I really found that reading about the destruction and excavations of Alexandria was the most interesting part of this week’s assigned reading.  My friends and family members who have visited Egypt have all been to the city so I knew that it was an important place but didn’t really know anything about the city’s history or destruction until this class.  It turns out that this Egyptian city suffered much destruction during the political disruptions of the later 3^rd century AD.  This destruction, which destroyed temples that were converted into churches, was caused by the riots between pagans and Christians in 391 AD.  Besides political destruction, earthquakes also helped with the destruction of Alexandria, including causing some parts of the city to become submerged.  However, when an invading Muslim army entered the city in 642 AD, it is thought that most of the city’s impressive architecture was still standing.  When Alexandria became an Islamic city, a period of rebuilding took place and churches were transformed into mosques.  In present day, with many of the remains that is not able to be excavated, much of what is known about the Greco-Roman city is from textual information.

The first systematic excavation of Alexandria was by the Khadive of Egypt and took place in 1866.  The excavation was “conducted by Mahmud Beh, who later published a plan of the Roman Period city, with streets, canals, and the city wall” (299).  Excavations conducted by the Polish center of Mediterranean Archaeology on the Kom el-Dikka have found that ancient Alexandria was a Greco-Roman city, with surprisingly little Egyptian-style architecture.  Roman baths, a Greek-style theater and large excavated “villa” houses are just three of the many pieces of evidence that suggest that Alexandria was more of a Greco-Roman city rather than an Egyptian city.  Also, thousands of ceramic lamps and vessels have been found in the Gabbari district tombs, which are artifacts that are typically associated with Greek mortuary rates.  Polish archaeologists have even uncovered evidence of one of Alexandria’s universities that was a building with 13 lecture halls.  It’s incredible to think that universities were around back then!  This concludes my summary of the destruction and excavations of Alexandria.

In this week lecture we see Egypt overtaken by Persian officials. It just seems as if Egypt cannot win for losing. Despite all their efforts to remain independent the Egyptians still get overthrown. Throughout each period of Egyptian history there has been tug of war to savor their culture. They even made compromises and still were invaded.  I believe the Egyptians knew they would soon be attacked by the Persians because they linked up with Greece. In Egypt history before the 26^th Dynasty, they opposed unification with other nations for security purposes. For example how they disputed the Hyksos. I believe they chose Greece to link up with because of their religious and ideological connection. This connection would not threaten their religious beliefs. Their connection with Greece strengthened the Egyptian economy. Through agriculture yield and trade they were economically prospering. Immigration from Greece increased and Egyptian armies were even strengthened when Greek settlers and merchants joined. Multiculturalism was thriving which led to new methods and inventions because Egyptians accepted Greek cultural elements. The big question however still remains unanswered. Why was Egypt still invaded by Persia? Egypt had ties, were economically stable, and military power was stable. I guess the best way to answer this question is to say the best man won. Persian military was also know for its strength. They executed Psamtek establishing the Persian Invasion. Egypt was no longer ruled by native Egyptians. The invasion led to Egyptians losing some of their cultural practices. The Persians supported Egyptian religion by building temples but cut temple political power. The Persians may have just allowed temple building to keep the Egyptians satisfied. However from my knowledge religion and the power it held is the foundation of Egyptian history so that deed couldn’t have been substantial in calming the Egyptians fury.

I was very interested in the Histories talked about in this section. Written by Greek historian Herodotus after he visited Egypt between 460 and 455 BC, the Histories remain to this day one of the most important sources regarding the affairs of Egypt and the Persian affairs at this time. Herodotus has been called the ‘Father of history’ since he was the first historian known to collect his material systematically, test their accuracy (at least to a certain extent) and arrange them in a well constructed and vivid narrative. This probably means that his accounts are more accurate and trustworthy than others may have been. The Histories is a collection of observed facts, folk tales, myths, historical accounts, and personal commentary. This is not an impersonal account of events and Herodotus’ Greek anti-Persian sentiment can be seen manifesting in his writings. Although some of his stories and facts are not true, Herodotus claims that he only reported what he was told. He collected tales and information from locals in order to make his commentary more accurate.

The Histories are divided into nine books, each one named after a different Muse. I was mostly interested in the books that dealt with Egypt as their main focus. Book II, titled Euterpe, is filled with facts about Egypt. Herodotus documented and research facts such as the geography of Egypt and his speculations on the Nile River. He also looked into the religious practices of the Egyptian people, paying special attention to how it differed from Greek religion. He also took notes and things such as the animals of Egypt, including a wide array from cats to hippos. He was interested in the culture of the region and recorded information on medicine, funeral rites, food, and even the boats that the people used. He chroniclized the Egyptian kings that were in power during his stay as well as stories that he heard about them and past rulers from people that he met. He filled in holes with folk stories and hearsay from other people to provide both entertainment and a unique few of what people talked about and thought.

