Of course, the “worth” of a person is pretty subjective nowadays because there are constructs like morality which complicate the idea. On the other hand, when learning about a culture posthumously it is easy to define a person’s worth by their class. Most people leave behind a grave and almost nothing else, so that’s pretty much all we have to learn from. In the second half of Chapter Five from Bard’s Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, she discusses the Early Dynastic period in the context of a highly stratified society in which the final measure of a person’s worth was what they could afford to take with them to the afterlife.
There was very little middle ground between being a servant and being the one who was served. Aside from artisans, the power was in the hands of those who controlled agriculture, and if you weren’t in control of any farmland of your own, you had to submit to someone who could provide that for you as your pay. For those who were lower on the socio-economic totem pole, working for someone who had agricultural power meant the ability to pay their taxes. I find it perplexing that there is no evidence for an actual currency during Early Dynastic times, but rather agricultural goods (for the most part grains) served as a means to purchase other goods and pay taxes. The concept of money is so ubiquitous to modern societies that it’s hard to wrap my head around how bartering systems could function so well, but one could argue that maybe they didn’t work so well when you look at the enormous wealth gap.
The wealth gap is greatest exemplified in the graves of the earliest kings of Ancient Egypt. Rather than just being buried in the ground, there were multi-chambered superstructures containing everything one could possible need in the afterlife. There was food, pottery, and scripture, written in Hieroglyphics by a craftsman specially hired to inscribe prayers and instructions for finding your way to the Gods. Royal names were written in a serekh, likely a precursor to the cartouche, denoting exactly who was buried there. The king’s body had its own chamber and grave goods would be stored in connected rooms. The most striking grave good of all, though, would have to be the servants. Human sacrifices were made so that kings could truly have everything they needed in the afterlife. A person’s worth didn’t just affect their earthly lives; it followed them even in death. Exploitation of the poor continued to the land beyond.
I have also always found the ancient Egyptian’s relationship with the afterlife very interesting and learning about the rituals and preparations is one of my favorite aspects of ancient Egyptian culture. The importance of the afterlife and the seemingly intense ceremonies surrounding their burials is clearly evident in the archaeological evidence found in graves and their associated goods. I thought that it was interesting that as time progressed, the social differentiations and inequalities, while always visible, become more obvious and show a greater disparity. It shows a clear social hierarchy and seems to imply that people of higher status were deserving of more grave goods and attention, which is interesting considering how important the afterlife was to everyone in Egypt. I can imagine how this might affect those who are still alive with a lower social status and how they might worry about their own burials because they don’t have a high enough station to be considered as important as their fellow citizens who were wealthier. Their decision to bury human sacrifices and animals, like their servants and pets, is one of the things that I find the most interesting about ancient Egyptians beliefs towards the afterlife. The fact that a person’s social and economic status could follow them beyond the grave and how they could justify killing a servant just so they could serve their master in the afterlife shows just how firmly they held their beliefs and how important their death rituals were to them. It makes me wonder how the human sacrifices felt about their future sacrifice and whether they believed it to be worthy of them or not.
Ever since I was young, I was always interested in hearing about ancient Egyptian mummies and all the different things found hidden away with them in their tombs. I think it’s interesting to see that they weren’t always so focused on gifting their dead with amazing treasures and goods for the after life and that there’s evidence of a sort of gradual shift towards this mortuary cult, especially in Upper Egypt. The Naqada culture of ancient Upper Egypt (divided into periods I through III) showed a growing complexity of interest and care for the dead and a growing gap between those of higher status and the average civilian. Naqada I culture was found to have very few things, usually pots, found in burials of all types. Naqada II began to show a larger range of grave goods being placed in burials and even a defined ‘elite’ cemetery set off from other cemeteries. Some of these grave goods began to include grooming objects and animals and jewelry of different types. Naqada III culture showed an even greater focus on supplying the dead for the afterlife with more complex tombs for those of higher status and more amazing treasures on top of the goods previously seen in Naqada I and II burials. Tombs of the elite would be lined with mud-brick with superstructures made of wood and reeds and contain furniture and jewelry made from exotic materials. This mortuary cult would only grow and continue to diversify as time went on and Egypt became a unified state.
