In the reading “Foreigners in Egypt” by Thomas Schneider, he discusses the notion of “foreigners” in Egypt and how we have frequently projected our modern biases onto studies of the past. I found this reading particularly interested because it relates to my research paper topic discussing Nubian Identity and the idea of “Egyptianization.”
I thought that his discussion of ethnicity was interesting. He mentions that ethnicity is a social construct that is not entirely about cultural differences. He argues that it is a the result of judgments that are formed through social interactions and that ethnicity is both collective and individual. This idea of a collective identity is crucial to the definition if “foreignness,” a sense of solidarity and identity with an ethnic group is often what creates the otherness of deeming someone to be a “foreigner.” Within Egypt, we must be careful to not place our modern biases upon the word “foreigner.” There the term foreigner was never used to describe immigrants because entering into Egyptian society meant adopting and entirely new ideological code. This acculturation meant serving the king within Egypt despite foreign origin. Their term for foreigner was reserved for those outside of Egypt who, despite maybe being heavily influenced by Egyptian culture through trade or aggressive military control, were not considered to be Egyptian. This particularly interesting to me, and for my paper, when thinking of Nubia and he discusses how the terms we use to describe ethnic groups, such ad the Nubians, from that time can have ambiguous meanings in terms of their level of acculturation.
I found his description of the process of acculturation particularly interesting because it reveals how individual and collective identity are intertwined when it comes to the idea of “foreignness.” Today, assimilation and personal identity may not play as big of a role, society and the systematic structures it was built on seem to determine whether you are deemed “the other.” Acculturation is different from assimilation because assimilation suggests a rejection of the culture of origin whereas acculturation may be the adoption of values while keeping an individual cultural identity. He discusses within Ancient Egypt this idea of “segmented assimilation” which accounts for social stratification. For example, individuals who are culturally integrated but hold low social positions without social mobility. We know that there was a large amount of social inequality in Ancient Egypt and so, this makes sense. I also thought that it was important the he discussed how the elite Egyptians appropriated cultures while creating a sense of otherness. I found that really relevant to today, and honestly throughout all of time.
The “Egyptianization” of Nubia is fascinating and Schneider’s discussion provides valuable insight. I like your point on the potential loss of nuance that can occur when describing the Nubians throughout this process and not recognizing the degree of acculturation. The “Egyptianization” of Nubia is evident in the archaeological record, such as with the incorporation of pyramids into Nubian mortuary behavior, building them long after the Egyptians had halted their construction. However, the pyramids in Nubia deviated from their Egyptian precedents in size and appearance and therefore seem to represent some negotiation of the custom’s adoption. As discussed in class, Egypt’s control over Nubia was driven by their economic motivations to exploit Nubia’s trade and raw resources (e.g., gold). I thought it was interesting how the acculturation of Nubia was so intimately tied to ancient Egypt’s desire for elite goods.
The “othering” done by Egyptian elites towards appropriated cultures brought to mind the ways in which Egyptians chose to depict people who were integrated into society, such as the Hyksos from the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. Although the groups of immigrants referred to as the ‘Rulers of Foreign Lands’ by the Egyptians were fully acculturated, they were clearly described as being of foreign origin. In illustrating these people as such and grouping them together, the Egyptians effectively “othered” them. This coincided with Upper Egypt’s motive to unseat them from power during the Second Intermediate Period as the political rhetoric in southern Egypt portrayed them as foreign invaders. Therefore, despite being integrated into Egyptian culture, this example of “othering” the Hyksos had significant political implications.