The third book was also of interest to me. It documents Persian defeat of Egypt. It describes Cabyses III of Persia’s attack and defeat of the Egyptian king Psammetichus III. As we learned in the lecture, the Persian invasion and conquer of Egypt pretty much symbolized the end of a strong, natively ruled Egypt. Other than some periods of free Egyptian rule Egypt was controlled by foreign powers. The 27th and 31st dynasties were the times when Egypt Delta was absorbed into the Persian Empire and became a Persian Satrapy, province. The 28th-30th dynasties were an independent Egypt but they were weak and so easily re-taken by the Persian forces. I was wondering why there were so many dynasties in between the Persian occupation. I know that not a lot of time went by in between so I’m assuming that the dynasties did not last long. This shows that Egyptian rulers were weak at this time and probably explains why they were able to be occupied by foreign powers.

I thought that it was interesting that the Persian conquers not only allowed Egypt to continue with their own religion but actually built temples. They did curtail the political power of the temples but, in my opinion, it was a move that made sense. The temples at this time had more power than the pharaohs did and would have been a threat to new rulers. I wonder if this is why the Persians allowed the temples to remain and supported their building. It seems to me that it would make sense to make changes to the culture slowly and not take away something as important to the culture as religion is to the Egyptians. By the time of the Persian conquest Egypt was culturally characterized by the fact that it was part of a larger empire. In fact, there were large Jewish communities, the largest located at Elephantine, which maintained their own identity. They played an important cultural role to the whole of Egypt. A fact that I found interesting was that non-Egyptians made up a large part of Egyptian military. Looking back on the report I am doing on the building of the pyramids, I find this fact interesting. Only native Egyptians worked on the pyramids and scholars cannot find any evidence of foreign workers at all. I wonder if this means that the Egyptians thought that the pyramids were more a matter of national pride or if it was a sign of the changing times that foreigners were a large part of the army. I think that it probably shows how Egypt changed to become a part of the larger world not just an isolated empire.

Egyptian came into the New Kingdom wanting to maintain two things: Security and their Economy. I guess after their near take over experience with the Hyksos they had their guards up. They were aggressive and offensive to foreigners. Their plan to insulate Egypt would lower their chance of an invasion. While doing my own research on mortuary practices I read that there were images of Egyptians smiting foreigners who were bound. In the New Kingdom they only were offensive toward those foreigners who didn’t accept their way of living, which is interesting because the Hyksos adopted their methods but they still drove them out their land. The Egyptians were ethnocentric and believed that their gods were the most powerful, so anyone who Egyptians believed threatened their culture they would eliminate. The lecture said Egyptians military was stable. It’s interesting to me that they would invade territories, defeat those powers, get fealty, and not take the land. Why wouldn’t they take the land? I don’t think they were financially stable to take on new land because they were in the process of rebuilding their economy.  I think they should have took the land and sold it to other groups. They wanted to maintain the stability that the Hyksos aided them in getting. I believe that’s where maintaining the economy comes into play. Egyptians were on hard times where people would have to steal from graves. The robbings of the valley graves would lead to a decline of the New Kingdom.  So to maintain the economy the Egyptians had to get capital by trading. There were Amarna Letters found that proves that security and maintaining the economy was Egyptians main focus. The letters included mutual defense pacts and discussions on economic matters. There are also images in the graves of trade expeditions.

For this weeks readings and lecture material, I thought the changes that occurred in how the pharaoh and his family were represented in art during the Amarna period were particular interesting.

First of all, the way King Akheneten himself is depicted is totally unexpected when one considers the history of Pharaohs being considered as almost god-like. He was depicted as having a heavy, bloated belly, wide hips, fleshy breasts, and a thin elongated face with narrow oval eyes, large lips, and a protruding bulbous chin. There are a couple of different theories as to why Akheneten would have been portrayed this way. One suggestion is that perhaps the pharaoh suffered from a glandular disease such as Frölich’s syndrome (Adiposogenital dystrophy), which is a condition sometimes secondary to a low-level of GnRH (Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone) and is associated with dysfunctions of the feeding centers of the hypothalamus thus leading to increased caloric intake. Another theory is that Akheneten could have had Marfan’s syndrome, a genetic disorder of the connective tissue that causes those who suffer from it to grow to an unusually tall height and to have long limbs and long, thin fingers. The deformities cause by either of these conditions could be the reason why Akheneten was portrayed the way he was, however to me this seems unlikely, since his wife Queen Nefertiti is shown in the same exaggerated style. To me, the more likely theory is that Akheneten (and perhaps members of his family as well) were made to appear androgynous for reasons of religious significant since Aten (who was symbolized by Akheneten) was referred to as the “mother and father of all humankind”. However, since Akhenaten’s mummy has not been found, theories as to the true reason behind the unusual depictions of Akheneten cannot be tested on physical remains, and thus interpretations are presently limited to artistic portrayals alone.

