showing the official mechanism through which an eighteenth-dynasty ruler without an obvious hereditary claim justified his kingship.

Questions and Answers

Question: Where was the coronation text carved?
Answer: It was carved on the back of the group statue of Horemheb and Queen Mutnedjmet, originally erected in the Temple of Amun at Karnak.

Question: Where is the inscribed statue today?
Answer: It is preserved in the Museo Egizio in Turin as Cat. 1379. The Metropolitan Museum’s famous Horemheb statue depicts him as a scribe and does not carry this coronation narrative.

Question: Which god first selected Horemheb?
Answer: The inscription identifies Horus, Lord of Hutnesu, as Horemheb’s patron and the deity who prepared him for kingship.

Question: Why was Horemheb brought to Amun?
Answer: Horus’s local selection required confirmation by Egypt’s supreme Theban deity. Amun’s acceptance transformed Horemheb’s personal divine favour into national royal legitimacy.

Question: Does the text prove every political detail of the accession?
Answer: No. It is an official royal inscription expressing the theology of legitimate succession. It provides historical evidence for Horemheb’s public justification, not a complete account of political events.

Question: Why is the inscription historically important?
Answer: Detailed Egyptian descriptions of coronation are rare. This text preserves an unusually clear sequence of divine choice, ceremonial presentation, recognition by Amun, and royal transformation.

Scientific Conclusion

Horemheb’s coronation inscription presents kingship as a carefully ordered religious process. Horus of Hutnesu selected and protected him, led him to Thebes, and introduced him to Amun at Karnak. Amun embraced the candidate, confirmed the divine choice, and authorised his appearance as pharaoh. The text consequently converted a potentially difficult succession into a coherent statement of divine election and legitimate rule.

Historical Conclusion: The monument does not merely commemorate a ceremony. It explains why Horemheb believed he possessed the right to rule: his local god selected him, the supreme god of Thebes accepted him, and the institutions of Karnak publicly preserved that divine decision.