Ptolemaic Legitimacy

Empires amaze me.  The Roman Empire has always been my favorite to study.  I see several parallels between the way that Rome built empire in its own country, as well as in Egypt.  One method for controlling a large empire is to create yourself in the image of god.  For example, in the Roman Empire, Constantine made huge statues of himself.  Through these statues he became larger than life.  He became God-like.

When the Ptolemaic Empire takes control of Egypt, they go through some very similar steps.  They make themselves Gods by tracing their bloodline back to Zeus and they marry each other so as not to spread their divinity out.  They also adopt Egyptian Gods and make them Grecco/Roman.  This speaks to, not only the Egyptians (look, we are worshiping your Gods) but also to their own people (look, we still worship our Gods).  By adding a beard to Osiris, they were able to portray him as both Egyptian and Grecco/Roman.  By accepting the local gods, the Ptolemaic rulers became more than just the conquering rulers, they became Pharaoh, king and God.

The other step they took to ensure control was to allow Egyptians to hold offices of power in the local governments.  The culture of Greece really only prevailed in Alexandria and the nearby Faiyum region.  The rest of Egypt was very much still Egyptian and was ruled on a local level by Egyptians.  This left the people with a general feeling of satisfaction.  They still had a role to play and a voice in the rule of their country.  I am sure this helped the Ptolemaic rulers to stay in power and delegate to someone who would be respected on a local level.

My favorite part of the Ptolemaic rule of Egypt is the information.  In Alexandria, at the Mouseion, they worked to understand the intellectual capital of Egypt and Greece and to synthesize it together with current understanding of these subjects.  They studied science, medicine, geography, mathematics, engineering, philosophy and literature.  They also translated works like the Septuagint, adding to our understanding and memory.  The Rosetta Stone also came from this time, acting as a key stone to help us translate pieces of Egyptian text to this day.

~Cristina M. Cao

Bonus Blog Reply

It’s hard to say what part of ancient egyptian archaeology is the most important. For me I prefer cultural applications when it comes to Anthropology. It seems that the most interesting is to see how social customs have been transferred across time through burial sites as well as art that has been recovered.

The reason why the cultural aspect of ancient Egyptian archaeology is the most important, in my eyes, is that we can add more context to all the other discoveries. It adds a story line and it allows context. This context is necessary when we try to examine the past. The contextualization provides meaning and we can start to answer the universal question, “why?”.

The burial sites, especially, seem to give a lot of meaning. We have talked about this some throughout the lectures, but for me it helps see the culture and the time period for more of what it was and less as my mind imagines it. An important example is how there is an increase in social complexity in both Ma’adi and in Buto in the pre-dynastic era. Without these important cultural discoveries the variations between cities and over time would seem more minute than they are.

By looking at the cultural aspects of ancient Egypt we can not only see the increase in social complexity, but we can also see how the economic system developed as well as how their government started. It seems to me that this is essential when knowing entirely what a civilization is and how they have evolved over time through their interactions with each other and their interactions with people from far off lands.

The cultural aspect brings a wealth of knowledge and clarity to what may have seemed obscure. The light shed through cultural application can also enable understanding for something that was a mystery.

Greek Influence on Egypt

The appearance of Greek influence in Egypt is a fitting subject to end this class.  Most of the readings that I have done in different classes that relate to Egypt almost always end up describing the Greeks.  Most specifically is the city of Alexandria.  The influence is so prominent that it almost seems like Greece more than Egypt.  I have read about magical practices that were performed in Alexandria especially by an alchemist known as Cleopatra, although not the royal one.  This evidence is huge from an alchemical view since there was so much symbolism found in ancient Egypt, yet there are many readings in Greek.  The fact that both countries had a single city which is essentially a hybrid of the two, shows that a direct link in the alchemical readings were probably based off of information that originated from the Egyptians.

 

Although there is no real way to prove this unless there is specific evidence that says this link exists, the speculation leads to many interesting ideas of other influences that the Egyptians may have had on the Greeks.  It seems that during the reign of Alexander the Great, being that he stopped the Persian forces in Egypt, the Egyptians were very grateful.  The country started to thrive again for several dynasties.  However, I cannot imagine that there was no exchange in ideas and beliefs between the two cultures.  There were most definitely international relations and the birth of a new culture, or rather a different view on teachings.  Like any kind of war, there is always an influence of the enemy on the people.  Through this violence, cultures begin to merge with one another and old traditions are forgotten while new ones begin.  I truly believe that the Greek influence that Alexander had on the Egyptians is a direct result in a thriving city like Alexandria, but more importantly the creation of new beliefs.