Secondly, the way in which the royal family is portrayed shows them as casual and affectionate. The pharaoh, the queen, and their children are shown together in scenes of intimate familiarity, with Nefertiti seated on Akhenaten’s lap, or with the king or queen holding or kissing his young daughters. Such scenes are not known to have existed before or after the Amarna Period. It is possible Akhenaten had ideological reasons for such depictions of the royal family. This seems likely to me, however, why did this tradition not carry on, even in a small way?

I found it interesting that just as the tombs of the Egyptians become more complex throughout time, the practice of preparing the remains for the afterlife had also evolved over centuries of time.  Instead of just positioning the bodies, preparing and treating the outer shell of the of the body in a certain way, the ancient Egyptians began to also modify the interior of the body by extracting the organs. It’s amazing that the process of mummification took up to 70 days. The idea that the heart was the “seat of intelligence and emotions” was an interesting idea because today we believe that the heart is associated with emotions and a we “listen to our hearts” when resolving moral issues.   It is also neat how x-rays of these bodies provide us with valuable information, such as both ante and postmortem evidence of some Egypiians.  Also, it even shows us of any physical ailments, such as arthritis or illnesses that the Egyptians had. I thought it was really advanced that we can figure that out now with forensic anthropology and crimes today (relatively recent bodies found), but we can even find out information from these preserved bodies from thousands of years ago.

In part of this book called Chariot of the Gods, the author claims that there are still living cells within some mummies.  In 1963, the University of Oklahoma discovered that there were still living skin cells in the body of the Egyptian Princess Mene, who has been dead for several thousands of years!  The mummification process kept these Egyptians so well preserved that there are still living cells within the mummy!  Instead of just admiring these well-preserved specimens, this may actually help create further breakthroughs in science.  Today we are able to clone living animals, such as sheep and cats. If sometime in the future, we are able to clone these skin cells, perhaps we could somehow bring these Egyptians back to real life and not just speculate about their spirits of  their afterlives.

I thought that the most interesting part of the reading this week was learning more about the “Valley of the Queens”.  I have studied the “Valley of the Kings” in past world history classes but have never actually heard of the “Valley of the Queens” until this class.  The Egyptian queens, along with princesses and princes, were buried in the Theban hills, which is commonly known as the “Valley of the Queens”.  This region was first excavated by Ernesto Schiaparelli and Francesco Ballerini between 1903 and 1905.  Since 1984, investigations have been conducted in this area by the Egyptian Center of Documentation and the French National Center for Scientific Research.  The two main groups of tombs found in the Valley of the Queens date from the reigns of Rameses II and Rameses III.  It is know that the Ramessid tombs were constructed, as well as decorated, by workmen from Deir el-Medina.  Tombs in this area that were robbed during the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period were reused as burials of human and animal mummies.  It is estimated that over 100 human mummies have been recovered in this area.  The most well-known tomb in the Valley of the Queens is the tomb of Rameses II’s chief wife, Nefertari.  However, because of damage from underground water, the tomb was closed for the late 20^th century.  Fortunately, the Getty Conservation Institute, with the help of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization, was able to restore the painted scenes that were found on the plastered walls in the tomb and can be visited today.  These decorated scenes include different gods “relevant to her journey, and texts from the Book of Gates and the Book of the Dead” (250).  The texts that were found in Nefertari’s tomb are very rare things to find, even in kings’ tombs.  In conclusion, this summary provides an overview of the information concerning the Valley of the Queens that was discussed in this week’s reading.