It is interesting to see that, like in our society today, the farmers and farmhands in Ancient Egypt have a very stratified society. The farmers were able to decide how much the farmhands got paid including taxes that were owed to the Pharaohs. I agree that it is hard for me to fully grasp the concept primarily bartering for you goods. It is odd to think that you would have to have enough land to either raise live stock or to produce food to be able to pay for goods. In today’s society, most people do not actually own land or even a house with a small yard that could sustain agriculture, people are cooped up into tiny apartments that hopefully would provide enough light to be able to grow a few plants in a window and are forced to have jobs to pay for this little space to live in. The people in Ancient Egypt who could not provide for themselves or their families were forced to do the same within this bartering system.
I also find it interesting that this stratification between these classes were best represented through mortuary context. In today’s society, we still treat the dead with respect as the Egyptians did, but we don’t all have the beliefs as they did. The Egyptians built extravagant burials for their elites, and for their lower class- they had simple burials with very few goods for them in the afterlife. Today, we also treat our beloved elites with memorials to forever remember their great achievements. Our middle and lower class, while treated with respect, have very simple graves (mostly marked). It is interesting to see how someone’s “worth” is portrayed during their life as well as their afterlife.
I think that you bring up an incredibly good point about a lack of money during that time! For me, it is also incredibly hard to wrap my mind around the fact that they just….did not have any money that they used. In today’s society, that is something that seems so incomprehensible because we are so immersed in a world where it is vitally important to have money, whether it be physical cash or a debit or credit card. I find it relatively easier to understand how the Egyptians bartered between themselves, but harder to understand how they would barter between other cultures — what one culture may see as more valuable, the other may see as less valuable.
I think that it is incredibly interesting how you noted that exploitation of the poor continued into the Afterlife. While I was always aware that the upper class, most noticeably the pharaohs, had extremely extravagant tombs with amazing grave goods, I had never thought to compare those tombs to how the poorer people were buried, or even how the servants had to be sacrificed in order to continue serving their king. Although to be fair, we should try to look at that practice as for how it was viewed during the time that it was happening.
It is also interesting how those structures are almost precursors to pyramids, as Professor Watrall said during class this past week. I had not ever considered to think about predynastic burials before, and it was interesting reading about how the social status was still evident in their burial practices even before Upper and Lower Egypt were united.
I think you make an excellent point about the idea of wealth and how we perceive it. I also find it very hard to wrap my head around a bartering type system because everything I know about society, wealth, and trade is entirely based off of the idea of currency. I had never really thought about how much that affects the culture around “worth.” Although I agree that the cultural importance placed upon the idea of the afterlife equates to more cultural evidence in mortuary contexts, I also think that’s just what has been preserved for the archaeological record. I also think it’s interesting that the idea of social inequality seems to be a factor for becoming a complex society (and maybe even eventually a state). This reflection of social class shown in mortuary contexts make me somewhat sad when viewing it through the lens of an Ancient Egyptian who believes so heavily in an afterlife. These graves are not only representations of the people they are made for, but representations of who they left behind. There had to be someone alive to fill that grave that also wanted to ensure a smooth transition into the afterlife. There didn’t seem to many opportunities for social mobility, given the large wealth gap you mention, and given their beliefs, I don’t think that would change in afterlife.
I’ve also found this whole discussion of Pre-Dynastic burials and culture interesting because it has changed the way I see Egypt and really made me think about how my perception of Egypt has been shaped and how my perception of the past is shaped by my modern biases. Although I agree that the practice you discuss is exploitative, I’m curious about how it may have been viewed by the poor during that time. There is really no way of ever knowing that, but I’m curious as to whether or not my perception of it as exploitation is in part a result of my modern perception. I’m also curious about whether this idea of social inequality is actual a factor, or result, of surplus and specialization or if it’s possible to remain equalitarian in more complex sedentary societies.