 

Iufaa’s Tomb

The most interesting tomb in this week’s reading is the tomb of Iufaa, a lector priest and palace official in the 26th or 27th Dynasty.  This tomb was found at Abusir by a team of Czech archaeologists in the 1990s.  It is pretty obvious that Iufaa was an important man, thus the constructors of the tomb wanted to keep the burial safe from grave robbers.  The vaulted limestone roof of his tomb was located at the bottom of a vertical shaft that was filled with sand that is over twenty-one meters below the ground.  In addition to this main shaft, there were also two vertical subsidiary shafts that were also filled with sand that emptied into the main shaft.  It took the team of archaeologists three years to clear out all of the sand from the three shafts.  If grave robbers wanted to enter the tomb, they would have to remove several hundred cubic meters of sand from the main shaft, and that is just the main shaft!  Since the subsidiary shafts empty into the main shaft, the sand from those would have to be removed too, making it basically an impossible task.  Even if grave robbers were to get into the burial chamber, it would be very difficult to get into the actual tomb.  The chamber was made of limestone blocks, along with the lid to the sarcophagus that weighed twenty-four tons.  A large basalt anthropoid sarcophagus was under the limestone lid, and beneath that were the remains of a decayed wooden coffin.  When all of these cases were removed, a covering of thousands of faience beads were revealed.  It is clear that they were trying to keep thieves out of this grave.   This appears to be a grave of a very important person since they tried to keep robbers out with several techniques.  However, when the mummy was examined, it was not preserved very well.  Thankfully the fingers were still covered with gold foil, marking the priest’s importance.

Bonus Blog!

Featured

So, I promised it…and here it is, your bonus blog.  This time, I’ve got a specific question:

Which aspect (topic, etc.) in Egyptian archaeology (that we either covered in class or didn’t cover in class) do you think is the most important?  Why?  Make your argument!

The post is due on Thursday, the 18th (before midnight) – no response is needed (just the post).

 

Foreign Policy

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.

 

Artistic Depictions of Akheneten and his Family.

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?

Ramesside Period

The Ramesside Period had much prosperity.  The succession of kings coming from one family had many advantages for the people of the 19th and 20th Dynasties.  It allowed for a somewhat stable flow of rules which in exchange benefited the land.  I found that during the early Ramesside Period there was a great push to redefine the country under that of Amen cult.  There was even dismantling and smashing of statues that represented the Amarna Period (p 225).  That time period represented the worshiping of Aten vs. the traditional Amen.  These acts of destroying sacred statues generally was seen as a crime but allowed because it was items that represented the false Aten.  The reformation of this time period called on everyone to reestablish their faith so that the country could once again be of one liking.  I find this a very powerful tool, and in Egyptian history seems to be the forefront of creating a strong kingdom.

Also during the Ramesside Period the kings did many extensions to existing royal tombs.  One example is when Rameses II added a peristyle forecourt to Amenhotep III’s pylon and created a triple shrine for the gods of Thebes (p 238).  This also shows that during this time period the people greatly respected the traditional customs of the land and wanted to visually show that through making royal tombs more elaborate.

This idea of making things very exquisite is also true about the living royal family tombs.  During this time period the tombs became secretive and well designed with multiple chambers and paintings on the walls as well as decorated with religious text to help the dead pharaohs travel through their afterlife.  Interestingly, the queens were also given similar treatment.  The role of the chief queen became even more so influential and is seen in the decoration of their tombs, such as Nefertari’s tomb that held texts from the Book of Gates and the Book of the Dead (p 251).  Furthermore, the idea of family became very important.  Both Sety I and Rameses II had scenes of the Battle of Qadesh in their tombs which may have been a representation of a very close kinship between the two of them.  Later on Rameses II built an enormous tomb for a number of his sons with well over 100 chambers and corridors (p 246).  These physical structures are evidence that family and life on earth was valued by the people of this period.  There is also evidence of this in the lifestyle of the workers.   Many artifacts are from Deir el-Medina which had a culture built around documenting activities and thoughts on ostraca.