A Woman of Egypt

According to Kathryn Bard’s An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, royal women became increasingly more important during the 18th dynasty of the New Kingdom. Hatshepsut  and Thutmose II reigned as king and queen for fourteen years and at Thutmose II’s death left he left only an eleven year old son as a possible heir to the throne. Hatshepsut, a name meaning “the foremost of noble ladies”, held the title “God’s Wife of Amen” and became co-regent for her nephew and stepson Thutmose III until he came of age (Manuelian and Loeben, 1993).
After two years, Hatshepsut deemed herself pharaoh, and crowned herself sole ruler of Egypt. During her reign Hatshepsut built many monuments in both Egypt and Nubia and is even credited with the first well preserved royal mortuary temple of the New Kingdom. During the New Kingdom there was a shift from building massive pyramids to rock cut tombs in the sides of cliffs. These temples were cheaper than monumental pyramids and were less conspicuous to thieves (Video Lecture, Week 6).
At Deir el-Bahri on the west bank of the Nile at Thebes, Hatshepsut’s advisor and architect, the high steward of Amun, Senenmut, built a garden-filled mortuary temple into the mountainous cliffs which was dedicated to the goddess Hathor as well as the gods Osiris and Anubis. This tomb in the Valley of the Kings (designated KV 20) replaced a previously prepared tomb for her at Wadi Sakkat Taqa el-Zeid, south of Dier el-Bahri. (Manuelian and Loeben, 1993). The architectural depictions at Dier el-Bahri are testimony to Hatshepsut’s divine birth and conception by Queen Ahmose and the god Amen, and act as propaganda legitimizing her right to the throne. Carved reliefs depict Hatshepsut’s royal lineage through her father Thutmose I, who was pharaoh prior to Thutmose II, and supposedly claimed her as the “next pharaoh”. Furthering her connection and legitimacy through her father, Hatshepsut had the body of Thutmose I excavated and reburied next to her own in the innermost chamber of her tomb. In the scenes and statues of the temple Hatshepsut is shown as a male, possibly to state her strength as equal to previous male rulers (Bard, 2007). There were also scenes of Hatshepsut transporting by barge two gigantic obelisks from the Aswan quarries which were erected at the temple of Karnak, which were representative of her relationship with the son god.
Although Hatshepsut was not a great military ruler, as was her father Thutmose I, she was credited with various long-distance trading expeditions. One of these which is depicted at Dier el-Bahri is her famed expedition to Punt during her ninth year as queen (Millet, 1962). Travel to Punt, it’s location believed to be past the Eastern Sahara and the Red Sea, is an impressively logistical feat. The Egyptians were given raw materials including gold ingots, ebony, ivory, leopard skins, baboons and live incense trees which were kept alive on the return trip (Bard, 2007; Manuelian and Loeben, 1993).
After approximately twenty-two years Hatshepsut dies in 1483 BC, the end of her reign being a mystery. Records including inscriptions, monuments, and statues involving the queen were all destroyed by her predecessor, Thutmose III, having felt that she had usurped the throne from him. Thutmose III also tried erasing the existence of Senenmut, as he had built his own tomb adjacent to Hatshepsut and played a pivotal role as the queen’s adviser; possible evidence of an intimate relationship.
Through architecture and trade, Hatshepsut exhibited her capabilities as pharaoh. Being that she was only the third ever woman pharaoh of Egypt she perhaps had to go even farther than previous male pharaohs in portraying her legitimacy as ruler, as shown in her elaborate tomb, the reburial of her father, and her even taking on the male form in her carvings and statues.

The end of the 18th Dynasty brought about many changes to Egyptian society. Following the death of his brother Amunhoptep IV, who was originally supposed to be a priest, became king. He ruled for a few years with his father, Amunhoptep III, who reigned for 38 years. During Amunhoptep III’s reign he brought about a new aspect of the king’s cult. Scenes were found showing a youthful king rejuvenated through the power of the sun disk.

Amunhoptep IV continued with his father’s interest in the sun disk. During his reign the sun disk changed to a sphere with lines drawn to human hands, showing the life giving power of the sun disk. He also changed the name of the patron god from Re Horakhty to Aten. With this change in name also came a change in importance, Aten became the most important god on the top of the pile of worship. Amunhoptep IV changed his name to reflect his devotion to Aten. He also moved the capital to Akhtaten and built up a city where there had not previously been one.

Scholars have question if Amunhoptep IV created a monotheistic society in Egypt during his reign. Between 8 to 12 years of his reign the worship of all other gods was officially forbidden. These changes were political in nature. This was Amunhoptep’s way of cutting the power of the cult of Amun which was starting to rival the power of the pharaoh. Many of the holding of the cult of Amun were transferred to the cult of Aten. Scholars decided that Amunhoptep did not create a monotheistic society but rather a henotheistic one that placed Aten above all the other gods.

The changes put in place by Amunhoptep did not last long after his death. His son changed his name to respect Amun rather than Aten and the power shifted back to Amun and his cult. I think that Amunhoptep tried to do too much in too short a period of time. Egyptians were used to their religion and trying to change people’s religion is always risky and hard to do. I think that maybe it might have worked out better if he had not tried to forbid the worship of all other gods. He could have cut the power of the cult of Amun without banning the worship of all of them and people may have had an easier time accepting this change. Small changes are always easier to except than large and broad ones.

I recognize that the change from Amun to Aten was a political one made to cut the power of the cult of Amun, but I wonder if Amunhoptep actually believed that Aten was a more powerful god. Before his brother died he was in training to be a priest, which should mean that he was a religious man. I would like to think that he believed in the change of gods and it was not all just a political move, although, he would not be the first or the last man to use religion to further his goals. The fact that his son, and the next king after him, changed his name back to Amun makes me think that he at least believed that Amun was more powerful. This could have also been either a political or religious move though. If the cult of Amun was so powerful that it could rival the pharaohs power then it might have been good to have it on your side and owing you a favor for bringing it back to power.