Dynastic Transitions

One of the things that really caught my attention this week was the issue of dynastic changeover. The end of the 18th dynasty was a succession of rulers with decreasing degrees of kinship connections. Akhenaten died and Tutankhamen “ruled” until he died when he was 18, but much of what he did was, according to Chapter 8, “probably manipulated by high court officials and priests of the traditional cults” (p. 229). After Tutankhamen the kingship passed on to Ay who was “possibly a brother of Akhenaten’s mother” (p. 214), but wasn’t descended from either Akhenaten or Tutankhamen. This passing on of rulership is odd, but at least it stays in the royal family and so is still more or less in the same traditions of the 18th dynasty. After Ay the next ruler was Horemheb though, and Horemheb was “a general who had also been regent for Tutankhamen” (p. 214). It is very interesting to see the way that political power is passed along at the end of the dynasty, from father to son, to possibly uncle, to general and then to another military leader/vizier. Rameses I wasn’t related to Horemheb though, but he did start his own dynasty even though “he ruled for little more than a year” (p. 214).

The interesting thing about all of this political turmoil is that while it seems like it should be important who is the leader of the country, it seems like most of the political power in Egypt is actually in the political and religious institutions existing in Egypt at this time, rather than in the hands of the individual ruler or his family. The king was no longer the only ruler either, as there were also Governors for conquest states, both in the north and in the south, as well as viziers of northern and southern Egypt, also overseers of money, and food production, as well as mayors in major cities and nomes as well as other large towns. Also important are the religious leaders, the high priests of Amen and the other gods, all of whom, both economic and religious leaders would have competed with the king for power and essentially limited the authority and power of any king. The king also sought to limit the power of others though, as is evidenced by the way that the “heir to the throne was often the commander-in-chief of the army in the king’s name, but to secure the line of succession other royal sons were often excluded from positions of power in the army or government” (p. 210). If they were excluded from government or army power, I wonder if the other royal sons sought religious power by becoming priests, or what they did with their lives.

The lack of the authority and power of the kings, especially compared to the old kingdom and even the middle kingdom to some extent, really emphasizes the power of the Egyptian state, in military, government, economic and religious areas. The way that the New Kingdom is able to survive short reigns of pharaohs, after Akhenaten, as well as after Rameses II, shows that while the pharaoh’s individual power may have been lacking, the Egyptian state and culture did have substantial power, and power that was able to maintain itself.

Week 6: Daily Life, Mummification, and Animal Burials

I was surprised to read in chapter 8 of the text that the weeks in ancient Egypt were 10 days long, I’m not quite sure I can fathom how a 10 day week could even work given our time scale today. I was interested to read about the daily lives of the workmen; they worked 8 out of 10 days a week and they were given rations by the appointed scribe. I was also surprised that attendance was recorded and that days were allotted for illness or personal time and holidays, today many jobs also do this for their employees. The workers were divided and all the high level workers and some normal workers had to know how to read and write. I think this knowledge of their daily lives is important for understanding their society and the workmen’s role in it.

I was also interested in reading about the process of mummification, in chapter 8. The overall process seems advanced for the times. The removal of the brain after the removal of the ethnoid bone and the removal of all the organs except for the heart, I assume would take some knowledge of physiology/anatomy and some chemistry would be needed for the preservation of the body with the natron and the embalming of certain organs. I wonder how they decided on mummification for their burials and how they worked out a process that was successful. Was the natron in combination with the body initially an accident or a chance occurrence that they then started using or did they use trial and error until they found the right components to preserve the bodies? I liked reading about all the things you can learn from the bodies about the individual and their life from the use of CT/MRI scans, x-rays, rehydrating tissue, and DNA/genetic testing.

The animal burials excavated at Saqqara, in chapter 9, were also intriguing, I thought. The large number of cats that were found along with other large animals were supposedly buried and preserved by pilgrims as offerings to certain gods. But could there possibly be other reasons or explanations for people burying them? Could they have been pets or were they important to whatever city/town they were used in or from? Could their burials have been an ordinary person’s way of showing the importance or their love/loyalty for these individual animals, like the kings/queens being buried with their animals?